Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Jun 1

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

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 4.0[edit]

Previous incidents
Sites spammed
Similar domains

"We know that you want to know exactly what you are going to get when you place an order"

  • already blacklisted
  • already blacklisted
  • already blacklisted
  • already blacklisted
  • already blacklisted
  • already blacklisted
  • already blacklisted
  • already blacklisted

"We know that people who love" [something] "always want the newest and hottest styles on the market"

  • already blacklisted
Spammers

 Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 08:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, surprise. Need to keep this around for a while. MER-C 03:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 03:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rbsat.com[edit]

Adsense pub-9099531162202788
Google Analytics UA-8603023-X

Previous incidents
Sites spammed
Related domains
  • parked domain
Spammers

MER-C 11:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated,  Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 06:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

flowtechinstruments.com[edit]

Related domains
Spammers

MER-C 10:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. MER-C 13:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 11:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sedo redirect chain spamming 3.0[edit]

Previous incidents
Other incidents involving sedo domains
Sites spammed
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to

end

  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end

  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com
  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end

  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com
  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com
Related domains
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end

  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end

  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end

  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end

  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end

  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end

  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end

  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end

  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com
  • redirects via frameset to mrgfu.com

end

  • redirects via frame to sedoparking.com

end

  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects via frameset to

end

  • redirects to
  • redirects to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • redirects to

end

Spammers

 Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 10:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. MER-C 06:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
112.200.44.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) felt it necessary to vandalize this report. MER-C 04:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

leaksallday.com[edit]

leaksallday.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.leaksallday.com

See also: WP:RS/N § leaksallday.com

Although I am already inclined to blacklist this without this discussion, since there has been some significant refspamming of leaksallday.com; see:

It is still used here and there as a source for more extended statements (though it is generally used to attribute the sentence 'the album leaked onto the internet on DD/MM/YYYY.(ref)'). Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Of the three remaining links, two were spammed: [1][2]. MER-C 09:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that was when I first thought to notice spamming of the link .. but in the meantime it went on. I have now removed all occurences. I'll proceed to blacklisting if it continues after these warnings. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 5.0[edit]

Similar domains

"Normaly (sic), after 2 days you can trace your package"

  • already blacklisted

"With any more questions please contact us free with below info"

"Use the Live Chat to discuss online with an customer service reqresentative (sic)"

"discount each piece once you pay by western union"

Spammers

 Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 08:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted cross-wiki spam[edit]

Spammers
  • Cross-wiki spammer, see [3]
  • Cross-wiki spammer, see [4]
  • Cross-wiki spammer, see [5]

How did this evade us for so long?  Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 12:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

francesouth.com[edit]

Related domains
Spammers

MER-C 11:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense pub-9706380018091033[edit]

Google Analytics UA-2434968-X

Previous incidents
Sites spammed
Related domains
  • Google Analytics UA-2637069-X
Spammers

Missed spammers:

This is blacklistable, waiting for COIBot first. MER-C 10:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 09:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. MER-C 04:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recycled. MER-C 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Areacode.org[edit]

Multiple IPs adding a handful each to what now totals 45 links to commercial site Areacode.org.  7  04:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Areacode.org
Spammers
  • Citation spammer, see [6]

In three days you'll be able to blacklist this. MER-C 05:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted. MER-C 08:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 6.0[edit]

Similar domains

"We want to thank you for shopping at" $DOMAIN "and want you to be completely satisfied with your purchase"

  • already blacklisted

"(818)921-3688"

Spammers

Here we go again.  Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 05:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Blue Software[edit]

Previous incidents
Spam pages
Sites spammed
Spammers

Long term abuse. MER-C 08:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 7.0[edit]

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Similar domains

"If your products are lost as the shipping company's fault on the road or before it was sent abroad"

"we stock all types of " [something] "at the most favorable prices"

"Low prices and big selection makes"

  • already blacklisted

"We are currently only an online store with office and warehouse in china"

"We will gladly accept return in brand new condition"

  • already blacklisted
  • already blacklisted
Spammers

 Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 09:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Want a discussion on a removal of an external link[edit]

(moved from Wikipedia talk:Spam) I added an external link to the Monty Hall Problem page that was subsequenctly removed by user:Rick Block. The argument was that the link was for the purpose of promoting my site. The apparent reason was that I have a mechanism for selling Java applets wherever they are included on a page. A Java applet is indeed included in the page a link to which I wanted to add to the Monty Hall Problem.

