Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive May & Jun

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Links to allcountries.org & occupationalinfo.org

I am considering adding my username as a participant of WikiProject Spam, as linkspam, redlinks, and improper date links have become pet peeves of mine, but before I do I would like to make a request of this group.

My current interest in WikiProject Spam stems from a series of two comments (so far) that where left on my talk page regarding external links to allcountries.org & occupationalinfo.org which I removed from several articles. I believe I have shown good faith and have followed my understanding of the Wikipedia policies, guidance, and commonly accepted practices both in the original actions that prompted the comments, as well as in my response, but everyone has room for improvement.

I'm specifically looking for constructive criticism regarding my identifying of these external links was linkspam, as well as how I responded to the comments on my talk page. If I join WikiProject Spam, it would seem that I'd see much more of this, and I'd like to learn more from those that have already been through this.

Thanks, Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  21:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A quote from the editor putting in the allcountries.org links: There are significant advantages of my web pages over the official government US Census web site, but in terms of the ability to deep link to specific data, there is the obvious (and huge) advantage that you cannot readily do so on the government site. Theirs operates by means of presenting search results. That means that, whereas a link to a specific type of statistic is a click away to my specific US census web page, whereas in the case of the gov. web site, the link takes you where you have to do some work before you even find out that there is such a statistic. One advantage that he fails to mention is the advantage to his pocketbook; allcountries.org has Google ads. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 21:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If you get any complaints, it might also be worth pointing out that Wikipedia strongly discourages editors linking to their own sites. The Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer page has more details on this. The idea is that if the resources really is valuable, then someone other than the author (and his/her friends) would link to it independently. --Alan Au 22:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "allcountries" site, they have been persistent about adding those links. -Will Beback 23:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Argon233: I read the discussion you had with the spammer. I think you handled it very diplomatically, taking the time to be much more verbose than many of us would be. In short, kudos, and I hope you do join the project! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Sadly, this happens often enough that I've actually started keeping a pre-written block of text around. In any case, it's always nice to see guys like you take the extra time to manage thits stuff. --Alan Au 04:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for the sugestions and comments you have posted in reply to my request. I think that in my new post just a few hours ago I may have demonstrated just how verbose I can be :-), but I'm not sure that this is necessarily a good thing. Now that I think about it several hours later, I not sure how useful my experiment in my latest post using metaphoric language is going to be, but it's too late now. If nothing else, I enjoyed writting the story. If the other contributer keeps responding in the same manner he has so far, should I just disengage?

Thanks, -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  14:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Argon233 - from what I can read of your exchange with this spammer, you've already spent far too much of your time explaining our policies and procedures to him. Again, kudos for trying to reason with him, but some people, like the professor in your story, won't listen to simple reasoning and explanation. I recommmend continuing to monitor his edits. If he continues to spam, drop the appropriate spam template {{spam}}, {{spam2}} or {{spam3}} on his page. If he persists past the final warning, recommend him for a block. We have far more vandals on WP than we do vandal-fighters... the more time we spend trying to persuade a stubborn spammer, the less time we have to fight vandalism. Some people just need to see a block before they realize the error of their ways --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Photiusc (talk · contribs) added more linkspam on 5/23, but at least he did it from his login, instead of from an IP address. I removed the links from Abortion in the United States and someone else previously had removed his links from Agriculture. Anyone else feel like saying something to this user about this behavior? I really don't want to directly engage with him at this point. Maybe having someone else leave a message will help him realizes it not just me that objects to him linkspaming his own sites. Thanks, -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  22:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Done... my talk page is full of discussion with spammers arguing the merits of their link, I can handle another :). Drop another note here or on my talk page if he spams again --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

About.com links

User:Aandrei has been adding numerous links to about.com since registering an account in December. While it's a well-known site, he has done nothing but add these links [1]. He has been warned [2] that this fits the behavior of spammers, and advised to stop. It's my opinion that these are spam links (even if he is not affiliated with the site, as he says [3]) and violate WP:EL, but would like a second opinion since it is a well-known website. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to voice out my opinion here. It does seem like spam links but the problem here is that it is a notable website. Maybe, we should clarify with him again. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hhprof was also adding about.com links. TheJabberwʘck 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you take issue with those links, what do you think about their template? :) --Nnp 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe article & 3RR

Could someone please revert the most recent edit by JackDaniels1982 to the Edgar Allan Poe article? I've already reverted the spam 3 times, and don't want to violate 3RR (I'm not sure if 3RR applies to linkspam removal, I haven't seen a cut-and-dry answer on it). Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Also removed serveral other links that I did not feel needed to be there per WP:EL &/or WP:SPAM.

