Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Hu12 (talk | contribs)
91,877 edits
Line 662: Line 662:
*Main Article [[Monkey magazine]]
*Main Article [[Monkey magazine]]
**{{spamlink|monkeymag.co.uk}}
**{{spamlink|monkeymag.co.uk}}
*http://spam.viz.co.uk
*Main Article [[Viz (comic)]]
**{{spamlink|viz.co.uk}}
*http://spam.blender.com
*Main Article [[Blender (magazine)]]
**{{spamlink|blender.com}}


Article [[Dennis Media Group]] <br>
Article [[Dennis Media Group]] <br>

Revision as of 05:39, 12 November 2007


Shortcut


Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

ifood.tv

I've noticed links to ifood.tv popping up here and there. In most cases, by spot checking, I found the links added by IP users mapping to India. (Look for 122. IPs). I'm not entirely convinced that this is spam ... well ... it's spam, but it's borderline useful content as opposed to merely being a link aggregator or trying to push a commercial product. Maybe I'll be more dogmatic tomorrow, but I thought I would post it here first to see if anyone has a strong opinion one way or the other on removing the links. --B 02:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's monitor how it gets used. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.scribd.com

scribd.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

Spammers

Yet another user-created content site much like associatedcontent.com. MER-C 09:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I out of line if I would suggest that user-created content sites should be blacklisted on sight? They fail almost everything here (WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:EL, often WP:COI), and are very spam-sensitive (and for the smarter spammer it takes us time before we actually notice). If specific documents are of interest, they can be whitelisted afterwards? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given this I don't see the need to blacklist in this case. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am more concerned with the type of site, not that it actually gets spammed at the very moment. The pages contain much self-published material/original research. And we quite often see people link to their own pages on wikipedia. Sometimes they even get plainly spammed. Generally, these sites should not be here at all. Except for some single exceptions for which the spam-whitelist is an option. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.illestlyrics.com

illestlyrics.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

Spammers

MER-C 09:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comedybox.tv

Users:

Now blacklisted on shadowbot, though I tend to local blacklisting. User:Comedybox got a warning and a block early on, looks to me like he is now editing using his IP. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wiredforbooks.org

Users:

