Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not forgetting the purpose of anti spam

The Spam initiative is important and a great movement for the over all purpose of the wikipedia, never the less it seems like certain users are now using the spam initiative in a probably unexpected way. An example of this is how I (Klutus) have encountered a user (Requestion). User Requestion seem to perceive any change to an article as spam. Also it seems like he believe that links to internal articles are not spam even though they clearly are. I presume users like this one use the spam initiative as a way to stop change and probably defend articles linking to their own personal interests – i.e promoting their own interests by “stalling” the change and the clean-up.

Not related to the user mentioned above, I have seen this happen specifically around articles describing a company like for example the one about FON. The usual scenario is that you fix the article for example by adding important back-ground information (I tried with FON), and sometimes links to other sites that give the article more substance and the reader more insight into the topic. It is my assumption that given that there is an article about a company that the company in more over the market, and how it satisfies it, that is interesting – not the company itself. Never the less, any changes that clean up company related articles seem to enjoy much "user protection" and often by very active "editorial" users, threatening you with vandalism tagging and blocking, or in other ways just being abusive.

This is the main point I’m trying to make, the spam initiative need to manage users misusing the initiative to their own goals. Further more it seems like the main point of the anti spam, to remove spam has been replaced by a general will to remove external links – this is total nonsense when executed without actual knowledge of the subject of the article. Imagine the internet with links "within" only one web server, the value would be nill. I often use the wikipedia to learn about things – the external links are often the most valuable as they often link to interesting companies and organizations that stay on the edge of a technology or topic. If the wikipedia stops linking external sources it’s value is quickly dropped to "last years encyclopedia".

Proposition for a solution: When a spam fighter encounters an article that contains links to other sources of information (potentially spam internal to the wikipedia or external) that he goes through the following reasoning: 1. Do the links to other resources add any value at all? a. If no: remove ALL links b. If yes let ALL links stay

2. Are there more than one link to a company or an organization that appear similar? a. If Yes – it is better to add descriptions to each link describing the specificity of that link – than to remove it. b. If links are both external and internal – create the beginning of an article about the company that only has an external link ( easy to cut and paste from the “about us page)

This way the spam project could curbe people impersonating as spam fighters when thier only goal is to protect current state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klutus (talk • contribs).

Please for the love of wikigods (the gods anyone can edit), DO NOT cut-and-paste from the About-Us section of any website. This is a clear violation of someone's copyrights. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Klutus, looking at your edits you seem to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia articles are portals to all external information on a subject. You might find our what Wikipedia is not policy enlightening in terms of explaining why your suggestion is not so useful. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the makings of a spam report here User_talk:Requestion#Special:Linksearch.2F.2A.amazingports.com. Also take a look at the warning Klutus left for me directly above it. I love the "personal truths or promotion" bit he made up. It turns out that User:Klutus is Jan Eldenmalm who is the CEO of the amazingports.com website. Klutus made a claim that I am somehow editing in a biased manner, please produce some diffs that verify this false claim. Could an admin please send me the contents to the Obsid article that was deleted? I suspect it might contain some important clues. (Requestion 22:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sent to your talk. Femto 11:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Femto. (Requestion 15:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Klutus: I think we are getting off the topic here. Yes I have worked in the WiFi industry for almost 10 years. I was the active CEO for AmazingPorts but currently work for a governance consultancy. I also have affiliations with many other companies in the industry. I was hoping to use this experience to add value to the wikipedia by adding history and an occasional link here and there to products and solutions that are relevant. But this was not the topic for this discussion. (I'll post my currently deleted article on fashion on Requestion's talk page) Can we please get back to the topic.

The spam initiative is supposed to chase down links to irrelevant other web pages, not stop the relevant once. I currently feel that this is not working very well. I share the point of view that it was an unusually bad idea to copy content. But it remains a fact that articles should reference preferably external verifiable sources backing the article or displaying an opposite opinion. That is the whole purpose of the notability tag, when this is missing.

All articles should have references. External links, listed at the end of the article, are not the same thing as references. References are governed by a different set of guidelines too. Please don't use a heading "External references", because that just is going to confuse editors who won't know which guidelines apply. To be sure references are recognised as such, inline citations should be used. Notinasnaid 10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be helpful the guidelines for references are our reliable sourcing guidelines and please have a look at our citation guide. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This post is not about the guidelines for referencing Klutus 18:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klutus: I'd like again to bring back the discussion surrounding the quality assurance of THIS project. It remains a fact that the lack of it (quality assurance) causes lots of damage. Maybe this damage is unavoidable in the battle against spam(links). If that is the case it is an important part of THIS project to measure and manage the damage - not to avoid the question like it didn't exist. So far I must say that I'm a little bit surprised how my competence on any involved subject seem to attract more attention that the question that I tried to raise. Klutus 18:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belvoir Media Group, LLC

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

Ostensibly useful content, but requires subscription for full access. Edits include not only adding links, but also promoting links to the top of the external link section.

Domains spammed:

I should probably note that, while this one is commercial it seems, there are academic publications that may be cited in an article but require subscription. I remember one that I thought was called json, but that's not its name, which republishes, with permission, many academic and scientific publications(in much greater depth that lexusnexis), but is not free. However, many libraries and academic institutions around the world have access to it. The actual publication is cited, and the URL is that of the subscription site. Kevin_b_er 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this blacklist apply to only new additions of the link? There are in fact valid uses of the site (it is used appropriately in a couple of articles as references.) Adding it to a blacklist might limit legimate uses of the content. Nposs 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monitoring and blacklisting applies to new additions. In this way a record of additions will be built and people in the spam talk channel on IRC will be warned when links are added. This then for now also includes legitimate use of the links, but these can be whitelisted (or ignored). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer - various sites, mostly pop bios

For many of the person's concentrated contributions see [1] and [2]. Usernames used are Columba-kos (talk · contribs) and Xena starwoman (talk · contribs). They seem to be using a 74.12.84.0/22 range (according to others, I don't entirely understand ranges). Spamming a variety of sites including http://www.theaudion.com http://www.modelresource.ca/Bios/Baker/darla_baker.shtml http://myasylum.ca/mya/zzz.htm . Any help would be appreciated. Mak (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

modelresource.ca: 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
myasylum.ca: 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
theaudion.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
I have blacklisted/monitored these on coibot, we will see if there are more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


xena starwoman replies:

Darla Baker's permanent page is darla dot ca

The image on this page links to http://www.modelresource.ca/Bios/Baker/darla_baker.shtml. This is the source of the original image, which has been improved.

As a point of reference: The current spam tag for lacieg2s shows two links. One of these links was made to a page that documents the MAGNAVOX FD 1000 CD player. This link was created by a person without my knowledge. Any person is free to link to one of my pages. Any registered charity is free to use my photographs on their own Web Pages without making a prior request, by merely doing so. Many have done so. This is part of an outreach project by artcore dot ca that has existed since 2003. As such, it, along with many other projects by Over Land Studio, predates Wikipedia.

x-s

My I.P: 74.12.72.66 - bas1-toronto02-1242318914.dsl.bell.ca.

x-star14:14, May 11, 2007 (UTC)

Spamalot

Slightly ironic, but Spamalot gets spam a lot - it keeps getting a link to http://www.spamalotlasvegas.com/ example which does not seem to be officially affiliated with Wynn (the venue) or Spamalot itself (the editor never replies), but seems to be a ticket reselling service. The user 70.189.163.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has already been blocked once before for adding it, did it again today. In fact, every contrib I checked from the editor in question seems to be an external link of some kind or another. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 17:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links added by this account:
All monitored by COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Luigi

I was checking through the pages that linked to my user page, and came across these logs for the 27th of April. I'm on the list for editing Luigi. True, my username is largely a reference to my favorite video game character, but I simply reverted vandalism to that article (see the diff). I try to make my edits as NPOV as possible, and most of my edits are reverting vandalism like in the diff. I have made several edits to Luigi in the past, so I think to avoid further mishaps like this I should be whitelisted from editing the article. It isn't like I go to that many places on the internet that aren't already linked to in Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. --LuigiManiac 05:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I have whitelisted that link ("The link 'luigimaniac' <-> 'luigi' has been added to my whitelist."). Just as a note, the lists are merely a tool to help us find cases of conflict of interest), all cases will be evaluated on an individual basis and this one would surely be interpretated as a wrong hit. Thanks for the notice, happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tvdata.ru

Domains registered to Selekhova, Oxana.

Added by:

I am not sure how these relate, but were all added by TVDATARU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (whose edits mainly involve addition of tvdata.ru). Mainspace is clean of the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the list. Femto 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is time for coibot to keep an eye on them. Monitored. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mexicotravel.in

mexicotravel.in: 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

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

Crosswiki (de): [3] Nposs 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional sites:
  • us-banks.info
us-banks.info: 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
  • quickbabysite.com
quickbabysite.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


Adsense ID: 4032315333417671
Additional accounts:
All three domains now blacklisted. --A. B. (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent attempts to change guidelines

I applaud jossi for their boldness in making changes [4] and [5], but I really think its best to discuss this a little first. There is no mention of linking following in the paragraph, and it is true that simply placing links in articles increases the likelihood that they will the clicked. So, I think the logic of the paragraph is valid. Changing it to suggest that webmasters should include links that are "useful/appropriate" creates problems of WP:COI and linkfarm (Wikipedia is not a directory of pretty good links WP:NOT.) It seems like there have been more attempts to change the page recently, and I really can see why: much of the page seems to have been written just at the beginning of the project and it doesn't seem to reflect the current state of affairs. Changing the language could be a big improvement, but I'm not sure these changes are the best at the moment. Nposs 23:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. No problems. Just that to say that "many web site owners" are out there spamming, may be a bit extreme. There are some website owners that do that, and kudos to this project for "keeping the hordes away". But let's have some perspective. Also, note that this is not a guideline, but a Wikiproject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a suggestion, you could use a bit more of the wording in WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that Wikipedia's use of the nofollow tag has reduced the amount external link spamming? It seems to me that the situation has only gotten worse. (Requestion 00:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In the long run nofollow has little effect. Once our mirrors and scrapers get a hold of it, most drop the nofollow thus the spammers do get rewards for their actions on wikipedia. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah... you are right. I did not think of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the recent attempts to change the WP:WPSPAM page. After looking at the history logs of both the article and talk pages a trend emerges. Why is it that non-WPSPAM members want to change the page so badly? (Requestion 19:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm assuming the changes are/were meant to bring the page more into line with the changing reality of Wikipedia. I also initially thought jossi's removal of the paragraph was a no-brainer based on the recent nofollow changes (until the discussion ensued and I was reminded of how seo can still occur).
We're not a cabal, and no one has to be a member to edit the project's pages. Certain parts of the main WPSPAM page are becoming a tad stale; if we can't improve it ourselves, we have no right to be upset when "non-members" try to do so themselves. --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ehealthguide.info

This is a scraper site that was added to two health related articles today, while that isn't a lot - they mention a number of "friend sites" on their about page that may be here as well. --Versageek 10:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domains
Accounts:
--A. B. (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COIBot caught another account:
Additional domains:


See also: www.articles4free.com/profile/Ibrahim-Machiwala/434
Additional accounts:
Blacklisting:
  • I am requesting full blacklisting of the falling domains:
    • americansharemarket.com
    • articles4free.com
    • articlesbridge.com
    • australiastockexchange.net
    • blogsbasket.com
    • canadastockexchange.biz
    • dubaistock.info
    • ehealthguide.info
    • explorearticle.com
    • ezinevalley.com
    • karachistock.info
    • paycents.com
    • text2read.com
    • thekarachi.com
    • topnasdaqstocks.com
  • I am requesting blacklisting of the indicated subdomains only:
    • portal.ismaili-net.com
      • ismaili-net.com contains many legitimate Islamic articles some linked to by established editors
    • submitlink.biz/lodhi
      • while submitlink.biz may be dodgy, only this user, lodhi, has spammed it to my knowledge and I don't think he's the domain owner
    • saree.50webs.com
      • 50webs.com is a large web hosting service
  • I am not requesting blacklisting of the following but would like them added to either Shadowbot or COIbot:
    • miniweblink.com
      • not spammed to Wikipedia to my knowledge but low-quality
    • submitlink.biz
      • remainder of domain -- low quality SEO directory
--A. B. (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone take a look at this Google search result and tell me what this big download from Wikipedia by one of these accounts might be about:
--A. B. (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The file is part of some sort of database index at http://download.wikipedia.org/sitemap/enwiki/ which apparently was indexed by Google. It's just a coincidence that Google returns a result to the query: part of the filename matches, and a reference to the IP's userpage User:125.209.115.133 occurs in the file. It doesn't mean the IP downloaded it. Femto 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Many of these IPs appear on various Internet blacklists and are either open proxies, zombie computers, or something like Internet cafes frequented by spammers. I suggest an admin blocking indefinitely:
  • 202.5.131.26
    • xbl.spamhaus.org
    • cbl.abuseseat.org
  • 202.5.131.100
    • xbl.spamhaus.org
    • dnsbl.ahbl.org
    • ircbl.ahbl.org
    • list.dsbl.org
    • cbl.abuseseat.org
  • 202.5.131.11
    • xbl.spamhaus.org
    • dnsbl.sorbs.net
    • dnsbl.ahbl.org
    • ircbl.ahbl.org
    • list.dsbl.org
    • cbl.abuseseat.org
  • 202.5.131.13
    • xbl.spamhaus.org
    • list.dsbl.org
    • auto.dnsbl.njabl.org
    • cbl.abuseseat.org
  • 202.5.131.56
    • xbl.spamhaus.org
    • dnsbl.sorbs.net
    • cbl.abuseseat.org
  • 202.5.131.58
    • xbl.spamhaus.org
    • dnsbl.ahbl.org
    • ircbl.ahbl.org
    • list.dsbl.org
    • auto.dnsbl.njabl.org
    • cbl.abuseseat.org
  • 202.5.131.88
    • xbl.spamhaus.org
    • cbl.abuseseat.org
  • 202.83.175.35
    • dnsbl.sorbs.net
    • clients.spamlists.tqmcube.com
--A. B. (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COIBot updated (should have put them on the monitorlist i.s.o. the blacklist). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian radio