Thanks, Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  05:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Movie review spammer

Keep an eye out for a very persistent anonymous spammer adding links (primarily to movie reviews) from a variety of anonymous IPs. All the links go to freeinfosociety.com. - EurekaLott 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup saw and cleaned up a couple of his/her's on As Good as It Gets and A Bronx Tale --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Prank flash

Prank flash and List of prank flash animations are in a real state. List of prank flash animations may even need to be deleted. But it's such a mess, I'm not sure where to start. If any project memebers have some free time, please take a look. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a bunch of persistent spammers who keep adding links to monkeydoo.com, but besides for that, I haven't seen any definitive spamming there. I'm going to first cleanup prank flash, and then PROD List of prank flash animations, suggesting that any notable ones be moved to prank flash. Help welcomed. TheJabberwʘck 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed all the possible linkspam at Prank flash to point to albinoblacksheep.com, which is probably the best-known of the websites to choose from. I also nominated List of prank flash animations for deletion. TheJabberwʘck 23:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Apparently List of prank flash animations is a repository kept to isolate the spam links from the main article, so somebody's actually going to have to clean that thing up. TheJabberwʘck 01:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, great work! Thanks. I still think List of prank flash animations should be deleted as a violation of WP:NOT, but I really don't have time to debate this in a AfD. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 11:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll AfD the page for you if you convince me, but right now I don't see a problem with the current page - at least some of them (e.g., You Are An Idiot) are real internet phenomena. TheJabberwʘck 01:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative medicine

There are quite a few external links at alternative medicine, but I don't feel qualified to determine which if any are inappropriate, so maybe somenone else can check it out. Deli nk 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed four:

• promotion of articles from two places;
• promotion of blog;
• promotion of the work of Kevin Trudeau from a few places;
• promotion of book.

I reckon the remaining links could do with a once over as well. I couldn't decide they were spam, but have doubts all the same. Nelson50 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

VoIP User and User:217.112.40.75

217.112.40.75 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly linkspamed VoIP User. I have left the appropriate messages the user talk page and have been very specific on 2 of the 3 edit summaries, but it's not helped. As I am now at 3 reverts, could someone to add this article to your watch page and do the revert next time this individual added the links back; it seems like it is only a matter of time until this happens.

Thanks. -- Argon233 ^T C _@ ∉  17:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching. Have already had to revert him. One more and I'll list him on the vandalism page. Monkeyman^(talk) 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you already know but I'll post it here for others ... The three revert rule does not apply in cases of vandalism and spam links. So you can feel free to revert spam till the cows come home. Monkeyman^(talk) 18:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there some official policy page somewhere that makes this direct connection between linkspam and the "simple vandalism" clause of the 3RR exemptions? I agree that this should be allowed but would like something concrete to point to when/if I even need to hit 4 reverts for spam removal... --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 'spamming' is under the umbrella of 'vandalism'. If you look on Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule it says, "For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded: self-reverts, correction of simple vandalism, removing posts made by a banned or blocked user." Simple vandalism is linked and defined here as "Spam - Adding inappropriate external links for advertisement and/or self-promotion". Monkeyman^(talk) 16:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks for making that connection --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

user dogtoyco spammer ip address

The above user is at it again - I complained on WP:AIV and it sat there for days, when it was archived away with nothing done. The user later came back and spammed more.

• 86.3.16.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Dogtoyco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 172.214.48.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It almost seems like spamming is OK as long as you do it every couple of days. :-/ Anyhow - blatant violations of the rules, this user should be blocked but there is no way to complain without getting ignored. Any friendly admins here care to block? If we keep blocking, extending time each time - maybe the user will get the idea that this sort of promotion isn't tolerated and go away. - Trysha ^(talk) 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added his sites to my watch list. Will keep an eye out. Monkeyman^(talk) 23:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've also added Sockpuppet tags to Dogtoyco and 86.3.16.24. Monkeyman^(talk) 00:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just added another IP that they used as well. - Trysha ^(talk) 00:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, all three are tagged. I'm sure we'll get a barrage of hate mail over this from him. Monkeyman^(talk) 00:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi i dont really understand what ip addresses are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogtoyco (talk • contribs)

Dogtoyco's link removal - is it legit or spam?