Neither the applet, nor the page have been written with the purpose of selling anything. I do place advertisement on my pages, though. Maintaining a site is an expensive enterprise. I need to recoup as much of the expenses as I can. However, as an argument, I am very selective with the ads. I do not allow expandable ads, or popups, or anything overly distractive.

Every web publisher wishes to promote his or her site, because the content is written to be read, not as an exercise in futility. It is hard for me to fathom why Rick considers my link as a site promotion whereas accepts the links to Wolfram and NY Times. True, they do not offer their applets for sale. As obviously, they are in the business of selling. What is the difference?

I think that my applet explains the situation with the Monty Hall Problem in the clearest way possible and deserves to be known better. I am certain that many of the wikipedia users will appreciate that page. I wish that the page was judged on its merits and not of a superficial suspicion that it was created for the sake of promotion.

Thank you for your attention, Alexander Bogomolny ([email protected] (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think that, since here you are admitting that you have inserted the link for promotional purposes, the reversion was indeed the right decision. Links to the NY Times website are not inserted by NY Times employees. That's the difference. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the difference, could you please check that link for its merits. I would absolutely depend on you for making that crucial decision: is that page of mine any worse than NY Times' and Wolfram's. Please add a link if you find its worthy - this is exactly what I wanted to happen. But please, do not do a promotion. This is for the record: I explicitly forbid you to promote that page of mine. Just add a link if you think that the page is on par with either of the mentioned two. Is that fair?

The place to discuss this is WP:ELN. Having "cut-the-knot" in a username and adding a link to a site with that name is probably not desirable, see WP:ORGNAME. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean to suggest that if I dress up as another user my editing would be less critique prone? Well, I appreciate that. I do have a backup email, but I would be ashamed to do that now. This is really a problem. I always thought of these external links as benefiting both your audience and my site, the latter as a side effect. I would not submit a link just for that cursed sake. But if I change the user name, this is how it will look like.
Bottom line; unlike that NY Times, your site is not notable. the issue is WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Had it been the reason for the link removal, I'd have been distraught, unhappy, but would not find sufficient grounds for protestation - I have probably already stole too much of your time. Now, that the annunciated reasons were different - and unjustified in my view - I think the fellow down there should either adopt your view point or put the link back in.

([email protected] (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No. It's clearly a conflict-of-interest (especially given the advertising on it). Editors who persist in attempting to spam their own sites to Wikipedia may find their site added to our local or global blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - what? Why do you jump from one regulation to another. I accept "not notable". What spam has to do with it? I accept possible COI and ask anyone willing to review the link and either add it or not, but on its merits. Black listing for what? For asking for a discussion?

Sh...t, what manner of conversation! I am truly ashamed for you. ([email protected] (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Alexander - As I tried to explain in the discussion on my talk page, it's not just selling, but the source (for the simulator on the Wolfram site - which seems to be the one the bothers you the most) is available as well. There are any number of well-intentioned folks who have added links to their own simulations of the Monty Hall problem. For a while it felt like I was removing one every few days. TWO is probably too many - especially given there is already a link to [7] (which has source code in a variety of languages for Monty Hall problem simulators). I referred you to WP:ELNO. Point #4 clearly applies. Points #1 and #11 may apply as well. In addition, I don't think you can reasonably disagree that Wolfram and the NY Times are (from Wikipedia's perspective) more reliable sources than any individual's personal site (even yours). I think you also need to admit that you do have at least the appearance of a conflict of interest here as well. Can we peer into your mind and see that you're adding this link only because you truly think it will benefit our readers (as opposed to trying to generate traffic to your site)? Even if this were absolutely true, can you not see that your judgment about this may be just slightly skewed? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

celebsexreview.com[edit]

Adsense pub-4334194551654188
Google Analytics UA-3609828-XX

Spammers

MER-C 11:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. MER-C 07:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last account just spammed again. Since the link doesn't appear at all useful would blacklisting be an option? ThemFromSpace 22:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. MER-C 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense pub-4445311716916413[edit]

Google Analytics UA-3858278-XX

Spammers

MER-C 10:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. MER-C 09:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to unrelated spam animation on health article[edit]

Hi,

I use Wikipedia very often,today I was reading an article about 'Bursitis' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bursitis and on it, there were links to other resources, as I was going through them i realised that there is a link on the main description of the article that plays a flash movie about piracy and completely unrelated to the article.