Not sure, seems to be long missed (seen the many edits by some of these WP:SPA's). Maybe it is a good link, but I am afraid that this has to be cleaned. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier reported by Katr67; Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Oct_2#http:.2F.2Fspam.wiredforbooks.org. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, earlier, they were simply changing the wording of the existing links (probably added in good faith by other users), but it appears that now they are actively spamming the links as well. Katr67 16:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, the 132.235 IPs originate from the same place as Wired for Books--Ohio University. Katr67 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I blocked an IP after a spam1 and a message to join the discussion here (though the editor persisted in adding more). I would like to suggest to run AWB on the list of pages these editors (or maybe only one) have been hitting and convert them into a (for now disabled) template. Someone know a suitable wikiproject to bring up the rest of the issue? In that time we can (working together with the wikiproject) decide what to do. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the template {{WiredForBooks}}, and will start on cleaning the 465 pages in my sandbox here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a problem with these external links. wiredforbooks appears to be a university-based non-profit with an archive of author interviews. It seems like just the thing to put in external links for a notable author. If there is any change necessary, it might be to eliminate links to their home page, if there are any, rather than to their WP article, but the link directly to the archived interviews seems like a good thing. BTW, I had never seen their site before--I just saw this because I was watching one of the articles you edited.--Hjal 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, this is a case of heavy spamming (under wikipedia definition). Massive violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:EL (in row, the 5 accounts only add links to one site, quite singular in point of view; we are not a linkfarm (as some pages contain quite some links already ); the accounts mainly add external links; they seem quite involved in the link (especially the IPs); and I have encountered in my latest work quite some pages where the links are not appropriate (on the page of a book, a link with 'an interview with the editor of the book' is certainly 'links to avoid; example). I will strongly suggest that the link-additions in this way stop, and that these editors contact appropriate wikiprojects or start discussing on talkpages (which would also have attracted this attention). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am currently only changing the links these accounts have added into a template which can be disabled and removed, but that is after it is decided that it should be done. The links may indeed be useful, BUT I do believe that they serve better as references, we are, after all, an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to this issue, and don't have the expertise or time to really dig in. I want to point out, though, that separate from the origin of the links, some of them may be perfectly legitimate. In other words, the behavior of propagating links may be a violation of policy, but some of the links may still constitute a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. The only one I'm aware of is the link at Katherine Dunn. This is an extensive interview with an important literary figure, that may be a great help in expanding that stub. Whatever the outcome of this debate, I hope that this particular interview will remain linked from this particular article. -Pete 21:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem if established editors endorse certain links. There have already been quite some cases where removals of links have been reversed. For now, I am putting them in a template. Maybe a wikiproject (question is which) can ge through the transclusions later and check appropriateness? --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't chime in earlier. As one of the suspected spammers, allow me to explain. Wired for Books is indeed a non-profit project. I work for the project under Federal Work Study, and I was asked to update the links (I don't know when the links were originally added or by whom; I only added a small minority of them) to ensure (1) interviews are linked to on appropriate articles, (2) links are consistently worded, and (3) Don Swaim is credited and his article linked to. I believe the vast majority, if not all, of the links are appropriately placed, and I think, for credibility purposes, altering the wording to include links to the Wikipedia articles of Don Swaim and Wired for Books is also appropriate. I'll certainly discontinue and inform the head of Wired for Books if it is decided that the links are inappropriate. I'll review the policies in the mean time regarding exactly what should or should not be linked to, but as far as single-purpose accounts go, I don't believe mine falls into the illegitimate category. The information I link to does not push a single point-of-view when taken as a whole. I'll continue to participate in this discussion as desired, and I will cease editing the links until this is resolved. --Michael Blohm 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michael for your post. Let me clarify, the links are quite often appropriate (and thats why I did not just remove them), but the way they have been added is a problem. As far as I can see is about 90% of the links added/changed by these 5 accounts. Often only as external links (I think on the 300 pages I have seen only 3 or 4 use the link as a reference). At least the three IP's have a conflict of interest, and I think it is better that all these people contact an appropriate wikiproject before continuing. About the being non-commercial, that does not matter at all here, it is the way links are added. Often commercial links are even more appropriate than non-commercial.
About the appropriateness. I have indeed seen many links which are certainly appropriate (but sometimes there are already a lot of links on the pages, see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, we are not a linkfarm). But I have also encountered many links where I think they are not appropriate. One example I gave above, on the page John Steinbeck. There is a link to an interview there "1989 Audio Interview with Elaine Steinbeck talking to Don Swaim about John Steinbeck, RealAudio at Wired for Books." I would call at least this link excessive (not directly linked, and seen there are already quite some links there).
I started updating the links into an own template. I indeed did not want to clean as some do add to pages (though sometimes they could also be used as references, as to add information to the page).
May I ask you to (help me) put the links into the template as defined above ({{WiredForBooks}}; to get all into a standard format), and to assess where the links may be excessive, or where they could be used better as references (you can use this list: special:whatlinkshere/Template:WiredForBooks. I also would urge the other people who are mentioned above to join that operation (and at least stop adding links only). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have indef blocked Bono06. I have left several warnings, and left twice an invitation to join the discussion here (the second time together with a {{uw-spam4im}}), but to no avail. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed the head the project about the situation, instructing him to tell anyone else who is contributing here to discontinue. From here on out, it should be just you and I. I will help as you ask. Is it fair to say that any links that do not fit the template (i.e., the interviewee is not the subject of the article) should merely be deleted? I will most likely begin work this weekend. Thank you for your civility. --Michael Blohm 05:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this a couple of times before, and it's got me stumped. In some see also pages like this one: Special:Whatlinkshere/Donorschoose.org there is a link to a WikiProject Spam linksearch page (In this case Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/amazon.com). But the page itself seems to be blank. Any ideas what's happening? -- SiobhanHansa 19:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bestmusic.ro (crosspost)