In following Dogtoyco's edits, I noticed an external link he removed from the Flehmen response article (here's his removal: [4]). I've since removed the link a couple times, only to have him add it back in. It seems obvious he's removing it to try to make a point. The link serves as a citation for content in the article, and has significant non-commercial content, however it does have a store. Dogtoyco is arguing removal based on the "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" clause of WP:EL#Links_to_normally_avoid. What do you folks think? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Kill the link. A pet store is not a reliable source to cite in an article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

socialaffairsunit.org.uk spam

195.54.230.14 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - looks like all/most edits from this IP have been to spam a link to socialaffairsunit.org.uk across many articles. I don't have the time right now to investigate this myself, so I'm posting it here. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All socialaffairsunit.org.uk links have been removed. It'd be nice if this guy would argue why these links should be included instead of just inserting them into every article he can think of. Monkeyman^(talk) 19:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

metalibri links

One user, Litbr (contribs), also editing from 201.7.51.111, 201.7.35.26, 201.7.74.168 and 201.67.34.67 is inserting lots of links to [5]. They don't appear to be commercial, but rather contain the full text of portugese language books. The amount of links made me react, so I'd like a second opinion on these if possible. Thanks, Nnp 20:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

He may also be editing under username Metalibri (contribs) Monkeyman^(talk) 01:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at his links and downloaded one of his pdfs. I don't see any advertising and the pdf has quite a bit of content. I don't read Portugese so I can't attest to the quality. Best wait for some input from other editors. Monkeyman^(talk) 01:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

innercitypress

If someone has time, can you please review/revert edits by this user? Appears to be adding tons of links to innercitypress.com. Thanks. Monkeyman^(talk) 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

This article makes the incorrect (perhaps outdated?) claim that assume good faith is "an important guideline of Wikipedia, but it is not an ironclad policy." Actually assume good faith is an official policy of Wikipedia, not a guideline. I fully understand the need to not back down from spammers, but at the same time spam-fighting should not be a license to bully well-intentioned editors. There is also a guideline that should apply to both new editors and new spam fighters: WP:BITE. JHP 15:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Why three warnings?

Why do we have to bother with three warnings? If the spam intent is clear and the spammer does not respond to warnings, shouldn't two warnings be enough? That way, the spammer will still get a chance to do his thing THREE TIMES without being blocked. --CasualFighter 18:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found that 3 warnings are usually enough. Even one or two warnings. However I have blocked spammers after one warning when they have either deceptively changed the URLs or removed other links while inserting their own. The problems I see with spam come more from a variety of users than single users over and over. But that's just my own experience. -Will Beback 22:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There's also the {{bv}} template which seems to imply only 1 warning. --Bachrach44 18:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that three warnings is a lot. While vandalism is also very annoying, spamming is in my mind much worse in terms of undermining the credibility of Wikipedia. I think the language of the first warning should be strengthened and the number of warnings dropped to two, with the possibility of immediate block when the spamming is blatant (like adding numerous links to the same page in different articles or adding a link to a commercial page from a completely unrelated article). Pascal.Tesson 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with this. Unless you're watching the persistent spammer closely (hitting refresh on the contribs frequently) the number of links to clean up can grow quickly over the course of three or four warnings. the warnings templates policy for vandalim specifies that only two warnings need to be given prior to a block if the vandalism is blatant. One solution might be to start with a spam2 if the user has already added a lot of links, and skipping to spam4 if they continue to egregiously spam.

I just noticed that the templates have changed. On June 5, the final warning template changed from spam3 to spam4. It appears that this was done to keep the spam warning levels consistent with test warning levels. [6]. Given that, we'd probably need to propose an amendment to the current policies at WP:SPAM before we start skipping warning levels as prescribed in WP:Vandalism OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Africa

There is a continual proliferation of link directories on the articles on African countries. While some of the links are useful, most aren't. Take a look at Tanzania as an example. Periodically I clean them up, but they really could use some regular clean up.--Peta 10:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A list of countries in Africa is below for anyone feeling ambitious. Monkeyman^(talk) 00:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Tanzania example is excessive. I have trimmed the links in the Nigeria article, and watching it for spam. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.28Spam.3F.29_at_Nigeria_and_many.2C_many_reverts. On the Tanzania article, the BBC Country profile, CIA, and State Dept. links are probably useful to for referencing material in the article. As such, they should be listed as references and not external links. There should be a section, and subarticle about the "Media" in Tanzania. All the media links should go in the subarticle, except for maybe the most widely read newspaper or new outlet. And other links in appropriate subarticles. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't get carried away. Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Occasionally_acceptable_links 2. Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open).