I didnt even have an account until now but the fact people missuse such a good site really dissapoints me so I decided to create one and report this.

I hope someone here can help with this.

Mafaldilla (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vishnupriya.in[edit]

Spammers
See also

 Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 07:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. MER-C 03:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discdish[edit]

User edited past final warning and continued to add refspam. 78.86.152.174 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

I indeffed Trenchant63, all editors have been warned (in the past) and tagged; Trenchant63 has two final warnings, maybe this block will give the message. Next WP:SPA that adds these links would put it up for a blacklisting request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quick-relief.com[edit]

Spammers

Scraper site. MER-C 07:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

classicalviolinvideos.com[edit]

Accounts

All recent. ThemFromSpace 00:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MER-C 12:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Requested blacklisting ThemFromSpace 01:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. MER-C 03:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

allrotour.ro[edit]

Spammers

 Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 02:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. MER-C 03:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ladys-calendar.com[edit]

Google Analytics UA-2851609

Spammers

MER-C 10:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense pub-2729107309384275[edit]

Related domains
  • is equivalent to
  • redirects to the unrelated allmanbrothersband.com
  • is equivalent to
  • parked domain
  • is equivalent to
  • redirects via frameset to
  • parked domain

Plus more at ownerfinanciers.com

Spammers

That's new. MER-C 13:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cavalierandchevetteclub.co.uk[edit]

Spammers

MER-C 10:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

realbuzz.com[edit]

Adsense pub-5505630038923151
Google Analytics UA-2170956

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Spammers

MER-C 10:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COIBot down[edit]

Until further notice, COIBot and the linkwatchers are down due to power problems on the box they are running on. I hope they will be back soon (as this inevitably also gives a gap in the database ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lyricsmachine.com[edit]

Spammers

MER-C 11:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generic online pharmacy spam 1.0[edit]

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Similar domains

"All the products we distribute comply with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of India 1940"

"Each of these plants are Indian FDA approved and are internationally certified"

Spammers

Like Chinese knockoff spam, there's no reason why we should tolerate this.  Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ownbrandshop.com[edit]

Spammers

Surprisingly not a Chinese knockoff site. Same server as the already blacklisted professays.com, though. MER-C 11:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. I was mistaken, so  Defer to Global blacklist. MER-C 06:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ThemFromSpace 18:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 7.1[edit]

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Similar domains

"Cooperated with professional manufactures for long term"

  • already blacklisted

"guarantees to provide the fastest delivery and the best sale and after-sale service"

"You can't distinguish real from replica by our excellent skill!"

"Industrial methods let us make luxury products for the entire world"

"Our store is partnering with esteemed distributors and trading facilitators across the globe to deliver best quality goods with speed and precision"

"If you have any problem with our replica"

"you will satisfied with buying the replicas from our website"

  • already blacklisted

"Often, we get our hands on new items even before they are released to the public"
block already blacklisted

end block

"Our factory uses the latest technology and state of the art machinery in Solid 925 Sterling Silver manufacturing"

Spammers

Nice to see these domains getting harder to find. Template:Defermetablack MER-C 09:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thecrane.tv[edit]

Google Analytics UA-10322184

Spammers

Sockpuppetry + block evasion => Template:Deferblack. Simple. MER-C 10:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

humphreys.co.uk[edit]

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Spammers

Asbestos lawyer spam. MER-C 10:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

touchwindow.it[edit]

Google Analytics UA-1392655-1

Spammers

MER-C 11:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myperfumesonline.com[edit]

Link
Spammers

These users have been adding the link to several different articles, all to advertise this address. The worst example was Calvin Klein diff. I have removed all instances of the link now but probably best to see if it reappears. Regards, Woody (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ToolBay Direct spam on Wikipedia[edit]

Google Analytics UA-1031892

Sites spammed
Related domains
Spammers

MER-C 09:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sport live streams[edit]

User adds one link to one article. The link is to a "live stream" which offers a live video of some current sports event. In five cases that I checked, the domain name is registered via godaddy to the same person (ayse fatma, example godaddy whois). This is not a serious problem, but I am mentioning it in case there is something I'm missing (I have no idea what happens if you try to view the video). Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

studenthighlife.com[edit]