(crossposting from a whitelisting request to get the links into coibot and the links properly logged)

www.bestmusic.ro

I`ve posted some informations about different bands(concerts in different cities). See Deep Purple, Pink Martini. Anyway, those dates (people attended at the concert, date, lcoation) were taken from this site: bestmusic.ro. I`ve use (as I was supposed to do) notes to indicate my source by posting the link in the note section. Also there are some interviews (video or audio) usefull for those who are looking new informations about their favourite artists. here are some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M._Lauderdale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Martini

I`ve noticed that this site: bestmusic.ro was blacklisted after I`ve tried to post some information about the band Outlandish and its concert in Bucharest. Check out this link, pls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlandish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.88.148.1 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You (and some editors with a clear conflict of interest) were spamming this particular link (and, seen your edit history, another link as well), and I strongly suspect that you have a conflict of interest as well (your IP is close to the IP of the site). See the COIBot reports in these two link-templates:
The site may be of interest, but it was only spammed to this wikipedia, and we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm (see also our external link guideline). You are still free to add content, though!
Hence:  Not done
Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Blacklisted locally.[1]
Background information
Domains
Accounts
--A. B. (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Related domains missed earlier (Renalo Investments)


Possibly related domains
  • Active Soft:
  • IP: 194.88.148.1
  • IP: 194.88.148.11
  • IP: 194.88.148.12
  • IP: 194.88.148.11
  • Netbridge:
  • IP: 194.88.148.13
  • IP: 217.156.103.22
  • IP: 194.88.148.14
  • IP: 194.88.148.14
  • IP: 194.88.148.13
I recommend we have bots monitor the addition of links to these related domains. It's not clear they are all spam, so I am reluctant to recommend blacklisting.
--A. B. (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

--Dirk Beetstra T C 20:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.sewing.com

sewing.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 pub-8789618110439989 (though no ads currently on site).

-- SiobhanHansa 20:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's back

It appeared this particular IP editor never left in the first place.

Previous incidents
Sites spammed

http://spam.electionspeak.com

http://spam.greatdad.com

Spammers

MER-C 11:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP should be blocked --Herby talk thyme 11:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree...now blocked. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - thanks, fast work --Herby talk thyme 13:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various splogs