The directories rule is there so that we could have one directory link which links to a hundred sites, rather than have all the hundred clogging up the EL section themselves. Almost by definition we should never have more than one directory listed (just use the most comprehensive) and there is absolutely no defence for business directories whatsoever - they are commercial and free of encyclopaedic content. Aquilina 15:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Aggregator

Starting at least around 18:32, 9 May 2006 a link to http://www.articleon.com was added multiple times to the article Aggregator. Initially it was from the IPs 165.146.140.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 165.146.145.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), after I asked the person to stop, the IPs 165.146.188.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and now 165.165.222.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) were used. Today the link was readded 4 minutes after I removed it. Can anyone here do something about it? Thanks, --S.K. 17:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The link was removed by user:Nelson50 yesterday, but was added again this morning by 165.165.222.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --S.K. 11:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added Aggregator to my watch list. Each time he adds the link, just tag his talk page with spam warnings and then list him to the vandalism page after the last warning. Monkeyman^(talk) 23:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Irish related links

Can someone have a look at the contributions made by Hollymount1 (talk • contribs) as they appear to be excessive to me. Regards, MartinRe 10:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's all spam. There is an "Order a Report" link on the left of the main page. This leads to an order form with: "The assessment fee is Euro95 (approx US$110)". Monkeyman^(talk) 23:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

All spam contributions by Hollymount1 have been removed. Monkeyman^(talk) 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I see they have returned, adding the same links again into many Mayo towns. However, not all edits add link, some add a paragraph describing their business (or his business, if the person in question is Gerard Delaney). So, should adding content related to your business in multiple articles be treated the same as link spamming, even if there is no link inserted? Or, is it slightly better, as it's content? Regards, MartinRe 12:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw this as well. I removed the links but left the following text: "Genealogical records for the <City> area are held at the South Mayo Family Research Centre in Ballinrobe" as I didn't think it was too harmful. Also left Hollymount1 spam2 warning. Monkeyman^(talk) 13:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Jonnyh71

Take a look at his contributions. Here's one of his reverted edits. Notice how he tries to get it to read "Wikipedia" so that the reader will assume that it's an offical recommendation. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That might actually be a tracking tag -- so that the owners of the website can determine how many hits it gets from these WP links. Either because he's curious, or the spammer is getting paid for this --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

We are all looking forward to killing this spam

I'm sure most of you have run across this horrible spam before. I'm guessing that it could be coming from Zombie computers given the wide range of IPs it originates from (though I have noticed that many of them are in Lacnic's range). A site-specific search on Google reveals that it's been somewhat successful at getting some indexing; I went through all of the results; less than a quarter still had the offending spam content. I'm also going to post a note to complex vandalism; perhaps there's a script that could automatically block this (since the spelling errors in the opening seem to be consistent). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Update; Google counts over 74,000 pages with this spam. I'd like to think that we've done in our anti-spam efforts seeing that only 33 of those are from Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 19:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's extremely bad, you can suggest that the url be added to the spam blacklist on meta which then automatically reject any edits that contain that URL. Regards, MartinRe 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, the spam URLs aren't always the same (though there probably aren't that many different ones). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I definately think that the word fsorward should get added to VoA's filter tool so that it picks it up too. --Bachrach44 15:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

24.191.56.163

User 24.191.56.163 has already had three warnings and has since done it again: [7]. He has already been given his "last warning"... Thanks, Leo44 (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos of County Kerry

User User talk:martinogrady has been adding links to his own site selling photos (of the admittably beautiful) County Kerry. I have posted the usual "Please do not add commercial links..." to his talk page. Can someone help remove his contibutions? Thanks Nelson50 23:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we met up somewhere in the middle - all clean I think --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ontario spam?

Take a look at these. They all appear to be links to Ontario plaques or removing some. Some of them have been taken out by other editors but the site might be OK. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the editor that inserted them seems to be showing good faith. As soon as he/she was warned [8], he/she removed a few of the links him/herself [9] [10] [11] [12] --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

kansastravel.org spamming

209.12.160.1 has been systematically adding links to a personal site (his?). I'm usually fairly aggressive about removing spam, but I'm feeling torn about this one as the editor has in some cases added useful content along with his link, and the site does seem to have some useful information. What do you folks think? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

His/her edits seem to be a mix. You might reccomend the user make use of references if he wants to cite external info. Otherwise just adding the site to random articles is spamming. -Loren 08:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I've removed it all and left the standard spam-n message. If he replies (in my experience only about 10% care enough to reply) I'll try to steer him towards more constructive edits --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Persistent Sci-Fi spammer