Adsense pub-6182972767522967
Google Analytics UA-12672571

Related domains
Spammers

Template:Deferblack MER-C 10:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

121.246.74.94 spam[edit]

  • redirects to
Spammers

This seems a shade familiar. MER-C 10:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

designcareer.in[edit]

Spammers

MER-C 11:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

abjade.com[edit]

Spammers
Persistent spamming. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jandrewc/C. Arden Pope[edit]

Template:User summary/light appears to be linkspamming links to C. Arden Pope (and might be the same person), see [8] -- at least a few of the articles involved are relatively inappropriate inclusions as near as I can tell, but perhaps I'm overreacting? I'd like another pair of eyes here. Joe Decker (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC) (elaborated Joe Decker (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

fret12.com[edit]

Google Analytics UA-1349391-53

Spammers
  • Citation spammer, see [9]

MER-C 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zola Enterprises spam on Wikipedia[edit]

Adsense pub-3930390512769699

Sites spammed
  • parked domain
Related domains
Spammers
Registrant

Zola Enterprises
666 Paint Street
Denton, TX 64012
United States

MER-C 09:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revertlisted. MER-C 12:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted British commercial spam[edit]

Spammers

MER-C 10:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. MER-C 10:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly essay mill spam[edit]

Spam pages
Sites spammed

Block Google Analytics UA-2996025

end block

  • already blacklisted
Spammers
  • Cross-wiki spammer, see [11]
  • Cross-wiki spammer, see [12]
  • Cross-wiki spammer, see [13]
  • Cross-wiki spammer, see [14]
  • Cross-wiki spammer, see [15]

Template:Defermetablack MER-C 10:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vyshyvanka.com[edit]

Google Analytics UA-1277922-1

Spammers

Already revertlisted. MER-C 12:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

viagrainindia.com[edit]

[snip per below]

I entered links to some of the sites, but I am new to all this. I was under the assumption that non commercial sites will not get flagged down. I accept it was a grave error on my part and I am genuinely sorry. I request the administrators to kindly remove my links from this wiki spam section. Please know that I will never ever repeat this mistake again. I have learnt my lesson. Kindly give me a reprieve. Please please do remove my links from the spam page. Praying for the best.

Thanks to Beetstra for guiding me.

Thanks again

Warm Regards Vij

Vijayjoys (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a reasonable request. I have many of the relevant articles watchlisted, and others here also have a good memory, so perhaps we can just keep a lookout for any further link insertion on the condition that Vijayjoys undertakes not to add any links again. We can probably remove the linksummaries without losing too much information. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, spammers occasionally trot out similar pleas in order to continue link addition; see [16] then [17] and a year later [18] for an example. Therefore, there is a need to keep records of your link additions, especially since you have been blocked for them.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. As such, I will blank the above report except for this discussion. However, to keep you accountable to your promise, I will enable automated reversion for these domains. I must document the reason for this addition, this will serve our record keeping purposes. The bot will notify us if you engage in any further linking of these domains occurs; in this case your domains will be blacklisted. MER-C 08:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MER-C, I would consider marking this stale (it will go into the archives as such), with the strong warning that if it continues blacklisting will be immediately (and XLinkBot / the linkwatchers / User:COIBot will help us with the detection). Please do not remove any LinkSummary templates from discussions, they are a way to find relevant information back (see e.g. 'tracked' in the template). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I didn't expect things to happen so fast. I really appreciate this fast and timely action. I am relieved to see my website removed from the wiki spam section. Thanks again.

Vijayjoys (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

videosalbum.com[edit]

Spammers

Revertlisted. MER-C 05:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued. MER-C 09:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

chinatraveldiscovery.com[edit]

Google Analytics UA-10136588-1

Spammers

MER-C 09:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ben-engineering.com[edit]

Google Analytics UA-4703774-1

Spammers

Template:Deferblack MER-C 10:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spammed again; affirm need to block this domain. ✤ JonHarder talk 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, from new IP. ✤ JonHarder talk 10:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MaxwellIsYumYum / yougetitfree.webs.com[edit]

AlphathonTM (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IP summary
MER-C 08:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patch.com[edit]

Template:LinkSummary

Report[edit]