Someone wanna take a look at this mess: I count 25 links, all spam. If someone is really ambitious, you could go through the history and see other sites that similar users have spammed (e.g., [6]). 64.178.96.168 19:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zhislin Piano Quartet and related articles

Appears to be an nn classical music group whose members have inserted several articles and links. See also Wim Zwaag, Jeroen Riemsdijk, plus various former links in performer and musical subject lists that I've now cleaned up. Note that User:WZJR is likely the initials of Wim Zwaag, and User:Noblegoose is likely the publisher of Jeroen Riemsdijk's piano instruction book plugged in his biography page and formerly plugged in the biography page of Charles-Louis Hanon (19th century author of very famous piano exercise book). I've inserted db tags into the articles mentioned but if they get removed someone may want to initiate AfD's (as a non-logged-in user, I can't do that myself). 75.62.7.22 21:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surgery-videos.net and related sties

surgery-videos.net: 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 acl-reconstruction.info: 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 meniscus-surgery.info: 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

  • All three sites use Adsense pub-9506603393026766

YouTube scrappers with Adsense. Registered in late Jan., spamming began shortly thereafter. Many links added potentially in good faith by Tbere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (but looking at the trail of evidence, probably not.)

Nposs 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added to COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.chooseandwatch.com

Adsense pub-3407644181076136
chooseandwatch.com

Spam sock accounts

193.77.115.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 15:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my name on some of those lists?

I just noticed my name linked a bunch of times at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2007, Apr 19, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2007, Apr 30.... mostly for edits I made to Pandeism, which needed a lot of work on little things like formatting, and which was also short on some information which I added.... I don't even think I've added any outside links to that page for months.... is it cause my username includes PanDeist? PanDeism is not a product at all, and far as I know there are no links at all to anyone trying to "sell" PanDeism.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental overlap, I've got you whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that happens sometimes (I wonder if my name will pop up if I edit Satori again...). I have manually removed the items from the Apr. 19 report and will do so for today's when it finishes running. -- Satori Son 16:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I appreciate the clean bill of health.... I do appreciate what you guys are doing keeping spam off Wikipedia, let me know if there's anything I can do to help!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 17:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cross wiki spamming of http://spam.airphotos.gr

Spam sock accounts

Athanasiadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
85.73.102.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Serrelib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
172.142.59.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Students' union

Would some people with some external links knowledge take a look at this article? There's maaaajor list of external links on here that probably should be cut down. I just noticed it while monitoring the edits of a person I just speedy deleted an article by, so I can't really stop in and take care of those links, but if someone else could, it'd be appreciated, Metros232 03:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could also remove the "List of...." section and start List of United States Student Governments and see if it stands on its own merits. Although WP:NOT applies in any case.--Hu12 03:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similar List of Links have come up before - I'd suggest removing all the individual links. In most contries there is a national student body (e.g. in the UK we have the NUS (National Union of Students) a link to a national Student body would have merit. (IIRC all the affiliated Student Unions are linked to from the NUS site). -- Rehnn83 Talk 07:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another web marketing company spamming clients' links

195.102.80.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is registered to The RealAdventure Ltd, Advertising & Design Agency. I spotted him/her adding a link to one of their clients' websites to the breastfeeding article. The 195.102.80.32 - 195.102.80.63 is registered to the company but so far only the one above has edited.

How are others watching these types of users? Does one of our bots watch IP address edits by any chance? And is it worth it? There's not much activity by the IP yet, and now we've found them and I've placed a big notice on their talk page they may just start using IPs registered to ISPs. I could make a list of their clients as I did with Kellen Company a while ago, but it doesn't feel like a very fruitful way to do it, and presumably gets out of ate as their client list changes. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I see this correctly:
By range 195.102.80.32/27. Monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.freesoftwaremagazine.com http://spam.illiterarty.com

Adsense pub-4408039167229399

Spam sock accounts

165.98.157.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
80.128.142.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Domains


It should be mentioned that a whois on freesoftwaremagazine.com and illiterarty.com both report "Marcello Di Clemente" of Applicom srl (applicom.it) in Italy as the owner. I have no idea how Applicom connects to the mysterious "The Open Company Partners, Inc." that is mentioned on the Free Software Magazine article page. I've added a couple more domains that are also owned by Applicom. The wiki page also mentions that FSM was started by Australian Tony Mobily which explains the mobily.com domain. The linksearchs for the above domains are all empty expect for freesoftwaremagazine.com which has about 50 hits. FSM also has a number of cross-wiki hits. (Requestion 01:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

burstcreativity.com

I'm not 100% certain that the sites are related, however the IP below has spammed all of them, and the userID created an infomercial type article that contained a burstcreativity.com URL (I've tagged it db-spam, it may be gone by the time people read this).

This may be another 'tip of the iceberg' situation.. --Versageek 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LTA datasheet spammer

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

This individual appears be the same as this one. The domain being spammed in that case datasheet4u.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 was blacklisted on meta along with these others in May 2006:

Thanks for the extra domains, some where already monitored and blacklisted by COIBot, the rest has been added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.mygilgit.com

Adsense pub-4139298770685992
mygilgit.com

Spam sock accounts

Piarali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
202.133.73.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
202.143.126.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
202.133.73.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 15:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitored and blacklisted on COIBot --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

related spamming to Sam Sloan

Spam sock accounts

Samsloan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sam Sloan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.106.135.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
202.133.73.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  • also spams self references such as Khowar English Dictionary (by Mohammad Ismail Sloan, 1981) ISBN 0923891153 published in Pakistan, reprinted in 2006--Hu12 16:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisted and monitored on coibot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

light reading

Hot off the presses (and just posted the wikien-l) The Art Of SEO For Wikipedia & 16 Tips To Gain Respect by Stephan Spencer --Versageek 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Hu12 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12 beat me to it! So let me add a couple more. :) Make sure you read the comments from our buddies User:Durova and User:Jehochman. Specializes in investigations? (Requestion 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm glad Durova found it and replied. A stand up admin. --Hu12 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam sock accounts
Arnaudfischer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Akdenizguide.net

Links added by Akdenizg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

--Dirk Beetstra T C 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also added to tr.wikipedia.org (see linkreport, which is broken, but the diffs are correct, sorry for that). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lysting.com

Previously reported autocrust.blogspot.com has a new domain name:

lysting.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

Spamsocks:

monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that the most recent links picked up by Shadowbot redirect to carandbikeforum.com (previous spam report). That site is already on the Wikimedia blacklist. Nposs 03:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

URL shortener

New wrinkle in this case. The owner of lysting.com also owns carandbikeforum.com, a clear connection in the chain of spam. However, the url redirection is made possible by a url shortener that is featured at www.lysting.com/url/. Thus, it was also possible for lysting.com linkspam to redirect to autocrust.blogspot.com (a similar site to carandbike, but not obviously related). After problems with Tinyurl et al., is this blacklist material? Nposs 03:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it, need to blacklist lysting.com/url/* as it is just another tinyurl that we've got evidence of abuse. Kevin_b_er 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for blacklisting. Nposs 14:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.aftervote.com

Adsense pub-3533246069776865
aftervote.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
younanimous.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
absolutcollectors.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

Bostondan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
{71.84.236.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.171.32.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.tallstreet.com

Adsense pub-8243923714684760
tallstreet.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

Geeka2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Geeka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
203.109.171.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

213.52.145.48

Spam sock accounts

213.52.145.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Danrogers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Businesscar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lordchoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
192.223.243.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 01:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanenergyguide.org(.nz)

The latter redirects to cleanenergyguide.org.nz.

Spammed by:

Blacklisted and monitored by COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

DMOZ linking

There is currently an edit skirmish (not yet a war) over at Wikipedia talk:External links over whether the {{Dmoz}} template and DMOZ links should be allowed in articles at all, much less whether its use is encouraged or not. I was under the impression that there was strong support for using the DMOZ template in articles. See these discussions, among others:

  1. Talk:External links - Yahoo Directory and DMOZ
  2. Talk:External links - Link to DMOZ
  3. Talk:External links - DMOZ Again
  4. Talk:External links - Use of deep links into DMOZ categories
  5. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 15#Template:Dmoz
  6. Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 19#Template:NoMoreLinks

Am I wrong about this? If so, this necessitates a big shift in how I and others have been fighting spam links. -- Satori Son 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion has been going on since before I was a Wikipedia editor  :-) I'm not seeing anything different happening right now. Maybe there are some new points, but I wouldn't rush to change anything yet, in terms of how we treat those links. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it makes me nervous when I see very well-respected administrators saying things such as:
  • "...we're throwing ourselves on the mercy of that project's editorial judgment and policies rather than our own." [7]
  • "It may be popular, but the point of our guideline pages is not to advertise popular websites."[8]
  • "We are not linking to Google searches, not to the Yahoo categories directory and we should link to DMOZ either."[9]
Those statements were really surprising to me because, like I said, I really believe there is widespread support for using DMOZ links. I guess we'll see how the conversation goes over there. -- Satori Son 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The primary use of the link is to prevent us from becoming a linkfarm. Frankly any site that wikipdia editors deem as a good linkfarm is fine by me, but we only need one linkfarm per article. —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preventing a linkfarm can be achieved by simply moving the links to talk, ask editors to use these as sources where possible, and referring editors to WP:NOT#LINK that states There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If only it was that simple. I'm the person responsible for most of the {{cleanup-spam}} tags in Category:Lists_of_software and Category:Software_comparisons. Let me say that it is a warzone out there and the spammers frequently out number me by a factor of 10. Sometimes it gets so bad that I have to worry about 3RR. And trying to AfD a link farm is a bad idea because spammer socks pop out of the woodwork like you wouldn't believe. DMOZ might be a useful spam fighting tool if it could be enforced but that would require policy and not a guideline. (Requestion 02:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
But back before the DMOZ language was removed from WP:EL against consensus, I had pretty good luck using that guideline to keep the {{Dmoz}} template in and dozens of spammy links out.
And jossi's suggestion above that "Preventing a linkfarm can be achieved by simply moving the links to talk, ask editors to use these as sources where possible, and referring editors to WP:NOT#LINK ..." is somewhat wishful thinking. That would work great in an ideal WikiWorld where every user is mature, intelligent, policy-savvy, honest, reasonable, and without a conflict of interest. It's doesn't quite work out that way here, as I'm sure most of you are well aware. If jossi were right, there would not even be a need for WikiProject Spam, much less links to DMOZ. -- Satori Son 04:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been ignoring this discussion and making comments on the external links page since that's where the discussion may affect guidelines. But I wanted to respond here at least once since I'm one of the editors who doesn't agree with the dmoz language, and (I hope) I'm also an editor who is generally thought to do some good work on anti-spam stuff. While I respect and understand the desire for an easy fix, I don't believe we should promote a site that isn't a sister project and I've never been a fan of the practice of using any directory simply to stop link farms forming. I basically agree with Jossi that we have policy to stop link farms - we don't need to throw them a bone and I really don't think we should. It's not great for our readers when we point them to a directory with little regard to the directory's value to the article. I know there are some articles, particularly ones that are frequented by a lot of enthusiasts, where it is time consuming and frustrating to move away from a community site feeling and nigh on impossible to get editors to think about prioritizing information from a neutral point of view (and the external links section can be the least of the problem with such articles). In such circumstances a guideline that says "no we do it this way" is a very handy tool. But I don't believe our guidelines should be written to make that easy at the expense of providing sound advice to editors who actually want to write a great, encyclopedic article. I hope the discussion on EL will eventually result in something that can address both needs.