12.201.27.234 (talk · contribs) has been adding links to his/her private site (and even a few nonfunctional/malformatted links) across numerous Battlestar Galactica and Stargate related articles. Warned, but continues with the usual "then why don't you remove all the other private links" excuse. Better keep an eye on this one. -Loren 08:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he/she followed your suggestion to post the request on the article's talk page [13] --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, seems to have prompted a cleanup of the other links on that article as well. All's well ends well. -Loren 01:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Recently, I have spent most of my Wikipedia time reverting linkspam. However, I have been finding it increaingly hard to deal with repeat offenders - after labelling with the spam templates I have taken cases to AIAV to be told they aren't simple vandalism, or haven't vandalised recently enough (in a case where the offender comes back every morning and evening to replace the links, and I edit in the afternoon). AN and AN/I are too clogged up with more pressing matters to deal with this. On articles with few active contributors it is hard for non-admins to remove the spam without coming up against 3RR.

Would it be possible to create an "Administrator intervention against spam" noticeboard, in the vein of WP:AIAV? More importantly, are there any admins willing to patrol such a board?

This page is practically acting as such a board at the moment, but I think it would be better to bring this problem to a dedicated page to raise its profile, make it easier to find and encourage admins to patrol it.

Such a noticeboard could also deal with more complicated long-term spam vandals, create a record of the Wikiproject's activities, and would result in a more consistent application of the current policy.

Of course, it would be best to restrict to cases where all three spam templates have been displayed to no avail.

Any thoughts? Aquilina 13:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of wary of creating another board for people to report abuse to admins. If we make too many of these boards, then we'll find that we have our resources spread to thin and admins can't be everywhere at once. If there's a problem with WP:AIV, then we should bring that up there. Honestly if someone spams every 24 hours for 3 days, and has recieved the right warnings, then they should be blocked, and my experience with WP:AIV is that they generally are. If they're not being blocked then we should fix AIV, not make a new board. --Bachrach44 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This did occur to me too; however I still believe there is a need for a separate board. Firstly, it's not clear how we should change AIAV to deal with this. Secondly, EL abuse isn't really what AIV is for - it's not simple vandalism as such, and AIV is there as an emergency block to vandalism in progress. External link spam is normally only noticed after the event, and admins there do not block as a prophylactic against future attacks, especially if the spamming is coming from a range of IPs, as is normally the case.

Mainly, however, I believe external link spam is a big enough problem to warrant some specialist attention - just look at the number of reports above, at the talk page of WP:EL and the number of reverts to external links made on any high-profile article. A couple of admins and other users who regularly check the board and become familiar with the most persistent cases would suffice - I don't think it will spread resources too thinly. Aquilina 15:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see hyour point that WP:AIV isn't always the right place. In the case of a more complex abuse pattern, wouldn't WP:RFI and WP:LTA be appropriate? --Bachrach44 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

LTA is for when several blocks have been given out - most of these vandals are deterred when they get blocked for the first time, and the problem is getting that first block in in a timely fashion. RFI could handle this, but tends to be overwhelmed with content disputes and doesn't operate in the right timeframe.

EL spam is a fairly simple problem to stamp out when caught quickly; the problem is that we currently have no mechanism to deal with it in less time than it takes for a spammer to hit fifty articles, which is hard work to clear up when the spammer reverts three or four times before an admin's attention can be called to it.

Many users spot this sort of thing going on, and don't know where to report it - they certainly wouldn't think of RFI straight away, and definitely not the two talk pages that more experienced users go to. And most importantly admins don't think to routinely look at those pages.

I'm not vindicating separate noticeboards for each type of vandalism. However, EL abuse is by far one of the most comon types of vandalism (far more so than personal attacks, say, which have their own baord). An AISPAM board would be somewhere that people would soon remember to seek help at, and admins would be more likely to patrol. I think it's at least worth a trial, if nothing else. Aquilina 18:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that spam is one of if not the worst problem Wikipedia is currently facing. I think spam should have its own place for reporting. Perhaps it's time for a formal proposal? Also, if the blocking policy proposal passes, administrators will likely be more willing to block vandalising and spamming IPs without fresh sets of warnings each time (which would certainly help with our without a separate place to report spammers). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If you do go ahead with this, User:GraemeL/Watchlist will be helpful. Λυδαcιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 00:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm drafting a page in my sandbox now - hopefully I'll have it ready to trial soon. Aquilina 14:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Casino

Please take a look at the gambling-law-us.com link at the bottom of Casino and tell me what you think.