I recently came across an IP adding a lot of links to this site (see my removals here and here). You can see the IP's contributions here. It appears these links are being spammed in preparation for a site launch in a couple of weeks. The links seems to take the form NameOfTown.patch.com. DirkBeetstra helpfully pointed me here, so what should my next steps be? Thanks in advance. TNXMan 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Harrisju posting links to billboard.com[edit]

Template:User summary/light is only posting links to billboard.com for musical artists. Many of these edits have been made by now. I don't see how this could be a regular editor, since all their edits (after the first few) have been exactly the same thing, but I've posted a level 1 warning in the spirit of good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

multiple registered users but always (and only) the same contribute: external links to mnn.com[edit]

Template:LinkSummary multiple registered users who contribute only with external links to mnn.com --Riccardo.fabris (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I correct myself, there are just some contributors who are doing this on regular basis: Jessicarleader and Steppppo (the second add other domains, but only external links too...). BTW I'm not a skilled user but Mother Nature Network is the only contrib of another registered user, sounds curious at least --Riccardo.fabris (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City Lights spam?[edit]

This is the first time I've encountered something like this and I don't know if this is right place to report this -- it's sort of spam, sort of WP:COI.

About a week ago I noticed the account User:JJHamlin was adding a bunch of external links to the web site of City Lights Books / Publishers. All of this user's edits were spam, but after two warnings this user stopped and never returned.

However, today, June 16, several new accounts suddenly appeared, and each of these accounts edits a few author's articles to add mention of books published by City Lights or to add an ISBN number to an existing City Lights book external reference. After one stops, the next begins. Most of the new edits aren't adding links to City Light's web site, just adding ISBN numbers or additional books. I suspect someone at City Lights has created a bunch of accounts to disguise their conflict of interest, but I've never dealt with this kind thing before, so I'm not quite sure how to proceed. My list of accounts above may be incomplete.

I don't know if it is relevant, but more than a year ago most of these book listings that are now being edited were added by User:64.162.60.178, who also created the City Lights ‎Bookstore page. Due to the age, this IP address may, or may not, be related to the above accounts.

Any recommendations? Should I ignore this? —RP88 (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was good of you to bring this up for monitoring. Thank you. --Ckatzchatspy 23:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I smell socks. (Updated COIBot report incoming.) MER-C 02:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

roomster.com[edit]

Google Analytics UA-283826-1

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Spammers

MER-C 10:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. MER-C 09:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress Technologies still spamming Wikipedia[edit]

Previous incidents
Spam pages
Sites spammed

Was once on the Meta blacklist.

Spammers
  • Citation spammer, see [19]
  • Citation spammer, see [20]
  • Citation spammer, see [21]

Sigh. MER-C 03:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick review of this. I see quite massive spamming, cross wiki, in the COIBot report that was there, and when I now look at it, I see still quite some accounts which have preference. Looking at the new report, I see hardly any 'normal' additions by established editors (many of the established editors were merely reverting); some other edits are there, and even there I am not sure why this is an external link in some cases, but there are cases where it is a reference. In short, I would suggest to Template:Defermetablack (again), this is something that we have a whitelist for. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I poked at this a bit more and I can't help notice that some of the spammers have an overlap with Citibank India (a spam page, by the way). Additional spammers for that domain:

Looks like some black hat SEO is going on here. MER-C 09:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Djhomeworks spam[edit]

Related domains
Spammers

MER-C 09:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:GavMag spam[edit]

Spammers

MER-C 10:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 9.0[edit]

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Related domains

"If there is quality problem with the" "replica items you received, you may return it for exchange/refund"

"please enter this tracking number at relevant site below"

  • already blacklisted

"we provide free shipping for the orders pay via the western union"

"online shop, you can make your own wholesale order, or we can do dropship for you"

Spammers

MER-C 10:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Defermetablack MER-C 06:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

durgapurcity.co.in[edit]

Previous incidents
Sites spammed
Spammers

Template:Deferblack MER-C 02:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recycled. MER-C 02:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cellcorner.com[edit]

links
accounts

Repeated additions of commercial link onto multiple cell-phone articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

instantmedicalcare.com[edit]

Previous incidents
Sites spammed
Spammers

Template:Deferblack MER-C 10:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Jun_1&oldid=1137364270"