I understand why the dmoz tactic is appreciated and used by a lot of members of this project. And even if I would prefer to see some of it done differently sometimes, I think the hard work everyone here does is great. I hope my difference of opinion on this doesn't make anyone think I don't believe you are good for the encyclopedia. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have told Siobhan elsewhere, I readily admit the former DMOZ language was not a perfect solution, but it was one that I believed did more good than harm for Wikipedia. Siobhan feels the converse, and I respect that opinion even though I disagree with it. Hopefully, a compromise solution can be found that at least partially satisfies both sides of the debate. -- Satori Son 18:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me say that I respect and appreciate the job you guys and gals do in fighting spam. The concern that I have about DMOZ is that is simple a way out of a sticky problem and not a solution. Let me explain: Imagine several anons adds 30 links to an article over time:
  1. A Spam fighter goes there and replaces all these links with a DMOZ category.
    1. The links deleted may be of higher quality than the ones in DMOZ
    2. Links are now deleted and editors cannot use these to improve the article
Alternative
  1. A Spam fighter goes there and moves all links to the talk page, with a notice about WP:NOT#LINK
    1. Involved editors can now proceed and evaluate which are best links to keep, and which ones to use to improve the article
    2. Some links are added to EL, others used to improve the article
Yes, fighting spam is needed, but let's not forget that we are here to write an encyclopedia.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jossi. 30 links? That's a link farm. In an ideal world your "alternative" solution would work great. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in the wiki world. Here is how the alternative solution plays out:
  1. Spam fighter removes all the links, comments them out, or moves them to the talk page. It doesn't make a difference.
  2. A revert war ensues.
  3. A hoard of angry spammers assault the spam fighters talk page.
  4. The article goes up for AfD and is deleted, that is if too many SPA's don't show up.
  5. At lot of effort is wasted and everybody loses.
I'm not a fan of the {{dmoz}} solution because I don't think it works. Many spam fighters do believe that DMOZ is a valuable tool and I support them. Why is it so difficult to have wording in WP:EL that states that DMOZ might be a good solution for handling link farms? (Requestion 21:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Revert war? Protect the page, or block for 3RR.
Angry spammers assault spam fighters? Send them my way (or any other admin), and we'll indefblock them.
Not a drop of sweat. Note that spammers will come back regardless if your replace their links with a DMOZ category. That will not stop them, would it? So rather than suppression, move the links to talk, and ask editors to evaluate the links for notability and quality. A good few links can go back. Easy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This presumes that the article has a group of editors who follow it and actually read the talk page.. that isn't always the case. --Versageek 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone give me a couple example of articles in which a linkfarm was replaced with a DMOZ catg? Thanks in advance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few that I did (diff from my change to the current version). Quilt, Indian cuisine, Child labor. Clearly it's not 100% successful in stopping spammers & well intentioned but misguided linkers. In the Child labor page, my goal was to get charities to stop adding their links to the page.. and to be honest, most of the other 'good causes' of this nature also harbor linkfarms. --Versageek 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Why is it so difficult to have wording in WP:EL that states that DMOZ might be a good solution for handling link farms?" It isn't, but spam is only part of the use of a Dmoz link. Some broad topic articles simply could have hundreds of valuable external links. Only wiki lawyers and trolls want to see fights over whether link #5 goes to an CNN page versus an MSNBC versus dozens of other similar treatments. In its best usage a Dmoz link helps articles where it meets both needs, prevents spam and leads people to scores or hundreds of sites offering in depth coverage of broad topics. Good editors will use it as a solution in many cases anyway, but having simple text in the guideline is major help to editors. 2005 03:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new proposed version in the box over at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Random_section_break looks pretty good. I might just give it a try on a several of the link farms that have been giving me grief. Break the internal links into a "See also" section and the dmoz goes in the "External links" section. This eliminates the spam magnet effect. It could work. (Requestion 08:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The current version, a compromise that may work for Wikiproject spam patrollers, and that does not violates established policy, is pretty good, I agree. But it does not say anything about moving links to the See also section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My "See also section" comment was a possible scenario walk-through of how I might use this new tool. Just me thinking out loud. (Requestion 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Jeyasoft Solutions

Socks


Domains


Megasearch

The final warning has been violated twice and talk pages have been blanked 5 times. The count is 15 linkspams. All domains are registered to Jeyasoft Solutions or Jeya Eskalin in Singapore. Only the m-indya.com and java-samples.com domains are known to of been spammed on Wikipedia. The recent talk page blankings were followed by some interesting link request puppetry over at Talk:SCADA with User:Ramkay. I request blacklisting. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] (Requestion 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ramkay is blocked as a sockpuppet, the links should get blacklisted.--Hu12 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisted on Shadowbot. Shadow1 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Airreg

Template:Airreg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — --Aude (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template facilitates external links (often within body text in an article) for aircraft ID numbers. The vast majority of links are to a particular site that way over does the advertising, in relation to useful information given for aircraft ID numbers. --Aude (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend keeping this template while deleting the airdisaster.com option. (The template can also be used to link to various government web sites). I also note that the template's creator, N328KF, is one of the most-prolific (19,000+ edits) aviation editors. --A. B. (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one site that I thought did the best job of providing information is aviation-safety.net. But, that site doesn't support incorporating aircraft ID numbers in the URL. Or I can't figure out how to do it with this site. It would be easy enough to link an ID number to aviation-safety, FAA, or any other site without a template. --Aude (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

retrojunk

There are 141 links to retrojunk currently. I removed some already but I wanted some input about whether these are worth keeping or not. They don't seem to have any notable content...just a youtube video and advertisements. IrishGuy talk 23:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot3 archiving problem

I was searching for some old StartCom stuff and I just noticed a Shadowbot3 archiving problem that happened on April 10 2007. It appears that this cut [20] was never pasted into Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Apr. The "Startcom revisted" thread is gone along with a bunch of other stuff. There are also some duplicate threads in that April archive such as:

I'm not going to attempt to fix the damage myself so I hope a shadowbot expert is reading this. (Requestion 07:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

infertile.com

This site has some decent information, however this is likely a case of COI - and has been spammed on three occasions (Feb, April & Today(May 7th)). The user was warned once in April, and enough times to report him to AIV today, although by the time I finished messing with adding the domain to shadowbot, he had stopped.. so he wasn't reported/blocked. --Versageek 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

workforall.net

Socks - all IP's resolve to SKYNET Belgacom ADSL in Belgium


Domains


Megasearch


Threads


So far the count is 144 workforall.net linkspams. Along with a few external links, the workforall.net spammer has been copying and pasting large blocks of duplicate text into multiple articles for the past year (see the "paste dup text" note above). Here are some examples of the duplicate text: [21] pasted four times, [22] pasted eight times, and [23] pasted seven times. This mass insertion of duplicate text back in the summer 2006 has propagated into a mess. The links have even worked their way into citations and references. The workforall.net spamming is one of the most intertwined cases I've encountered. Check out the threads, this user is now copying and pasting large blocks of text into talk pages. The situation is out of control. I request blacklisting. (Requestion 03:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Before taking any action please read the debate on : User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction. thanks --217.136.93.7 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a debate and that link was previously added above. (Requestion 19:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree its black and white and you are the white bit. --BozMo talk 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The final warning was violated [24] today. (Requestion 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The workforall.net individual acquired the User:Bully-Buster-007 identity and appears to have a special purpose agenda. Some phony warnings were issued [25] [26] [27] and now the clock is ticking with a deadline. I have no idea what this means or what will happen next. (Requestion 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
More "inappropriate warning notices" today [28] [29] [30] [31] that resulted in a User_talk:Bully-Buster-007#One_week_block. Thanks User:BozMo. The warnings were issued to myself, User:A. B., and this project! (Requestion 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
More bogus warnings today from a number of sock-hydra IP addresses. The one week block for User:Bully-Buster-007 has turned into an infinite block. (Requestion 23:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Before causing more destruction to the contributions of Workforall, please read debate on User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction. Causing more damage will be considered as vandalism. See: see WP:VAND Types of vandalism: Blanking Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. --80.201.19.94 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist request:
--A. B. (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP claims Workforall think tank repudiates workforall.net domain and spamming

Added to this archive for the record, 22 May 2007:
See this note posted on User:BozMo's talk page:

Public workforall.net registration record:

owner-contact: P-MJG120
owner-organization: P. Vreymans
owner-fname: MFPH
owner-lname: Geurts
owner-city: Wingene
owner-zip: 8750
owner-country: BE

Public workforall.org registration record:

Registrant Name:Eric Verhulst
Registrant Organization:Lancelot research nv
Registrant City:Leuven
Registrant Postal Code:be-b3010
Registrant Country:BE

--A. B. (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

afif.ws, afifpoem.com, afif2.com, afifchat.com, afifup.com ... again

Still at it after an earlier series of warnings and spam link deletions. Conveniently called attention to back him/herself today by attempting to delete the archive record for our earlier discussion here.[32] Domains:


A sampling of cross-wiki spam accounts:

I've cleaned up dozens of links on probably 10 to 15 different Wikipedias.

Blacklisting request:

(Permanent link)

I love it when they attack our archives. --A. B. (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added the rule "\bafif.+?\.(com|ws)" to Shadowbot, which should cover anything following the pattern in the domain names. Shadow1 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monitored by COIBot (awaiting the blacklisting) --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.npost.com

Spam sock accounts

2bar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
63.229.24.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monitored/blacklisted on COIBot --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.e-lab-book.com

Electronic lab notebook

Spam sock accounts

Midknightr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
130.166.115.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
130.166.115.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
72.134.54.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monitored/blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requestion

User talk:Requestion has taken some diatribe from IPs related to the workforall.net spam (see ↑) during the past few days. It's shifted from scapegoating this particular user to attacking Wikipedia's handling of spam in general. (The canvassing of that guy has attracted another 'victim', and if I was Requestion I'd feel pretty harassed by now anyway.) I'm terribly inefficient at this kind of quibbling, if anyone else wants help keeping another eye on this dispute, much appreciated. Femto 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... comments:
  • Proverb: if you wind up wrestling a pig, you might as well stop since the pig loves it and can go on forever
  • See this excellent essay: Diminishing Replies
  • I've learned the hard way that, with some folks, it's simpler to let them have the "last word" on a talk page if Wikipedia's rules have otherwise been upheld (i.e., the user blocked or a domain blacklisted). In this case, his domain i on the blacklisting request list.
    • I'm a very stubborn, slow learner -- it's taken me about a year myself to figure this out!
  • Even a casual reader of Requestion's user page will quickly conclude Requestion is not a vandal and that the workforall guy is seriously out of line. Further justification of our quite reasonable actions doesn't seem worth the time.
  • The workforall spammer seems to be working on a classic case of search engine de-optimization:
    • Wikipedia pages have high page rank
    • He/she's used so many IPs and incurred spam warnings on so many Google-trusted pages that he's further leveraging the Wikipedia page-ranking . (Note: our internal links are not coded nofollow!)
    • If he/she keeps at it, these discussions could float to near the top of a Google search for his web site/organization in a few days.
Sorry you had to suffer all the aggravation, Requestion -- it's not fun.
--A. B. (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The key with wrestling pigs is to make the pig do all the work! My strategy for the workforall.net spammer is it wear them out and indent them all the way to the right. It is better for this insanity to be localized on my talk page. Imagine the havoc that would be wrecked here or on meta? I deal with a lot of spammers so I'm not too bothered by the comments. The only thing that bugs me is the constant cleanup of workforall's sloppy editing technique and the edit conflicts on my own talk page! I don't think letting them get the last word will work since they just attack other threads. Asking an admin to lock my talk page to IP's might be a good solution if this goes on for a couple more days. (Requestion 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The IP addr talk page lock solution isn't going to work since workforall.net finally created a User:Bully-Buster-007 account today. Looks like a WP:SPA and I don't particularly like what the special purpose is. (Requestion 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
User:Bully-Buster-007 has been indef blocked. Let me know of any socks which appear and I'll block them too. Life is too short to keep going with explanation: we've done the Matilda's Aunt bit with this one. --BozMo talk 10:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious spammage

This guy has inserted 1000's of links to his sites. Help in cleaning up after him would be welcome. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreis_Bromberg and other articles. There is a serious problem with www.birchy.com :) Thanks ahead of time. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His link can be found on the following articles here. I've already started work on removing these... 550 links were removed on this article. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy... 1191 links on one article. See this diff!!! —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that was an amazing amount of spam!. --Hu12 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monitoring and blacklisted on COIBot. User is not happy the link gets removed, judging from a post on my talkpage (good resource, removal is a great disservice to the readers, he does not make any money from it, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vinnysa1store.com

vinnysa1store.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

Reposts freely available content from Project Gutenberg and elsewhere, but plasters it with Google Adsense.

IPs:

Nposs 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AOL-IPs. Link monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

autocityindia.com indialens.com

Spam sock accounts

Autocity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
74.129.200.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 16:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unlocked phones).blogspot.com

Our unlocked cell phone friend from Virginia has violated the final warning after receiving multiple warnings from several different editors. This has been going on since September 2006. I request black listing. [33] [34] [35] [36] (Requestion 21:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Healthadel spam is back

From our April archives The Healthadel.com spammer is back. This time the account is Millyuop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That's at least 7 user accounts created just to spam this link.

I see that blacklisting was declined last time, presumably because these aren't IPs. Eagle101 - Is there anyway to get blacklisting anyway? This is health advice being posted by spammers from a domain that claims no affiliations and was created in January under a domains by proxy account. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing we ought to be having just popping up all over the place. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New blacklisting request:
--A. B. (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those Spam accounts have been blocked--Hu12 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks A.B. and Hu12. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed: 700+ URL redirection links to clean up

As a matter of policy, domains such as tinyurl.com are routinely blacklisted since they not only can be used innocently as URL shorteners but also as a means of bypassing our spam blacklist. I keep the URL redirection article on my watchlist since someone adds another domain to the external links section every week or two that I then list for blacklisting. These additions are not necessarily spam -- some folks post them just to be helpful.