I originally removed it because it seemed to be a lawyer fishing for clients with an article site while at the same time selling SEO links for gambling related keywords. I was quickly reverted as vandalism, 'strange random random edit' and spam.

Thanks. --Nnp 22:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the link either, but the folks here seem to think it's useful. Since it already exists in the Gambling article, I've removed it from Casino with the appropriate explanation on the talk page. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. 2005 seems to have some ideas I disagree with regarding external links (the onpage ads etc don't matter to him). Oh well... --Nnp 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No prob --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

For review

Please see User:Jamesy's contributions.[14] They consist solely of adding links to a pyrotechnics wiki to articles relating to pyrotechnics. I'm not sure this constitutes inappropriate spamming, so I'm posting it here for others to review. Thanks. Deli nk 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost invariably the articles on the pyrowiki offer the same or less as the corresponding articles here; even if it did offer more, the material could be back-incorporated easily. As such, it contributes nothing to the articles here - I would say revert, and leave a spam notice on the talk page. Aquilina 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is additional discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

They have now been all removed (except on pyrotechnics which seems like a reasonable place for the link). --Ed (Edgar181) 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Multiple independent links to same site - yea or nay?

Is adding multiple links to the same site in different articles acceptable, if the links are customised to the particular article, or should it be regarded as an advertising variant, and treated like spamming? For example, added links to bookmistakes.com for each book, or adding a external link to a VitalFootball website on a per club basis. I can see a simiariaty with {{imdb}} links, but can also see it being abused by adding "review (and buy) this X at our nn website". The problem is that individually, the links may be appropiate, so are unlikely to be removed, but viewed overall, permitting large scale link additions to the same site seems to allow wikipedia to be used as advertising. Comments? MartinRe 12:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's linkspam, plain and simple. If he were say linking to imdb it's usefulness might be debatable, however bookmistakes.com is not so not notable as to be considered a useful reference here (besides, it had google ads). Assuming the other website he's linking to is similar, all the edits should be reverted and the appropriate {{spam-n}} message left on the user's talk page. If there is a significant number of edits and you'd like help reverting them, just leave a follow-up message here and I or others can help --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For the book/movie site, I noticed it as contributions from Jonsandys (talk • contribs) - not that many contributions, but all to the same site. For football one, they appear to be added by multiple IP address, e.g. [15] and [16] and searching for "vitalfootball" shows some links remain. The football one is less clear as the sites appear to be relativly substantial, hence my checking here first to gauge opinion as to whether it's substantial enough to pass the "imdb test" :) Regards, MartinRe 13:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all that remained of Jonsandy's additions (as far as I can see) and left him a {{spam-n}}. The soccer football ones are a bit less cut-and-dry in my opinion... it doesn't seem to have been extensively spammed, and as it's being added by multiple IPs, it may very well be multiple people that think it's useful. Might be worth just keeping an eye on it for now. Just my $0.02... --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

World Ocean Day

I trimmed the links in this (very short) article but within a few days, 3-4 more links were added. I have removed all but the project website, as I believe that's all that's required for an article of five sentences! If anyone wants to check whether I was too harsh, or keep it on their watch list, feel free :) Regards, MartinRe 09:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ken Standfield

Hi. I don't feel confident enough handling this one myself. The above user, creating his own "biography" has gone on to load a series of links promoting his own "foundation", complete with links to promote his books. There's a number of pages but surely, his own biography should also be deleted. Can someone please take a look? Thanks. Nelson50 21:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have begun by reverting his additions to Knowledge management, as there's plenty of other reading material listed already. I've also tagged his bio (Ken Standfield) with {{POV-check}}, as it's pretty thoroughly biased. I hesitate to nominate it for deletion as he has a lot of Google hits and has written books - perhaps someone else could help investigate his notability? I've also listed 4 of the articles he created on AfD here. Depending on his this goes I'll deal with any other articles he's created / will create accordingly. I have a backlog on my watchlist, so I can't do much else with this for now. Could someone else take a look at the insertions he's made to other existing articles? Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Voxxers