Sites spammed

http://spam.windowsmediaplayer.shoutpost.com

http://spam.xanga.com/microsoftofficesupport

http://spam.windowsoperatingsystem.wordpress.com

http://spam.bloglines.com/blog/OutlookSupport

http://spam.xanga.com/emailsupport

http://spam.multifunctional_printers.rediffblogs.com

http://spam.technicalsupport4u.wordpress.com

http://spam.windowvista.rediffblogs.com

http://spam.virusandspyware.livejournal.com

http://spam.virusprotection.shoutpost.com

Spammers

MER-C 11:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this article was beginning to accumulate a lot of commercial "info" links (advertising-heavy or immigration lawyer links). Though nearly all were commercial in some way, I tried to prune them down, leaving a few that seemed to be the most comprehensive (though those were arguably in violation of WP:EL as well. Another editor disagrees with their removal. Here's a diff showing the links I've removed. Any input would be appreciated. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Lets not overreact. "...accumulating a lot of commercial 'info' links"? These links were there since Febraury 2007. Is 8 a lot? Only 1 link is commercial (and yes, it is a lawyer firm, discussing the topic of the article instead of selling their services). None of the links is advertising-heavy. Absolutely no grounds to discuss it here: not even a molecule of spam in the article or external links. Violation of WP:EL? Even if some links qualify as purely commercial or "with heavy advertisement" (for some editors), link usage will not "violate" the policy per se as the policy is not set in stone. Policy should be applied with common sense which I am advocating here.
As a contributing editor I have personally reviewed each website and found them all extremely useful in further expanding article's topic. Reasonable number of external links that are comprehensive, legit, known, reputable and recognized by the immigration community is absolutely necessary to accompany this article. Yes, Wikipedia is not a link directory but again, we are talking about only 8 links, not a hundred or a thousand. Otherwise, lets ban all external links at once. Wikipedia is not a paper book and it is the 21st century. Article HAS to have external website links.
This all is very subjective: advertising-heavy or not, commercial info or not, do we leave 2 links or 8 - so lets have editors familiar with the subject of this article make this judgement call. Maksdo 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User talk:Ohnoitsjamie's link removals. US immigration is one of those topics where it is easy to find advice on the web. A Google for 'US immigration' gets 90 million hits. Consider the six particular links whose fate is being discussed here. None of the six is mentioned in the article, and it's unclear why they should be preferred above the other 90 million Google hits by giving them inclusion in Wikipedia. Adding referenced information is a whole other question, and it is conceivable that some important fact (not noted elsewhere) could be attested by one of those links. If that happened, then including that link as a reference might be justified. EdJohnston 19:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in support of link removal. Not so for the sake of being commercial, but because they don't seem to offer any extra information that wouldn't have already be covered, whether it is covered within the article itself, or within government sites or within remaining links. Why confuse readers with multitudes of links offering same type of information. It seems more logical to offer one or two links to website that cover the topic thoroughly. Let's keep the confusion to minimum. MarkMarek 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, each of these links DOES add something extra that's not covered within the article. I guess, one has to be familiar with the topic to make this judgement. Why these sites over other 90 million? Same answer: you just have to know this immigration topic to make this call. As far as confusion, it comes from the government websites and documents. The sole purpose of these links was to further expand the topic and decipher all mumble-jumble thrown out on .gov. If encyclopedia isn't capable to (isn't supposed to) provide all the details it ought to give the readers some "further reading" choices. Maksdo 20:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not have a look, but forget the 'commercial' argument. Often, links to established, commercial sites are better than to anything else (sites of established companies and peer-reviewed sites at least make sure that the information is correct). If I read the above discussions, then this cries out for a (couple of) linkfarm links ({{dmoz}}, e.g.), in stead of some selection of links ('random', if there are 90 million to choose from). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, while I tend to agree with the assessment that these links are not particularly appropriate for the article, I'm a little concerned that the matter is being brought to editors' attention here rather than at the external links guidelines, WikiProject External links or better yet, a subject area wikiproject (Wikipedia:WikiProject United States?). I don't see anything that indicates the addition of the links was spamming. -- SiobhanHansa 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least something we would agree on: it is not a spam. I wasn't quite sure what prompted OhNoitsJamie to start discussion here. I tried to ask him but... This is what I referred to as an "overreaction". As I noted earlier: "Absolutely no grounds to discuss it here: not even a molecule of spam in the article or external links". Maksdo 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you call it, the consensus so far is that the article does not need those links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus, right... Barely scratching surface of the subject - that's what it is. Maksdo 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add more content to the article if you feel it's lacking. It doesn't need more links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.clinicalguard.com

Accounts

64.62.138.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.32.67.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
129.78.64.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
122.104.223.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
131.96.253.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.belfercenter.org

Accounts

Etip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.24.19.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
128.103.189.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Woodemil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 05:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.alavibohra.org

alavibohra.org: 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

Spammers

MER-C 09:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User indefblocked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

buergervereinigung-landsberg.de

Persistent editor, first with an account on de (where COIBot picked him up; de:user:Bürgervereinigung). Now here as a number of IPs. Link may be of interest on German wiki, but is only adding external links on wikis.

Users:

Now blacklisted on shadowbot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.allannoble.net and http://spam.internationalrelationstheory.googlepages.com

Adsense pub-0158954817698551

Accounts

144.136.161.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
58.174.250.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 16:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Opinions on This One - Help!

Possible Spammer

User 201.204.15.30 posted external links to a number of articles on anatomy of female body. The link seems to have related information (even though not really much outside of the scope of wiki articles). I would leave the links untouched, if it wasn't all this user have contributed. Every single contribution from this user was an external link to illustratedvagina.com - what is the right thing to do in such instances?