Today we had an editor add several links that, when linksearched across 57 Wikipedias, present major cleanup challenges:[37]
1. http://fd.tc

  • no links

2. freedomain.co.nr

  • 610 links

3. surl.co.uk:

  • no links

4. http://bravenet.com/webtools/redirect

  • 22 links
  • 13 links
  • 1 link
  • 1 link
  • 8 links
  • 9 links
  • 1 link
  • 2 links
  • 3 links
  • 32 links
  • 2 links
  • 3 links
  • no links
  • 3 links

Mindless blacklisting will create chaos across hundreds of gridlocked articles so the links need to be cleaned up for each domain before blacklisting. Mindless link deletion in turn will delete many useful links and references since most probably were added in good faith by editors using these domains for short URLs. The right thing to do is to find and substitute the actual site link for the redirect URL.

I'm posting a similar note in the discussion section at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist

If you delete links on other Wikipedias, I suggest you just use the meta disucssion link as your edit summary: 

  • [[meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#700 URL redirection links to clean up]]

As each domain is cleaned up, I suggest then listing it at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Proposed additions. --A. B. (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on user contribs

Infoart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems to be an article and spam campaign. --Hu12 05:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam.artfacts.net

Adsense pub-2034470246393760

Spam sock accounts

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

Suspected established accounts

Xyzzyplugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 05:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion please, EL spam or not?

These appear to be marginally useful and possibly good faith additions, but still stink of spam to a linked group of Hindu philosophy sites. I'm awfully busy to check this out. Can I request a member here look? 203.197.81.194 SchmuckyTheCat 06:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.gr8click.com

Adsense pub-4210558012255973

Spam sock accounts

59.95.27.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.95.39.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.95.34.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.95.18.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.95.32.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.95.32.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.95.55.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 10:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPs resolve to an internet backbone of India (59.88.0.0 - 59.99.255.255; 59.88.0.0/13), monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

criterion.com

User Myrmidon3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding a massive amount of links to criterion.com (a good link as such, but it gets spammed now). I have earlier argued on the wikipedia:WikiProject Film that the link should not be in external links sections at all, they should be used as references, but Myrmidon3 is only adding them to external links sections. I started reverting these additions (could use some help though). I also reported the case to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back quite a few but I have to tend to other things right now. There shouldn't be too many left. IrishGuy talk 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link is now on the monitorlist of COIBot, and the user is blacklisted against the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
removed Myrmidon3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) spam contribs only, however there are still 450+ links at large--Hu12 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link is not really bad, though I have argued on the film wikiproject that it should be used as a reference, and hardly ever as an external link. Now I am not a specialist in fims, but it took me time to see with many of these essays (and explanation from a wikiproject film member) to see why these links are indeed suitable (and it helped me appreciate the contents offered). I recall that I first saw an IP add/change this link (change from criterionco.com to criterion.com), now it was a massive addition. Ah, there it is user:199.231.146.254 (CIDR: 199.231.128.0/20, 199.231.144.0/22, 199.231.148.0/23, 199.231.150.0/24 on hosting.com). COIBot will keep an eye on it, I hope the spamming stops. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little curious about the line you are drawing about these links being spam. With regard to the filmmakers, I can see how the links would constitute "spam" given that they relate to the films and not so much to the filmmakers directly. That said, they seem like excellent external links for the films themselves, as they are directly related to the topic and completely appropriate in scope (perhaps there's no disagreement here? I noticed that those links still appear to be there). Also, I would make an exception for a few of the filmmakers that actually have essays relating more to them than to individual films, such as Stan Brakhage or Paul Robeson.
In any case, rather than simply deleting some of them and marking them as spam, it strikes me that it would be more useful to set a guideline for the resources on criterion.com and for linking to them. That way people won't have to worry about whether the links are forbidden as spam (as it's far from clear how those rules apply, depending on the article in question). After all, the site has useful content for hundreds of Wikipedia articles and this issue will probably never be buried, so it's much better to settle a place for having an ongoing discussion about it (rather than a transient and soon-to-be-archived discussion in the annals of WikiProject Spam and WikiProject Film) to keep the matter under control and people's blood pressures from getting too high. That way, people can hammer out the best approach, and anyone found violating that approach too strongly can be pointed to that ongoing discussion and contribute to making the micro-policy work. Jun-Dai 08:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the situation has been handled quite OK. The wikipedia definition of spam (WP:SPAM) does not include whether the link is good or bad, it is the way the link gets added. This link is not spam in the way of 'bad link with purpose to sell', still it was a mass addition, and that is better discussed first (see also WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer. Also, the spammer did not react to messages on his talkpage. The way of adding also gives a feeling of WP:COI, though that is here hard to proof.
On the movie pages it may indeed be good as an external link, though still, it is better as a reference. When I was reading the first linked documents on criterion, I had difficulty understanding why these links were directly linked. Sometimes the links do not have any clear connection to the movie, and only an understanding of the movie would give you an understanding of why the link was there; hence, if the film is explained in the document, and the link was used as a reference in a point in that discussion and the link would not be needed in the external links sections, and I have suggested that would be done for the links. But I will leave that to the wikiproject film. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dontforgettotakeyourvitamins.com

For the archives, dontforgettotakeyourvitamins.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

Shadowbot has been given this vitamin, so this particular URL will be killed on sight. --Versageek 06:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com

Answers.com has an article on WP and relies heavily on WP input to create its own articles.

  • "Answers.com displays commercial encyclopedia data, along with information obtained from Wikipedia in its status as a mirror site"

It contains heavy Google Adsense advertising. It also lists WP as a competitor in its article. There are currently 4216 external links to answers.com on WP, most listed under "External links" sections. Some have no descriptions and link to articles that contain nothing but a copy of the WP articles. Here's the stats:

*.Answers.com

Calltech 14:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That circular reference is an infinite loop! I had no idea there that were 4216 answers.com external links. Other than the Answers.com article should there be any answers.com links on Wikipedia? (Requestion 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think I removed a few a couple of months ago - i agree - if they just have a copy of WP data then there is no value in having links to it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take care to read the linked article. I removed references from one article which simply linked to clear Wikipedia copies, but in 7-Dehydrocholesterol, a reference to answers.com turns out to be them mirroring a medical dictionary from Houghton Mifflin. This may not be a great reference, but it can't be simply removed on the grounds of being a Wikipedia mirror; it is a reference and unless we suspect answers.com made up the stuff, it is certainly better than nothing. Notinasnaid 10:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true of a few of the image links I found too. A lot of the links are on talk pages too: my guess is that 500 is nearer the real figure --BozMo talk 10:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answers.com aggregates a lot of different sources, some of which are licensed. What's the duration of the licensing terms and will how long will they continue being functional links to what was originally intended? We don't know and this brings up the reliable sources question. Another problem I have with Answers.com is the self referential part. WP:SELF doesn't say anything about external links to Wikipedia itself but linking to Answers.com definitely seems to violate the spirit of this guideline. (Requestion 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If they quote their source, then why wouldn't be linking to the source itself? That gets rid of any licensing issues. If they are not providing a source, then we have no way of knowing whether that article is reliable or not. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.freedomworks.org

FreedomWorks

Spam sock accounts

Bstein80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
74.8.97.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
66.251.110.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both IP's resolve to ranges from "CITIZENS FOR A SOUND ECONOMY" (66.251.110.48/29 and 74.8.97.16/29). I have blacklisted the ranges and the user against the link and the pagename, and put the link on the monitorlist of COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI http://spam.prepmasters.com

Train-the-Trainer

Spam sock accounts

Prepmasters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coibot already caught some of these, link monitored on COIBot. User blacklisted against 'train-the-trainer'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.trainingjournal.com

trainingjournal.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

Hame22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.177.112.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 22:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitored/blacklisted (80.177.112.0/20) on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.curiouscountrycreations.com

Just reported on ANI

Top three are all registered to the same person.

Seems to have been at this for a while. All edits are to add links. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

166.70.0.0/16 blacklisted against links, and links monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I guess I'm out of touch... when did we get a bot? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am just comparing edits with usernames, and monitoring and watching what user:Beetstra (or other people at irc://chat.freenode.net:8001/wikipedia-spam-t are telling me). --COIBot 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

excitesearch.info

This user tried to change numerous search engine links to point to his domain. When he got blocked, he'd change IP addresses until he was blocked again...and so it continued for a number of IP addresses in the 83.4.*.* and 83.27.*.* ranges. He finally created a bogus user name User:JFreemen (note the similarity to mine), which our admins took care of pretty quickly. All his edits are currently reverted on en., but I wouldn't be surprised to see him come back.

Additional info, including some examples of IP addresses used:

--JFreeman (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was blacklisted on meta earlier this afternoon. However, given that you were able to post the URL in this post.. it isn't working, perhaps it needs a \b in front of it? --Versageek 00:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

workforall.net

Socks - all IP's resolve to SKYNET Belgacom ADSL in Belgium


Domains


Megasearch


Threads


So far the count is 144 workforall.net linkspams. Along with a few external links, the workforall.net spammer has been copying and pasting large blocks of duplicate text into multiple articles for the past year (see the "paste dup text" note above). Here are some examples of the duplicate text: [38] pasted four times, [39] pasted eight times, and [40] pasted seven times. This mass insertion of duplicate text back in the summer 2006 has propagated into a mess. The links have even worked their way into citations and references. The workforall.net spamming is one of the most intertwined cases I've encountered. Check out the threads, this user is now copying and pasting large blocks of text into talk pages. The situation is out of control. I request blacklisting. (Requestion 03:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Before taking any action please read the debate on : User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction. thanks --217.136.93.7 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a debate and that link was previously added above. (Requestion 19:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree its black and white and you are the white bit. --BozMo talk 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The final warning was violated [41] today. (Requestion 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The workforall.net individual acquired the User:Bully-Buster-007 identity and appears to have a special purpose agenda. Some phony warnings were issued [42] [43] [44] and now the clock is ticking with a deadline. I have no idea what this means or what will happen next. (Requestion 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
More "inappropriate warning notices" today [45] [46] [47] [48] that resulted in a User_talk:Bully-Buster-007#One_week_block. Thanks User:BozMo. The warnings were issued to myself, User:A. B., and this project! (Requestion 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
More bogus warnings today from a number of sock-hydra IP addresses. The one week block for User:Bully-Buster-007 has turned into an infinite block. (Requestion 23:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Before causing more destruction to the contributions of Workforall, please read debate on User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction. Causing more damage will be considered as vandalism. See: see WP:VAND Types of vandalism: Blanking Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. --80.201.19.94 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist request:
--A. B. (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Related domains:
--A. B. (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another domain (not seen on en.wikipedia):
--A. B. (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

afif.ws, afifpoem.com, afif2.com, afifchat.com, afifup.com ... again

Still at it after an earlier series of warnings and spam link deletions. Conveniently called attention to back him/herself today by attempting to delete the archive record for our earlier discussion here.[49] Domains:


A sampling of cross-wiki spam accounts:

I've cleaned up dozens of links on probably 10 to 15 different Wikipedias.

Blacklisting request:

(Permanent link)

I love it when they attack our archives. --A. B. (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added the rule "\bafif.+?\.(com|ws)" to Shadowbot, which should cover anything following the pattern in the domain names. Shadow1 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monitored by COIBot (awaiting the blacklisting) --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.npost.com

Spam sock accounts

2bar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
63.229.24.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monitored/blacklisted on COIBot --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.e-lab-book.com

Electronic lab notebook

Spam sock accounts

Midknightr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
130.166.115.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
130.166.115.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
72.134.54.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monitored/blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requestion

User talk:Requestion has taken some diatribe from IPs related to the workforall.net spam (see ↑) during the past few days. It's shifted from scapegoating this particular user to attacking Wikipedia's handling of spam in general. (The canvassing of that guy has attracted another 'victim', and if I was Requestion I'd feel pretty harassed by now anyway.) I'm terribly inefficient at this kind of quibbling, if anyone else wants help keeping another eye on this dispute, much appreciated. Femto 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... comments:
  • Proverb: if you wind up wrestling a pig, you might as well stop since the pig loves it and can go on forever
  • See this excellent essay: Diminishing Replies
  • I've learned the hard way that, with some folks, it's simpler to let them have the "last word" on a talk page if Wikipedia's rules have otherwise been upheld (i.e., the user blocked or a domain blacklisted). In this case, his domain i on the blacklisting request list.
    • I'm a very stubborn, slow learner -- it's taken me about a year myself to figure this out!
  • Even a casual reader of Requestion's user page will quickly conclude Requestion is not a vandal and that the workforall guy is seriously out of line. Further justification of our quite reasonable actions doesn't seem worth the time.
  • The workforall spammer seems to be working on a classic case of search engine de-optimization:
    • Wikipedia pages have high page rank
    • He/she's used so many IPs and incurred spam warnings on so many Google-trusted pages that he's further leveraging the Wikipedia page-ranking . (Note: our internal links are not coded nofollow!)
    • If he/she keeps at it, these discussions could float to near the top of a Google search for his web site/organization in a few days.
Sorry you had to suffer all the aggravation, Requestion -- it's not fun.
--A. B. (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The key with wrestling pigs is to make the pig do all the work! My strategy for the workforall.net spammer is it wear them out and indent them all the way to the right. It is better for this insanity to be localized on my talk page. Imagine the havoc that would be wrecked here or on meta? I deal with a lot of spammers so I'm not too bothered by the comments. The only thing that bugs me is the constant cleanup of workforall's sloppy editing technique and the edit conflicts on my own talk page! I don't think letting them get the last word will work since they just attack other threads. Asking an admin to lock my talk page to IP's might be a good solution if this goes on for a couple more days. (Requestion 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The IP addr talk page lock solution isn't going to work since workforall.net finally created a User:Bully-Buster-007 account today. Looks like a WP:SPA and I don't particularly like what the special purpose is. (Requestion 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
User:Bully-Buster-007 has been indef blocked. Let me know of any socks which appear and I'll block them too. Life is too short to keep going with explanation: we've done the Matilda's Aunt bit with this one. --BozMo talk 10:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious spammage

This guy has inserted 1000's of links to his sites. Help in cleaning up after him would be welcome. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreis_Bromberg and other articles. There is a serious problem with www.birchy.com :) Thanks ahead of time. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His link can be found on the following articles here. I've already started work on removing these... 550 links were removed on this article. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy... 1191 links on one article. See this diff!!! —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that was an amazing amount of spam!. --Hu12 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monitoring and blacklisted on COIBot. User is not happy the link gets removed, judging from a post on my talkpage (good resource, removal is a great disservice to the readers, he does not make any money from it, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vinnysa1store.com

vinnysa1store.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

Reposts freely available content from Project Gutenberg and elsewhere, but plasters it with Google Adsense.