I found this article while going through speedy deletions. I changed the speedy to a prod due to to it being an invalid reason. When I went back to look at it again I noticed a large amount of external links which I removed here. At the same time I reformatted and tided up the article. The articles creator put back the external links and the odd formatting here. I once again tieded it up and removed the external links here. Now, my question is, is it linkspam or am I just getting into a content dispute? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that it's spam. Each link seems to be there to promote the person discussed. Plus it's inserted in the article text - if it were being inserted in an External links section it might be more of a gray area. With few exceptions, External links have no place in the article text. I'll keep the article on my watchlist and help you revert spam additions, but hopefully this article will soon be banished to the rubbish bin where it belongs --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I cut and pasted a few lines from the main MindVox entry, rewrote the intro and cut and pasted some of the links from the MindVox entry as well as whatever I found in 3 minutes using google. MindVox was a huge cultural force, most of the users themselves, hmmm, were not. What is there right now seems to be shout outs and linkspam for non notable people, but I made some suggestions in the article's talk page, if the person writing the article removed the list of names and stuck with what Voxxers were, I think it would be ok, certainly no worse then pages of slashdot trivia. TrancedOut 01:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wccaccamise

I'd like a second person to review the contributions of Wccaccamise (talk · contribs). Its nothing but addition of links to the same site. I reverted many of them and warned the user, but he's still continuing. Deli nk 14:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow yeah it's spam. I'd say good faith, except that he continued after your message. I dropped a {{spam2}} on his page and even then he spammed once more. Good job getting it all. Banish any future spam from this user to the rubbish bin (or my frying pan... mmm breakfast) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

is this spam?

Something definitely off about edits by User:Andham2000. All seem to contain links to his website (which he owns), apparently the materials he is adding is from there as well, which may or may not be original research. Left a friendly note a few days ago, then a "subst:spam1" warning today.

Not sure how the spam project works (I've never had a spammer actually revert my removals before)... anyone care to take a peek at his contribs? SB Johnny 00:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's spam. He does seem to be trying to make useful contributions to the articles, but adding the same site to multiple articles, especially since it is his own website, is definitely spamming as far as WP is concerned. Hopefully your second message will get his attention. If not, you can point out the applicable points of WP:EL (especially the parts about adding links to one's own website) and WP:SPAM. If you still have trouble convincing him to refrain from adding his link through discussion, continue with {{spam3}} and {{spam4}} warnings, and if he continues past a final warning, list him on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (but hopefully it won't come to that!). If you need more help just post a follow-up here. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I seem to have convinced him to stop, but now he says he's going to stop contributing as well. Very frustrating. SB Johnny 15:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Apparently his main purpose in contributing was to be able to spam. Pollinator 16:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - if we try to politely guide them towards becoming better editors but they just want to "take their ball and go home", I see no reason to worry about it. Consider it to be one less source of spam. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, still a bit bummed, because he really was adding nice content. I'll rm his linkspam over the next few days, but I wish there were some way to keep the contributor and leave behind the ego/businessman/"whaddevah". SB Johnny 20:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To add a site with advertisements

Reposted FYI from Talk:Ocala, Florida

Hello, I have a website, www.wearefla.com which has hundreds of pages and links to information about Ocala which cannot be found on any of the linked pages in this article. Our website's purpose is not only to be a commercial website. I get emails from and meet people in the Ocala area quite often who tell me they found information on area lakes, rivers, history, etc on our website that they could not find elsewhere, and many children use our site for research for school papers and projects. I realize the implications of allowing links to commercial websites in an article ostensibly about a government body, but feel our website offers real value to people seeking information on the Ocala area. I feel that wikipedia is a valuable resource and a stage in the evolution of the internet. [email protected]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam is trying hard to remove links to sites that are making money off Wikipedia. You may check there for additional guidelines. Making a request on the talk page is the right way to start, however, if you have a really exceptional site. Some questions you need to ask yourself: Is the primary purpose of my site to earn income? Could I remove the ads? Or could I add the content to Wikipedia? Is my page really exceptional? Am I emotionally involved with my own creation to the point where I overvalue its quality?