IPs:

Nposs 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AOL-IPs. Link monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

autocityindia.com indialens.com

Spam sock accounts

Autocity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
74.129.200.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 16:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unlocked phones).blogspot.com

Our unlocked cell phone friend from Virginia has violated the final warning after receiving multiple warnings from several different editors. This has been going on since September 2006. I request black listing. [50] [51] [52] [53] (Requestion 21:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Healthadel spam is back

From our April archives The Healthadel.com spammer is back. This time the account is Millyuop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That's at least 7 user accounts created just to spam this link.

I see that blacklisting was declined last time, presumably because these aren't IPs. Eagle101 - Is there anyway to get blacklisting anyway? This is health advice being posted by spammers from a domain that claims no affiliations and was created in January under a domains by proxy account. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing we ought to be having just popping up all over the place. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New blacklisting request:
--A. B. (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those Spam accounts have been blocked--Hu12 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks A.B. and Hu12. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed: 700+ URL redirection links to clean up

As a matter of policy, domains such as tinyurl.com are routinely blacklisted since they not only can be used innocently as URL shorteners but also as a means of bypassing our spam blacklist. I keep the URL redirection article on my watchlist since someone adds another domain to the external links section every week or two that I then list for blacklisting. These additions are not necessarily spam -- some folks post them just to be helpful.

Today we had an editor add several links that, when linksearched across 57 Wikipedias, present major cleanup challenges:[54]
1. http://fd.tc

  • no links

2. freedomain.co.nr

  • 610 links

3. surl.co.uk:

  • no links

4. http://bravenet.com/webtools/redirect

  • 22 links
  • 13 links
  • 1 link
  • 1 link
  • 8 links
  • 9 links
  • 1 link
  • 2 links
  • 3 links
  • 32 links
  • 2 links
  • 3 links
  • no links
  • 3 links

Mindless blacklisting will create chaos across hundreds of gridlocked articles so the links need to be cleaned up for each domain before blacklisting. Mindless link deletion in turn will delete many useful links and references since most probably were added in good faith by editors using these domains for short URLs. The right thing to do is to find and substitute the actual site link for the redirect URL.

I'm posting a similar note in the discussion section at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist

If you delete links on other Wikipedias, I suggest you just use the meta disucssion link as your edit summary: 

  • [[meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#700 URL redirection links to clean up]]

As each domain is cleaned up, I suggest then listing it at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Proposed additions. --A. B. (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on user contribs

Infoart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems to be an article and spam campaign. --Hu12 05:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

http://spam.artfacts.net

Adsense pub-2034470246393760

Spam sock accounts

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

Suspected established accounts

Xyzzyplugh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 05:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion please, EL spam or not?

These appear to be marginally useful and possibly good faith additions, but still stink of spam to a linked group of Hindu philosophy sites. I'm awfully busy to check this out. Can I request a member here look? 203.197.81.194 SchmuckyTheCat 06:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.gr8click.com

Adsense pub-4210558012255973

Spam sock accounts

59.95.27.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.95.39.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.95.34.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.95.18.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.95.32.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.95.32.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 10:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPs resolve to an internet backbone of India (59.88.0.0 - 59.99.255.255; 59.88.0.0/13), monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

criterion.com

User Myrmidon3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding a massive amount of links to criterion.com (a good link as such, but it gets spammed now). I have earlier argued on the wikipedia:WikiProject Film that the link should not be in external links sections at all, they should be used as references, but Myrmidon3 is only adding them to external links sections. I started reverting these additions (could use some help though). I also reported the case to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back quite a few but I have to tend to other things right now. There shouldn't be too many left. IrishGuy talk 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link is now on the monitorlist of COIBot, and the user is blacklisted against the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
removed Myrmidon3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) spam contribs only, however there are still 450+ links at large--Hu12 21:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link is not really bad, though I have argued on the film wikiproject that it should be used as a reference, and hardly ever as an external link. Now I am not a specialist in fims, but it took me time to see with many of these essays (and explanation from a wikiproject film member) to see why these links are indeed suitable (and it helped me appreciate the contents offered). I recall that I first saw an IP add/change this link (change from criterionco.com to criterion.com), now it was a massive addition. Ah, there it is user:199.231.146.254 (CIDR: 199.231.128.0/20, 199.231.144.0/22, 199.231.148.0/23, 199.231.150.0/24 on hosting.com). COIBot will keep an eye on it, I hope the spamming stops. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little curious about the line you are drawing about these links being spam. With regard to the filmmakers, I can see how the links would constitute "spam" given that they relate to the films and not so much to the filmmakers directly. That said, they seem like excellent external links for the films themselves, as they are directly related to the topic and completely appropriate in scope (perhaps there's no disagreement here? I noticed that those links still appear to be there). Also, I would make an exception for a few of the filmmakers that actually have essays relating more to them than to individual films, such as Stan Brakhage or Paul Robeson.
In any case, rather than simply deleting some of them and marking them as spam, it strikes me that it would be more useful to set a guideline for the resources on criterion.com and for linking to them. That way people won't have to worry about whether the links are forbidden as spam (as it's far from clear how those rules apply, depending on the article in question). After all, the site has useful content for hundreds of Wikipedia articles and this issue will probably never be buried, so it's much better to settle a place for having an ongoing discussion about it (rather than a transient and soon-to-be-archived discussion in the annals of WikiProject Spam and WikiProject Film) to keep the matter under control and people's blood pressures from getting too high. That way, people can hammer out the best approach, and anyone found violating that approach too strongly can be pointed to that ongoing discussion and contribute to making the micro-policy work. Jun-Dai 08:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the situation has been handled quite OK. The wikipedia definition of spam (WP:SPAM) does not include whether the link is good or bad, it is the way the link gets added. This link is not spam in the way of 'bad link with purpose to sell', still it was a mass addition, and that is better discussed first (see also WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer. Also, the spammer did not react to messages on his talkpage. The way of adding also gives a feeling of WP:COI, though that is here hard to proof.
On the movie pages it may indeed be good as an external link, though still, it is better as a reference. When I was reading the first linked documents on criterion, I had difficulty understanding why these links were directly linked. Sometimes the links do not have any clear connection to the movie, and only an understanding of the movie would give you an understanding of why the link was there; hence, if the film is explained in the document, and the link was used as a reference in a point in that discussion and the link would not be needed in the external links sections, and I have suggested that would be done for the links. But I will leave that to the wikiproject film. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dontforgettotakeyourvitamins.com

For the archives, dontforgettotakeyourvitamins.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

Shadowbot has been given this vitamin, so this particular URL will be killed on sight. --Versageek 06:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com

Answers.com has an article on WP and relies heavily on WP input to create its own articles.

  • "Answers.com displays commercial encyclopedia data, along with information obtained from Wikipedia in its status as a mirror site"

It contains heavy Google Adsense advertising. It also lists WP as a competitor in its article. There are currently 4216 external links to answers.com on WP, most listed under "External links" sections. Some have no descriptions and link to articles that contain nothing but a copy of the WP articles. Here's the stats:

*.Answers.com

Calltech 14:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That circular reference is an infinite loop! I had no idea there that were 4216 answers.com external links. Other than the Answers.com article should there be any answers.com links on Wikipedia? (Requestion 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think I removed a few a couple of months ago - i agree - if they just have a copy of WP data then there is no value in having links to it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take care to read the linked article. I removed references from one article which simply linked to clear Wikipedia copies, but in 7-Dehydrocholesterol, a reference to answers.com turns out to be them mirroring a medical dictionary from Houghton Mifflin. This may not be a great reference, but it can't be simply removed on the grounds of being a Wikipedia mirror; it is a reference and unless we suspect answers.com made up the stuff, it is certainly better than nothing. Notinasnaid 10:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true of a few of the image links I found too. A lot of the links are on talk pages too: my guess is that 500 is nearer the real figure --BozMo talk 10:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answers.com aggregates a lot of different sources, some of which are licensed. What's the duration of the licensing terms and will how long will they continue being functional links to what was originally intended? We don't know and this brings up the reliable sources question. Another problem I have with Answers.com is the self referential part. WP:SELF doesn't say anything about external links to Wikipedia itself but linking to Answers.com definitely seems to violate the spirit of this guideline. (Requestion 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If they quote their source, then why wouldn't be linking to the source itself? That gets rid of any licensing issues. If they are not providing a source, then we have no way of knowing whether that article is reliable or not. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.freedomworks.org

FreedomWorks

Spam sock accounts

Bstein80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
74.8.97.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
66.251.110.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both IP's resolve to ranges from "CITIZENS FOR A SOUND ECONOMY" (66.251.110.48/29 and 74.8.97.16/29). I have blacklisted the ranges and the user against the link and the pagename, and put the link on the monitorlist of COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI http://spam.prepmasters.com

Train-the-Trainer

Spam sock accounts

Prepmasters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coibot already caught some of these, link monitored on COIBot. User blacklisted against 'train-the-trainer'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.trainingjournal.com

trainingjournal.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

Hame22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.177.112.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 22:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitored/blacklisted (80.177.112.0/20) on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.curiouscountrycreations.com

Just reported on ANI

Top three are all registered to the same person.

Seems to have been at this for a while. All edits are to add links. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

166.70.0.0/16 blacklisted against links, and links monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I guess I'm out of touch... when did we get a bot? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 12:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am just comparing edits with usernames, and monitoring and watching what user:Beetstra (or other people at irc://chat.freenode.net:8001/wikipedia-spam-t are telling me). --COIBot 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

toolbase.org

NAHB Research Center

Spam sock accounts

ToolBaseWebsite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now also monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

excitesearch.info

This user tried to change numerous search engine links to point to his domain. When he got blocked, he'd change IP addresses until he was blocked again...and so it continued for a number of IP addresses in the 83.4.*.* and 83.27.*.* ranges. He finally created a bogus user name User:JFreemen (note the similarity to mine), which our admins took care of pretty quickly. All his edits are currently reverted on en., but I wouldn't be surprised to see him come back.

Additional info, including some examples of IP addresses used:

--JFreeman (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was blacklisted on meta earlier this afternoon. However, given that you were able to post the URL in this post.. it isn't working, perhaps it needs a \b in front of it? --Versageek 00:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog.yourseoconsulting.com

blog.yourseoconsulting.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

This guy thinks he's funny.. I reverted his spam on Web traffic and he reverted me with a comment of "Removed LinkSpam", then left a copy of the warning I gave him on my talk page. He also hit PageRank and Nofollow, they have been reverted. --Versageek 04:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one:
This last IP also added a link to a microsoft subdomain (adlab.microsoft.com, diff --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I now find that this IP also added a link to adlab.microsoft.com. Hmm. I think I've got them all now, though. KrakatoaKatie 09:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also blacklisted this range (207.6.0.0/16) against yourseoconsulting.com. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(country)chat.net/(country)chat.com

Pakchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding links to chat-sites, every page a new domain, all starting with the country of the page, then 'chat.net' or 'chat.com':

User is blacklisted against 'chat.net' and 'chat.com', which should catch most of the linkadditions by this user (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Pakchat). COIBot unfortunately can't monitor this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Asian models and ethernet hubs

Hi, I removed the same spam link from Ethernet hub twice and warned the most recent spammer, but could someone please look at the rest of these links? An odd collection I'd rather not tamper with. --CliffC 15:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The additions all appear spammy, I have removed a couple of them. Additions by:
All fed to the bots. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Active at this very moment: 60.54.36.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http:// spam.best-cartuning.com

Spam sock accounts

DerimoRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PamelaZolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Piersano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AngieLoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Creates a single account for each instance of link insertion. Expect more at some point to auto related articles.--Hu12 16:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COIBOT caught:
--Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming is ongoing:

Reported to meta for blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just had to break the live spam.best-cartuning.co link in the section title. Blacklisting must of been approved. (Requestion 23:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

ChrisMorris.ws spam on Wikipedia

Domains:

Articles:

Account: 72.204.221.226 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)

Continuing to spam past final warning -- can someone please block? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --A. B. (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monitored/Blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More porn linkspam

Remember the discussion that was done here? Well the guy's back with a new batch of URLs. I've posted his latest IP address (205.212.76.160) to the open proxy project page as he's been known in the past to use them, but that still leaves me with these new sites which need to be blocked. I'm not going to post all of his latest additions as he added 30+ links today, but with the exception of the edits between 13:23 (to Druze) and 13:37 (to Sikh), all of Special:Contributions/205.212.76.160 were spam. Some example links for you to work with: 

www.heatherrenesmith.org
www.alanasoares.net
www.alenaseredova.org
www.brittanydaniel.net

Suggestion: if you could rerun this search and compare the results to what's already been blocked, you should get all of the newest links. In any case, thank you in advance. Tabercil 22:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamsock 64.85.161.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was active tonight with more of this kind of spam. --Versageek 05:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are all the domains spammed by these two IPs:

--Versageek 05:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back: 128.241.106.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An additional IP used for the same spamming: 216.163.40.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Tabercil 22:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These domains have all been blacklisted on meta as of yesterday (5/18) --Versageek 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Scientology Linkspam www.truthaboutscientology.com

We have a lot of WP:COIN reports related to Scientology. It might help to clean up some of the spam circulating around this topic on both sides. For instance, why does Wikipedia have 47 links to the anti-scientology advocacy site www.truthaboutscientology.com? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COIBot is monitoring this link, to see if they are added from specific accounts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From a Google search of Veinor's link count pages:
Totals:
This does not capture:
  1. Link additions before this year
  2. Link additions of less than two per day
  3. Very recent link additions (Google hasn't indexed yet)
--A. B. (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I did most of the above by hand -- a Veinor-link-page search tool would be great if someone can develop it! --A. B. (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it to someone else to figure out what to do about this -- it looks more like a POV/COI dispute than a classic commercial spam operation. --A. B. (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The editors most familiar with these topics will need to deal with these. --ElKevbo 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a huge Scientology debate that raged on for about a month recently at WP:VPP. The discussion has since been periodically purged from the archive. I didn't want to get involved in the debate so I just watched. What surprised me was the size of both the pro- and con-Scientology lobbies. Trust me, these people (both sides) can police their own spam. I'm not sure that a neutral spam fighter entering the combat zone would help the situation but if you do enter remember to put on the blue helmet! (Requestion 20:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User:Alex Ramon is back

Please add to COIBot

From February's archives. Alex Ramon was back today posting at least one link to this new site of his, but mainly links to youtube groups that promote his own sites (see [55] for an example). Reported at AIV. Not sure how we'd watch those youtube groups. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links monitored, user Alex Ramon blacklisted against links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend adding them to the spam blacklist on Meta-wiki, given the persistence and use of multiple accounts. Note that there are 3 links on other wikis that need removal before blacklisting (none were spammed by Ramon). I'd do this myself but I don't have time.
Also, one of the user talk pages for the earlier spam IPs shows this additional domain was also spammed previously:
It has a different Adsense number and the IP used was at a public library. Is it connected to Ramon (it's a music site)? if so, it should also be blacklisted. --A. B. (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll monitor the linkadditions of ronatron.net. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*.megawebpages.com

..for the archives, hybrid-cars.megawebpages.com was being spammed, and when I visited the main domain - I was presented with the following list of other sites hosted there. Shadowbot has megawebpages\.com and COIBot has the user/domain pair.

Rostau989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Versageek 16:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vacantlips / themilkcarton.com

Vacantlips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was spamming links to themilkcarton.com. Shortly after an anonymous user (75.180.16.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); Road Runner HoldCo LLC; 75.176.0.0/13, 75.184.0.0/15; this IP has no other edits in wikipedia) complained about this removal of links.

The link has been added to COIBot for monitoring. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that shortly after my removal one was reverted by an IP.

It says at the top of the page that "As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed." This user's page wasn't notified that you have their name listed on here as well as the links they were contributing. Would you mind actually following your own code of ethics and doing so please? Thank you. The site itself looks harmless and the users submissions are all different links. 65.40.134.220 17:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I forgot, at the moment I notified this user I was immediately contacted by an anonymous user about these links, and at that point I presumed that it was the same user (seen the reaction of the IP, which has no further edits on wikipedia). By the way, the header you are referring to contains the word 'consider', not exactly a code of ethics, more a thing to, well, consider. I notified ({{uw-spam1}}) the user that the linkadditions were/could be considered spam (also see WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer) and added a welcome message pointing to the different guidelines and policies. I have now notified the user about this post.
That the links are different is not really a point, it is all to the same domain (compare #More porn linkspam, all different domains, still we consider it spam), in relative short succession (17 links in slightly less than half an hour37 minutes), without any discussion (or edit summary). Moreover, the links are to a review/forum discussion (not to a professional review) and the link was sometimes added to a page which already contained a linkfarm (example diff). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had all of those links ready to go in a Word document so I didn't have to spend a lot of time sitting and searching for it so I count add a lot of submissions to my list on Wiki, so that's why they were listed so quickly. I'm not really sure why that would be a problem in an age where information is needed and wanted in rapid fire, but I suppose it shows up as a warning sign to real spammers. In addition, I put "Review added from The Milk Carton" on every single one of those Edit Summaries, so that's a total lie. Anyway, I think I cleared the rest up in the other post. All of those reviewers work for the site and are some form of arts major. The fact that users can discuss them doesn't make them any less professional. Good day. Vacantlips 18:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read through everything on the site and didn't know that submitting the reviews would be spamming. They all link directly to each individual review - not the main page of the site. Some of those Wiki pages didn't have any professional reviews at all on them, so those needed some more information the most, but now that I think about it, since reviews are "opinion pieces", there should not be links to any reviews on Wikipedia at all. Maybe someone should bring that up. Anyways now that I see your personal view of what linkspam is, I won't add any additional links like that. There won't be any more problems and thanks for the clarification. If you add anything else, please let me know at my talk page. Vacantlips 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a line through that part of the sentence, I am really sorry, I should have looked a bit better at the contributions list, you are totally right. Hope this clears that out. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you truly want to be specific, the 17 links were added over the course of 37 minutes, not "slightly less than a half hour" like you said either. Thank you for the changes though and for pointing me to the WikiProject Music. I started a discussion there a few minutes ago. Vacantlips 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to learn how to count minutes. Sorry again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Acrilico

Is this an appropriate Userpage?--Hu12 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does look like a crazy link farm but I'm not sure it was meant for public consumption. I think this user is just treating their homepage as a sandbox or an archive for the AfD'd List of stock photography archives article. Many newbies don't realize that they can create articles in their User: space. On the topic of inappropriate User: pages, check out User:Jdh30. He is a topic of the ffconsultancy.com spam report below and 21 of those links are to his domains. (Requestion 06:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

new version of spamlink template on meta

fwiw: I created a copy of this template on meta, and slightly modified some of the links to be more useful there.. so we can use it on meta spam blacklist requests. --Versageek 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this template I've been using. I don't know what's involved in getting a template approved for use in the official Template: space, so for now it's just on a user subpage:
Feel free to use or plagiarize.
I was bold & created the template on meta, I'm sure if I was too bold, someone will eventually tell me ;-). A. B. I just replaced my version with your version, as it has more useful stuff.. --Versageek 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When invoked, it also summons Requestion's sandbox fire-parrot. --A. B. (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's not my parrot and I didn't have anything to do with that fire! Honest. (Requestion 21:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
OK, I confess. Just encountered another highly obnoxious individual. Nothing that a dash of fire-parrot can't fix but I seem to have lost my pet. I've looked everywhere. Has anyone seen my parrot? (Requestion 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Not sitting on my p, last time I checked. I can look again if you want. Femto 18:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.quitecontrarian.com

Adsense pub-6028208231783922

Spam sock accounts

67.164.13.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitored. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SEO article

Thought y'all might be interested in this: Should SEOs Care About Wikipedia?. Not a dog 11:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copy paste talk spam

I recently ran into a regular editor who copy and pasted the exact same 2790 characters of text into 4 different discussion related forums. This caused a bit puzzlement from the other editors because the comment was only partially relevant. When asked for an explanation the answer was that it "saves time." What about other people's time who have to read the exact same thing four times? Here are the diffs:

Other than violating WP:MULTI which says to "avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums", I couldn't find any policy or guideline that dealt with it. The WP:SPAM guideline does mention "internal spamming" and "cross-posting" as one of the 3 types of spams. Unfortunately that section is extremely brief and points to WP:CANVASS for more information. Our own WP:WPSPAM doesn't cover it either. The problem is that user comments in talk space are sort of sacred and should not be changed or deleted. It's a dilemma.

So my questions are:

  1. Is duplicate comment pasting in multiple forums acceptable?
  2. How should this be dealt with?
  3. At what point should these comments be deleted outright? 10, 20, 100? And by whom? Only admins?
  4. Did I miss any policies or guidelines that address this issue?
  5. Is this sort of spam the charter of this project?
  6. Slashdot has a redundancy filter that prevents dup posting. Should Wikipedia build a similar filter?

Any answers, guidance, or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. (Requestion 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)) [reply]

The workforall.net spammer meets the sandbox fire-parrot -- for everything else, there's Mastercard

I swear I am not making this up:

Earlier this month, Requestion reported here on widespread spamming by accounts adding links to a Belgian think-tank, WorkForAll; the domain was eventually blacklisted (meta blacklisting entry). For his pains, Requestion got an ongoing stream of abuse and bogus "warnings" from a sockpuppet army of Belgian IPs led by User:Bully-Buster-007. Bully-Buster-007 was blocked last week but returned today as User:Advocates For Free Speech. Before an admin finally blocked the new account and blanked Bully's new attack page, there was this memorable complaint/allegation:[56]

6. The virus in the sandbox
 On mai 11th 2007 a junior WWFA employee was reading a discussion about the present case on "meta" between user:Requestion and another unidentified individual. This discussion ended with the unidentified individual suggestion "want some help? ; ) ". Being a curious character the junior employee followed the link to the unidentified individual's special purpose account in the in the WP Sandbox which provided an external link to an institution of which she later only remembered the name contained "technologies". This link lead her to an obscene image which she described as a parrot sitting on a p. After a few tones of Beethoven's 5th symphony, the victims screen went black, her Pentium2 processor overheated and started a fire which was confined to her and the neighbouring office thanks to the Sprinkler installation. After the victim was released from hospital for her shock and first degree burnings, the incident was reported to the local Belgian Computer Crime Unit (CCU). The investigation is still in progress but faces seriuos obstruction as the most obvious traces on Wikipedia to the source of the virus seem to have been erased.

--A. B. (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the same thing happened to me about a month ago, except the bird in question was quite clearly a budgie, and the music I heard was the second movement of the Pathetique. I have no sprinkler system, so was forced to smother the ensuing flames with a rare, vintage Darth Vader costume I keep near my monitor. As you can imagine, my lawyers have already contacted the Wiki Foundation. IronDuke 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I always hate when that happens to me too. Heh, even if you swore you made this up, would you believe yourself? Femto 17:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely funny enough to go in BJAODN, but it might be true. --LuigiManiac 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check this [57] out. A workforall.net User:Mediator1 requested arbitration and said "WFFA staff tell me that incident about the parrot WAS true, and is worth investigating." Excuse me while I wander off and reflect for a bit. (Requestion 16:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Life settlement

71.228.14.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (71.224.0.0/12, cable provider, NJ, US) is spamming links to Life settlement after several warnings:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

ffconsultancy.com

It all began March 2005. A total of 44 Flying Frog Consultancy related external spam links have been added by the socks below. Many of these links have been added, deleted, and re-added multiple times. This medium spamming of ffconsultancy.com links then transformed into a conflict of interest (WP:COI) problem with the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet article which was being used as a promotional tool (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). These issues spawned a WP:SCIENCE notability discussion that lead to the AfD.

This exciting saga has spamming, sleuthing, vandalism, incivility, talk page blanking, blatant commercial promotion, sock puppeting, meat puppet canvassing, and ?wikipedia tracking tags. It's classic WP:GRIEF with an added flair of drama and suspense. Note that Jon Harrop is User:Jdh30.


Domains


Socks

Legend:

The numeric value represents the number of external spam links that were added. A zero value represents that a self-referencing name or product was mentioned. The m value stands for "modify" which represents the nuturing and cultivation of an existing spam link.


Articles spammed


Blanking coincidence


Notes

  • Jon Harrop reported me to the AIV as a vandal and has since called me a vandal many times.
  • Jon Harrop reported User:Pjacobi to the AIV as a vandal .
  • Jdh30's contribution log has recently exhibited a flury of activity. It is important to look at Special:Contributions/Jdh30 before March 29 2007 which is when the final {{spam4}} was awarded. Jdh30 only had 34 edits at that point and many of those were the source of this account's 11 link spam additions.
  • Jon Harrop refers to the {{spam}} warnings as spam and considers the removal of spam as vandalism. This basic difference in POV has generated a great deal of conflict.
  • Mild incivility [61] [62]
  • Massive promotion of ffconsultancy.com products at User:Jdh30 violates WP:NOT#USER. "CSD G11: Blatant Advertising" [63].


Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet

  • Jon Harrop invented the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet, 2 page description and derivation in PhD thesis.
  • WP:COI in creating and promoting the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet article.
  • An early version [64] of the page said "The Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet was designed by Jon Harrop in 2004 for the reliable time-frequency analysis of signals ..." complete with the User:Jdh30 link.
  • The Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet does not meet WP:SCIENCE notability.
  • Jon's ffconsultancy.com sells a Mathematica notebook CWT product that implements the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet.
  • Claims that the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet supercedes the Morlet wavelet both on [65] and off [66] Wikipedia. See Talk:Morlet wavelet#The Morlet wavelet was superceded by the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet for detailed discussion.
  • Quote [67] "To the best of my knowledge, our product is the only product that implements this wavelet."
  • This article was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.


WP:MEAT WP:CANVASSING

  • Jon Harrop has enlisted two friends who created WP:SPA's with the sole purpose to canvas support for the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet and to attack my credibility. All of their edits resorted to emotional arguments in an attempt to sway consensus. Both felt strongly that the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet should not be deleted but neither were interested in discussing the relevant issues.
    • Special:Contributions/Marie_Mason
      • [68] "it's impossible to to tell who you are and what great works you have obviously done"
      • [69] "some misguided belief that Jon is the root of all spam."
      • [70] "Of course he didn't name it after himself!"
      • [71] "I hope you do decide to try Jon's wavelet. We have been very pleased with it."
      • [72] "Requestion has been very inflammatory and I found that he is rarely constructive."
    • Special:Contributions/Petdoc - used Harrop's IP address
      • [73] "I'd say it was fairly obvious Jon wrote the comment tongue in cheek."
      • [74] "If you ask me Requestion has small man syndrome."
      • [75] removed the expired {{prod|lack of notability}} tag without an edit summary or an explanation.
      • [76] "I agree with Marie Mason that this entire article should not be deleted and that sufficient changes have been made. I also agree with her that it is pointless arguing with you."
      • [77] "However, I really have to disagree that the HH wavelet article is blatant self promotion."
      • [78] "He has called me 'meat' - whatever that is."
      • [79] "I can see how I would be viewed as a meat puppet"


Threads


External references

  • Wikipedia spam links were discussed on the Novemeber 2005 Caml Language mailing list [80]. Interesting quote: "The point is, if Harrop doesn't have megalomania, he sure acts like he does." Read the entire thread because there is quite a bit more relevant information. Particularly [81].
  • The comp.lang.lisp thread [82] which likely was the motivation for Jon Harrop to suspect my identity to be that of Dr. Thomas Fischbacher.


The 4 spam warnings were issued and the final warning has been violated 5 times. Inquiring spam historians are encouraged to read all of the above Threads as they contain a great deal of context. This saga toiled on for what seemed like eons despite the courageous efforts by at least 5 administrators. The ultimate source of the conflict boils down to "some people just don't think the rules apply to them." Sigh. I request blacklisting. (Requestion 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've added some rules to COIBot (monitoring/blacklisting). What bait do you use to catch these big fishbirds, Requestion? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do anything special, the spam finds me. Must be my charming spam magnet personality. (Requestion 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If you blacklist these links, note that there are a number of ffconsultancy.com links on other wikipedias that will need to be cleaned up. Often, editors on Wikipedia looking to start a new article or expand a stub will translate material from the much larger English Wikipedia as well as uncritically taking whatever links we have at the time. I've looked at the page histories and none of these appear to have been spammed:
--A. B. (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will clean up other wikis first. The AfD closed today with a delete. (Requestion 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The User:Jdh30 page was CSD G11'd as "Blatant Advertising" today. That user page had about 20 ffconsultancy.com links, deletion was the correct thing to do, and I didn't even nominate it! I would like to take a moment to thank everyone who helped with the clean up of this case. The fact that many independent editors stepped in by explaining rules, issuing warnings, deleting links, initiating the AfD, user page CSD G11, and blacklisting shows that the chaotic Wikipedia process does work. I feel this is an important part of the check-and-balance system that prevents potential abuse and the over stepping of authority. I plan to spend more time in the future commenting on independent spam cases as an impartial editor and making sure the Wikipedia engine runs smooth. Thanks again for all the help. (Requestion 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

AdvisorsDirectory.com spam

Domain:

Articles:

  1. Certified Financial Planner
  2. Certified Public Accountant
  3. Enrolled Agent
  4. Fee-Only financial advisor
  5. Finance
  6. Financial advice
  7. Financial adviser
  8. Financial Management Advisor
  9. Financial planner
  10. Financial plan
  11. Independent Financial Adviser
  12. Investment advisor
  13. Lawyer
  14. Law
  15. Tax advisor

Spam article twice deleted:[83]


Other domains and articles:

Articles:

  1. Celebrity sex tape
  2. Debbie Does Dallas ... Again
  3. Jenna Jameson
  4. Kim Kardashian
  5. Nude celebrities on the Internet
  6. Olivia Mojica


Accounts:

  1. 68.103.242.117 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
    • Traceroutes to the Wichita area: wichdsrj02-so010.0.rd.ks.cox.net.
  2. 68.102.57.37 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
    • Traceroutes to the Wichita area: wichdsrj01-so000.0.rd.ks.cox.net.
  3. 68.103.127.227 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
    • Traceroutes to the Wichita area: wichdsrj02-so010.0.rd.ks.cox.net. --> wichsysr02.rd.ks.cox.net.
  4. Milehighharris (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs • status)

Blacklisting requested:

--A. B. (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

strongilis.com

213.7.92.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (an IP address in Cyprus) and Mrecyprus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have added links to a handful of health-related articles, as "sources" or "external links". I deleted the early ones as they could not be opened. The more recent addition can be opened and appears to be a portal to a collection of health-related articles on a wide variety of subjects. Are these appropriate links? (I have notified the user of this discussion). Kablammo 09:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitored/blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like just another collection of articles scraped from elsewhere, with Google ads slapped on. Femto 11:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a SPAM site. This is my website, we run the worlds largest healthier living alternative information portal. Please do not classify us as SPAM. Thank you. You may contact Strongilis Healthier Living [email protected] or via telephone 0035799598461, in case of any misunderstandings. All material found on strongilis.com has NOT been scraped from elsewhere, and is copyrighted material provided by specialists in that field. I understand that a lot of crap is out there, but this is not one of them. Thank you.
  • Can the User:Beetstra kindly confirm what they mean by the URL been blacklisted on COIBot. I have done an AntiSpam search and this website is NOT LISTED. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.92.100 (talk • contribs)
Thank you for the clarification.
COIBot monitors link additions, and links pages/urls to users/IP addresses (as they might be in violation of WP:COI). When possible conflicts exist, the bot is used as a tool to monitor and report this. In this case, you are confirming that you run the site, and I would like you to read our conflict of interest guideline WP:COI.
Regarding the spam issue, the links were added to a number of pages in external link sections. Though the links may be appropriate (but then probably better as a reference), it is better to discuss such links first on the talkpages of the pages the links could be added to (escpecially if a conflict of interest exists). The aim of the wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm (see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:EL, WP:SPAM for more explanation). I hope this explains. Again thanks for the clarification. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory to other websites, besides, I took a few random samples of your articles: haven't found a single one that wasn't widely recycled content used by a whole network of scraper sites all over the web. (some of them even have the same automatically generated page design as your site.) Since you've already read the guidelines, you know that when the owner of a site adds several links to themselves, that's linkspam. This is not an accusation or an insult, but a simple definition. Just stop adding your links. Femto 14:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutty Sark & mattwardman.com

With the recent fire on the Cutty Sark a link to a personal blog at mattwardman.com keeps being repeatedly added. As the fire is big news in the UK it is very well covered by reputable news sites, meaning there is no need for a personal blog. Rather than have the Cutty Sark page Semi-Proteced would it be possible to temporarily black list this personal blog - or is this inappropiate to do so? -- Rehnn83 Talk 10:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

negations.net

user 208.120.140.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (earthlink, 208.120.128.0/17) is continuously adding links to a review site. The links may be appropriate (though WP:EL/WP:NOT#REPOSITORY), though I'd like to see some discussion.

--Dirk Beetstra T C 10:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wallplace.com

wallplace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding his link to Printmaking a couple of times over the last weeks. Link is removed, monitored:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 11:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YoungSikhs.net spam on Wikipedia

Domains:

Accounts adding these links:

  1. 122.162.13.112 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  2. 122.162.209.100 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  3. 122.162.209.97 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  4. 122.162.210.40 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  5. 202.164.52.13 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  6. 220.227.48.17 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google) ??
  7. 59.161.74.129 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)
  8. Jasjitsinghkhalsa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  9. Khalsalions (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
  10. Sikhauthor (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)


Articles:

  1. Davinder Singh
  2. Duleep Singh
  3. Ek Onkar
  4. Gatka
  5. Golden Temple
  6. Gurdwara
  7. Guru
  8. Guru Amar Das
  9. Guru Angad Dev
  10. Guru Arjan Dev
  11. Guru Gobind Singh
  12. Guru Granth Sahib
  13. Guru Har Gobind
  14. Guru Har Krishan
  15. Guru Har Rai
  16. Guru Nanak Dev
  17. Guru Ram Das
  18. Guru Teg Bahadur
  19. Harbhajan Singh Yogi
  20. History of Sikhism
  21. Hola Mohalla
  22. Jagjit Singh Chohan
  23. Kesh (Sikhism)
  24. Khalsa
  25. Khanda (Religious Icon)
  26. Kirpan
  27. Ludhiana
  28. Manmohan Singh
  29. Monty Panesar
  30. Montek Singh Ahluwalia
  31. Nanakshahi calendar
  32. Navjot Singh Sidhu
  33. Nihang
  34. Nokia
  35. Peace
  36. Pratap Singh Kairon
  37. Punjabi language
  38. Punjab region
  39. Rabbi Shergill
  40. Rehat Maryada
  41. Sangat
  42. Sikh
  43. Sikh Gurus
  44. Sikhism
  45. Sikhism in the United States
  46. Sukhi Turner
  47. Udham Singh

Pages deleted by admins as inappropriate:

  1. Guru gobind singh study circle
  2. Portal:Young Sikhs

references:

  1. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#YoungSikhs.net spam (permanent link)

--A. B. (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ranges are quite large, I have put the links on COIBots monitor list, and blacklisted the users against the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP claims Workforall think tank repudiates workforall.net domain and spamming

See this note posted on User:BozMo's talk page:

Public workforall.net registration record:

owner-contact: P-MJG120
owner-organization: P. Vreymans
owner-fname: MFPH
owner-lname: Geurts
owner-city: Wingene
owner-zip: 8750
owner-country: BE

Public workforall.org registration record:

Registrant Name:Eric Verhulst
Registrant Organization:Lancelot research nv
Registrant City:Leuven
Registrant Postal Code:be-b3010
Registrant Country:BE

References:

  1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#workforall.net
  2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#Requestion
  3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#The workforall.net spammer meets the sandbox fire-parrot -- for everything else, there's Mastercard (Permanent link)
  4. User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#workforall.net_linkspam (Permanent link)
  5. User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction (Permanent link)
  6. User_talk:Ioannes_Pragensis#Can_You_help_against_vandalism_.3F (Permanent link)
  7. Talk:Economic_data#Workforall.net_external_link
  8. User_talk:Kuru#ciber_bullying (Permanent link)
  9. User_talk:Bully-Buster-007#Welcome.2C (Permanent link)
  10. User_talk:Bully-Buster-007#Summary: workforall spam and disruption on Wikipedia (Permanent link)
  11. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04#workforall.net linkspam (Permanent link)
  12. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Freedom of speech (Permanent link)
  13. User talk:Jitse Niesen#80.200.73.228 (Permanent link)

--A. B. (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a reference at http://www.workforall.org/drupal/?q=nl/node/100 that basically parrots the message that was left on BozMo's talk page. Did someone just say the word parrot? (Requestion 20:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think that fire-parrot thing should go to BJAODN. I found it hilarious. --LuigiManiac 13:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cocktailteam

89.26.137.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding links to cocktailteam.net for some time. Today I stumbled over this edit, in which the editor repairs a link to cocktailteam.net, and disables two other links.

COIBot is watching this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Portuguese guy has been spamming his site nonstop for weeks under that IP and other ones. Despite having the link removed, he goes right back to it daily, someone needs to block him and/or blacklist his site from wikipedia altogether. 68.155.84.145 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

addconsults.com

Terrym2442 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding links to addconsults.com. Links seem mainly not directly related to the subject, certainly not to specific pages on the site about the subject. In the run I cleaned a number of linkfarms on sites the link was added to.

I added this rule early to cobot, but don't recall exactly why anymore. Now also monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But now I know, Terry Matlen is on the main page of the site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speakers.com / gtnspeakers.com

Though the pages do not look similar (except for the type of content), both urls look similar, and both are spammed by a common IP (64.50.133.66, registered to Greater Talent Network, cmp. gtnspeakers.com):

Editors are in the 68.48.0.0/15 (Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.) and 64.50.133.64/27 (GREATER TALENT NETWORK, INC.!!) range:

Coibot is watching and has parts blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Dennis Publishing WP:COI Spam

IP addresses 194.205.219.0 - 194.205.219.255 are registered to Dennis Publishing.