If you still feel that it is worthy of inclusion, despite ads on the site, contact a couple unbiased Wikipedia administrators to review your site. Then one of them can add your site, if they feel it justified. It is a good idea to include a hidden note to that effect. I won't remove sites that have met this standard, though I cannot speak for others on the spam team. Pollinator 18:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, good response. BJK 19:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Sheilrod

User:Sheilrod - Just joined a couple weeks ago; primary purpose appears to be to link to own web page, promote own books, and push a POV. I'm too tired right now to go throught the long list, but am posting it here, in case anyone would like to tackle it. Pollinator 06:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Done (I think). I might have missed some but I spent a couple of hours yesterday going through his history and removing all references to his own website and publications. His work seems to be of otherwise little notability. Moreover, the guidelines had been explained to him on numerous occasions on his talk page. Pascal.Tesson 15:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Another site to look at

• [17] (E-look) Pollinator 15:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• [18] (not content to be a copycat of Wikipedia laden with advertising; it also tries to link back. Pollinator 00:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi, I am not such an experienced editor so I am seeking counsel for the correct thing to do regarding the page New York City hotels. This page is essentially void of content and is continuously updated by spammers. On the other hand the page Hotels in London is pretty good and relatively advertising-free and is exactly what I would expect to find on the New York one. In any case, it seems like an overkill to nominate the New York City hotels page for deletion because obviously it's a topic that could be very interesting. On the other hand I cannot write the page myself as I don't think I know enough on the subject to do a decent job. So how do we turn it into a page that is more easy to defend against spam? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Pascal.Tesson 20:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As of this writing, the article appears to have only wiki links - links to other articles at Wikipedia. Though some of them are redlinks (links to non-existent articles), these types of links aren't generally considered spam. Looking at the article's history [19], it doesn't seem to garner much attention, having only been modified 10 times so far this year. You're right that the article is so far pretty much just a list. Perhaps one of the wikiprojects could be asked for some help in expanding the article? Maybe WikiProject Architecture? In the meantime, you could also keep the article on your watchlist and revert any spam external links that get added... --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

spam links on dog and a cry for help.

• sigh*

Looking through the external links on most of the dog breed pages there are many many links to http://www.dogsindepth.com and other such sites - most of which basically duplicate the info here, except they have ads. Things like this shouldn't be allowed, although the owner of the site keeps insisting that it should be allowed

There are also a ton of web forums, and breeder lists, etc. I kept this all clean for a long time, and went away for a while only to discover that most of it has come back. Can I recruite some folks to help go through the List of dog breeds and get rid of most of the garbage.

Also having some consensus other than just me (defend each other) to agree what should and should not be allowed would be a nice thing to have. - Trysha ^(talk) 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Though the dogsindepth site is well-organized and has a decent amoung of general content, the individual pages about dogs don't seem to add much that the Wikipedia article doesn't already cover (at least in the few I sampled). Personally, I think DogBreedInfo is more comprehensive. I wouldn't object to those two sites being listed on List of dog breeds or maybe Dog, but I agree with you that they don't have enough content about individual dogs to merit inclusion on every single breed article. I just added a random sampling of breed articles to my watchlist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. If our consensus isn't enough, adding links to sites you run/maintain goes against WP:SPAM, plain and simple. For what it's worth (and perhaps for use in tracking down other instances of this link which should be removed), I believe I've found the source of at least some of these inserts: 67.165.172.102 (contribs). This IP's talk page has messages from other editors who also felt that the link additions were inappropriate. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've started cleaning up the link sections in the breed articles...I'm being conservative and leaving sites that are dedicated to that breed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If the person adding it runs and maintains it and its not an article about their site. Goes against WP:EL too if it doesn't contain esspecially unique content that the article cannot provide. I plan on trying to clean out some of those links. The pages esspecially don't need lists of breeders. It is tantamount to list of websites that sell said product, even those its an animal in this case. Kevin_b_er 01:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also point the editor to WP:NOT and WP:SPAM, particularly the bits about WP not being a soapbox or a venue for promotion of websites or ideologies. --Alan Au 00:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Barry Popik

Can I get a 2nd opinion on this: User:Barry Popik is external linking to his own research. According to Barry Popik (an article he has not touched himself) he is "published" in the area he is linking too. Should I be bothered by this. It still seems vain/sketchy. ccwaters 13:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of any notability he may have, he is adding links to a site that he almost certainly runs/maintains (violating WP:EL), and he is adding them to multiple articles (violating WP:SPAM). Thus, the links should all be removed. If Barry insist on their usefulness, he should mention the link on one article's talk page and allow other editors to determine it's usefulness. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Any suggests on how to go about this? I've RVed many link spammers, but they were all much more dubious than him. ccwaters 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just left him a {{spam}} message; if he replies we can take it from there, but I'd say go ahead and just start removing the links as you normally would. I'll chip in if I have some time this evening --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

He is also welcome to add actual content to the WP articles, or even copy his 3rd-party verifiable work into the article space (unless it isn't compatible with the GFDL). Of course there's the Original Research problem, but that's a problem regardless of whether he's inserting external links or not. --Alan Au 01:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)