Domains spammed:

Spam sock accounts

Chrismarais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.117.228.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.45.132.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
194.205.219.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Ali_strachan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)<br --Hu12 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fed the whole set to COIBot (monitored and blacklisted). I must have caught the spam earlier, since bizarremag was already monitored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs)
That's not so bizarre. Everybody knows that a well fed bot is a happy bot! (: (Requestion 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I asked around and have just a reply. It appears one or more sites were moved to new backends and the links were broken. It was their updating the broken links which triggered the concerns about spam. Granted this was also COI but it appears to have largely been an attempt to try and fix a problem not outright spamming. I have passed on the link to the discussion so it shouldn't happen again. (Emperor 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I have now looked a bit around. The links were spammed by User:Ali Strachan on March 14, 2006. A long time ago, but still, spammed. Now, User:194.205.219.2 changed the links, and also added a couple (at least I saw one in a quick survey). So I believe that it was outright spamming (over a year ago). Hope this clarifies. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 76 links added today by User:194.205.219.2, are a small mix of revised urls and mass new additions, contributions from these two known sock accounts have been been removed per policies. Additionaly there may be further concern and a conflict of interest as evidenced by (Emperor user page statement ( "I help out with the web site of the Fortean Times magazine." ) and that a multitude of links still remaining on Wikipedia are/were inserted by this user. further reading, Fortean Times "link spam". --Hu12 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said I've never made a secret of my connections. The edits you refer to (themselves only a tiny fraction on my work here in various areas) were good faith edits adding information often in response to requests from other editors. Thanks to the link Hu12 provided I do see that the edits refered go agaist one of the external link guidelines. As it is my own fault and I don't want to make extra work for anyone else (and I wish to avoid removals of unnconnected and non-COI material [84]) I am happy to remove the offending links. As I mentioned above, due to the site being moved the links are currently broken and I'd have to do this anyway (especially as I can't fix the broken links due to COI). As far as I can see this seems like the best soluion all round. (Emperor 23:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
How can [85] possibly be "unnconnected and non-COI material?" You added it and you do work for them. What am I missing? I also see no reason for that remaining forteantimes.com external link at the bottom since the Fortean Times article covers that perfectly. (Requestion 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The edit also removed articles he wrote for Fate magazine, a link to the Anomalist Books site, a link to Paracast, the defaultsort tag as well as some general formatting. While I understand that the forteantimes links needed removing the other material removed was perfectly valid. Also as you mention, it leaves the Fortean Times link which should go but was added by the person who created the entry [86]. I hope that explains what I mean. (Emperor 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User: NonEuclidean, please check

NonEuclidean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Please review, to see if additional action is desirable.
Sole contributions so far are links to legal blogs, often marked as "minor" edits. Warning posted just now for two recent edits, and reversions by NonEuclidean, in which NonEuclidean overturned removal of the links, and in which NonEuclidean removed citations to the same object published in a well-known news source: Washington Post -- Yellowdesk 07:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert this (being aware of WP:3RR), the link gets changed from a reliable source into a blog (see WP:RS). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asian models and ethernet hubs (restored from the May archive)

Hi, I removed the same spam link from Ethernet hub twice and warned the most recent spammer, but could someone please look at the rest of these links? An odd collection I'd rather not tamper with. --CliffC 15:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The additions all appear spammy, I have removed a couple of them. Additions by:
All fed to the bots. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Active at this very moment: 60.54.36.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're baaaaaaaaakk... This seemed to be working very well, with immediate revisions of any addition of ae18.com. Can we turn it on again? I just reverted in White tiger. Thanks. --CliffC 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at what happened, this time he replaced an existing link rather than simply adding one, and got away with it. I'll restore the link he deleted. --CliffC 11:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mitpress.mit.edu - Bookuser

I just noticed Bookuser adding a "reference" with no indication that the reference was used in the article, and including a mitpress.mit.edu link with the reference. A quick look at Bookuser's other edits show that this is a repeated pattern.

In general, unless the article is about the book itself, I think such links are inappropriate per WP:EL.

Bookuser's preference for only adding mitpress books looks promotional or possibly a coi.

Other perspectives? --Ronz 19:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COIBot is monitoring this for the moment, lets see what comes out of that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bookuser responded to my warnings and is working to remove links [87]. --Ronz 15:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone checked the other 321 mitpress.mit.edu linksearch hits? That seems like a lot. Deja-eserver.org? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#eserver.org (Requestion 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I just took a look at a number of User:Bookuser's contribution diffs. This definitely is a case of reference and citation spamming. Unfortunately, refspam is becoming the latest spammer trick. Did you know that some editors think that WP:NOT#LINK doesn't apply to citations and that reference spam doesn't exist? Two rather long winded conversations about this are raging on over at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Intro_is_unclear_as_to_difference_between_external_links_and_reference.2Fcitation_links and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Shopping_Guide.3F. (Requestion 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There are several cases where these things come up, some filed in WP:COIN. It indeed is a problem, but it does not get addressed fully:

The common defense of users is generally 'this is a good link, it is not spam' .. while I do concur that the links are good, addition to multiple pages is (coi?)-spamming, being it external links or references, and it does not make a difference if people that are adding the links are working for industry, a web-service that makes its money by providing information on the web, or that they are working for a government or non-profit organisation (which do not directly make money from the links; though they may do that, indirectly). Maybe this should be addressed at a higher level? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The eserver.org spamming was an interesting case. I've looked at almost all the eserver.org links and here is my synopsis. Socks attributed to User:Geoffsauer added many generic links that had very little value to Wikipedia. The links were poor quality links, and even if a regular editor had added them they probably should of been deleted as junk. Several independent regular editors added what I consider to be good informational resource eserver.org links. These high quality links are to things like text transcipts and online books. So this is a prime example of why WP:COI says to avoid adding your own links. People are just poor judges of their own work. (Requestion 15:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've started a COI/N report. --Ronz 19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

biomedcode.com et al

I'll probably make a COI report given these center around two articles:

--Ronz 16:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitored on COIBot.
Blacklisted on COIBot. Note: 195.251.21.0/24 is BSRC-FLEMING - Biomedical Sciences Research Center "Al. Fleming" located in Greece. (212.251.111.0/24 is FORTHNET-NOC-ATH; a dialup pool in Greece). Please file a case on WP:COIN. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COIN created. --Ronz 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave 195.251.21.1 a final warning for his latest addition of a promotional link. --Ronz 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia administrators. I would like to provide more information regarding MUGEN NoE and BSRC Alexander Fleming.

MUGEN Network of Excellence The MUGEN network of Excellence aims to structure and shape a world-class framework of European scientific and technological excellence in the field of “murine models for immunological disease”, to advance understanding of the genetic basis of disease and to enhance innovation and translatability of research efforts. MUGEN’s specific mission is to bring together different expertise from academic and industrial laboratories in order to study human immunological disease by integrating the participant institutions’ strengths in immunological knowledge with new approaches in functional genomics. By removing barriers to progress and promoting the synergistic interaction of scientists from various disciplines integrated, MUGEN expects to bring Europe a competitive advantage in the development of new diagnostic and therapeutic tools.

Through its Joint Programme of Activities, MUGEN aims to: 1. Systematically study animal models for immune diseases and processes through the application of functional genomic platforms (transgenesis, targeted and random mutagenesis, expression profiling and bioinformatics). 2. Integrate the outstanding research experience and capacities of each network participant to allow the efficient application of post-genomic approaches to generate new knowledge in immunological diseases and processes. Such knowledge is expected to lead to novel diagnostic and therapeutic tools. 3. Ensure spreading of excellence, optimal use and dissemination of the knowledge generated through the network beyond the boundaries of MUGEN, by integrating competencies to train researchers, to encourage knowledge transfer, to address innovation related aspects of research and to raise the public awareness of scientific research issues. To achieve this goal, MUGEN is bringing together expertise from 14 leading research institutes, 5 major universities and 5 biotechnology companies from seven E.U. member states as well as Switzerland and the US. MUGEN will be co-funded by the EU with 11 M€ over a five year period (2005-2009). MUGEN participants will share information and technology platforms and will develop a coordinated agenda of scientific events in order to communicate their scientific achievements to a wider scientific audience as well as to the general public

BSRC Alexander Fleming The Biomedical Sciences Research Center "Alexander Fleming" is a governmental, non-profit institution with a history closely linked to the Greek Foundation for Basic Biological Research "Alexander Fleming". The Center started its research functions in 1998 and is today actively involved in research areas covering immunology, molecular biology and genetics and molecular oncology. BSRC Fleming has staffed its laboratories with leading researchers and has achieved international acclaim for its cutting-edge research in disease modeling via transgenesis, cellular immunology, transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression, inter- and intracellular signaling, functional genomics and stem cell biology. The Center's main research areas include: • Functional genetics and functional genomics • Molecular and cellular immunology • Animal models of human disease • Transgenesis, targeted gene knockout and high throughout mutagenesis • Transcriptional and post transcriptional mechanisms of gene regulation • Stem Cell differentiation


Please study the description carefully and ask for evaluation from a wikipedia user with strong academic background especially in biology. Thank you in advance. [user Afantitis]— Afantitis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Hu12, from a different point of view, a wikipedia user should contribute only to the articles he/she had an expertise. This is may be a way to increase the high standard of knowledge which wikipedia provides. We have not all wikipedia users expertise in every matter.Is it possible to have your feedback on this? Thank you in advance. Afantitis

airlinequality.com

LinkSearch for www.airlinequality.com - This same site last was discussed on these pages in August 06 - basically [www.airlinequality.com airlinequality.com] is a site by Skytrax giving reviews on airlines and airports. IMHO the links should be removed from all the articles (except for the main Skytrax page. I intend to do this is the next day or so. However I would like other editors opinions please? -- Rehnn83 Talk 14:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links are mainly spammed, and there are some similar sites:
There are cases where links are changed back and forth by different IPs etc(vliegervaringen <-> airlinequality.com - diff). I think they can go, per WP:EL, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and maybe WP:SOAPBOX. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure, COIBot is monitoring these links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll review and remove the links. -- Rehnn83 Talk 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removed all the inappropiate (spam) links for airlineequality.com - that's a lot of edits - I will look into vliegervaringen.com & flightopinions.com -- Rehnn83 Talk 10:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that WP:AIRLINE is involved, I would like to supply a second opinion but I can't since I don't know who added the airlinequality.com external links. Could you add some {{userlinks|}} for the accounts or IP's that added the links you deleted? This will make verification easier and it will build a stronger WP:SPAM case. (Requestion 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The only one I can find this quick is 83.118.174.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (some time ago), I recal there has been an earlier report on these links, and I also know that I encountered cases where one link was reverted in another (I have linked such a case above). --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dirk. The contributions by 83.118.174.202 look like a serious spamming. My rough guess is about 100 linkspam additions in the past 5 months. I saw a bunch of airlinequality.com links (UK) changed to vliegervaringen.com and flightopinions.com links (NL). The UK links being switched to NL links looks a lot like spammer-vs-spammer warfare. Any thoughts? (Requestion 23:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Should we also look at these sites?
--Dirk Beetstra T C 10:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into them - although there appears to be very few of the above on WP. -- Rehnn83 Talk 11:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference here is the old airlinequality.com spam report: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Aug#Customer_opinion_sites. (Requestion 22:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Cheers for Eagle's spamsearch (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/spamsearch/vliegervaringen.com): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#Vliegervaringencom / Flightopinions.com

Could I please request all here to continue the discussion about airlinequality.com (also known as Skytrax) on the WikiProject Airline discussion page here. Thanks. → AA (talk • contribs) — 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed editing lead of first page for brevity

Here's what I wrote (I like the first sentence better, in particular):

"As Wikipedia grows in popularity so does the potential for abuse. At one end of the spectrum are professional spammers seeking to drive traffic to commercial sites; at the other, private individuals seeking more visibility."

The change in the second (actually third, they've been merged) sentence is mainly due to the fact that webmasters are not the "least professional" form of spammer. I've seen The Game ("you/I just lost the game") spammers, people on "trick people into clicking a link" type games, and more. In such instances the overall website is using its users to do the dirty work of spamming, but the spammers are still individuals. I'm not adding this into the article because (a) I'm not a part of the project and therefore (b) my personal observations may be at odds with the goal of the group. That said, I think the main page is overlong in general. --Edwin Herdman 04:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tavakoli WP:COI citation and tavakolistructuredfinance.com Spam

Spam sock accounts

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

  • Tavakoli, Janet. "The Elusive Income of Synthetic Asset Backed Securities", Journal of Structured Finance, Winter 2006.
  • Tavakoli, Janet. "The Predators' Fall", GARP Risk Review (Journal of the Global Association of Risk Professionals), March/April 2007 Issue 35
  • Tavakoli, Janet. "CDOs: Caveat Emptor" GARP Risk Review (Journal of the Global Association of Risk Professionals), September/October 2005 Issue 26.
  • and other self promotional additions such as Janet Tavakoli...

--Hu12 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_May&oldid=1143856042"