MarkMarek 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The manner of addition does look spammish, but they also look like potentially excellent links. When I come across a link I think may be useful but seems to have been spammed I normally move it to the talk page and ask for input. If it's an article I work on a lot and I really like the content I might leave it on the article and still ask for other opinions on the talk page - other editors may know of a better page that hasn't been spammed. -- SiobhanHansa 12:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does bug me when the only contribution is links, however valid they may be. Something that says "We welcome actual content rather than merely external links however relevant they maybe" might be worth a try? --Herby talk thyme 13:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.tauac.org

Accounts

Carninia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89.138.234.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
89.139.51.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
217.132.9.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
89.138.10.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
217.132.79.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
65.94.129.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 23:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


becomingapickupartist.com

This spammer's previous domains, bapua.com and becomingapua.com were blacklisted the other day on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It looks like he registered a new domain name, which redirects to becomingapua.com, to keep external link spamming! The spam has primarily been on The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, but there have been about a dozen articles spammed previously. I'd appreciate it if some other admins could watchlist this article and revert/block/and or blacklist if warranted, as I don't have alot of time to keep up with this vandalism. dissolvetalk 08:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All three websites resolve to IP 66.11.114.182. (keep an eye on special:linksearch/66.11.114.182). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COIBot is now watching that IP, if they persist we can blacklist it on AntiSpamBot, but that may also depend on collateral damage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still being added ([3]). Has a request gone in to have it locally blacklisted? I couldn't see one. -- SiobhanHansa 17:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I also blacklisted the IP on User:AntiSpamBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove my website from Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports

I want all mention of my website, Zeprock.com, deleted from your Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports found at this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/zeprock.com

Zeprock 16:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Mark[reply]

The edits would still be in the databases (in the edit histories of the pages e.g.). The page is bot-created, and would be recreated when a user would insert the link again. I am sorry, deletion would not help much. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts

Junger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.108.195.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.4.179.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks spammy but most of it relates to last year? --Herby talk thyme 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long term Spamming of vbs.tv

Adrticle Vbs.tv

Accounts

Cazzer t (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
VBS.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Gabrielleshaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vicklane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Vicebs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Stickitminister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Calibrated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Aslan2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
99.233.110.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
66.17.190.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
132.170.34.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
74.99.254.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.236.188.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
black listing.--Hu12 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other related

Article Vice (magazine)

Accounts

Dgbarnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Myshkin66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 23:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.pokerplayermagazine.co.uk

See also → Dennis Publishing COI Spam (may)
See also → Magazine spam (Oct)
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)
--Hu12 07:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also →Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PokerPlayer magazine --Hu12 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given this spammer's history, this should be BL'ed. MER-C 08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. However due to the months of my involvmet tracking this publishers spam, another admin may want to handle the Blacklisting. --Hu12 08:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with blacklisting - if no one does it before the 14th.... :) --Herby talk thyme 08:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.herbivoracious.com

herbivoracious.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

Spammers

MER-C 08:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.wikitude.org

Accounts

Joos23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
86.33.242.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense Spamming

Adsense pub-4197451280949420

http://spam.wm6software.net
http://spam.eha2.com
http://spam.hookahguides.com
http://spam.wholesalenikes.net
Accounts

24.14.105.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.bigasspornstars.com

Accounts

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 20:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long term spam abuse

See also → WP:COI spam.kqed.org (Jul)
See also → spam.kqed.org (Sep)
Articles

Note:This do not include personality articles
KQED
Forum (KQED)
Pacific Time (radio show)

Accounts

Sparkweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Craigrosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
65.168.148.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) registered to KQED Public Radio
65.91.82.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) registered to KQED Public Radio
Charliequest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.198.67.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)Comcast BAYAREA-19
Bookfanjen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

279 edits within KQED's IP ranges (65.91.82.32-63 / 65.168.148.32-63)[4] and 64 sock account WP:COI edits to Wikipedia.--Hu12 23:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent spam by or for Chris Bosse

Articles

Accounts/addresses

The accounts marked (c) received a user warning. The account marked (t) posted the message User talk:SebastianHelm#Beijing National Aquatics Centre on my page as IP, but signed as "shuilifang". In addition, there are pertinent discussions on

Disclaimer: It is possible that have made a mistake at some time during the process; not all of the text that I deleted is currently on chrisbosse.com. I don't know if that website has changed since then or if it was my mistake. I apparently did make a mistake when I pasted the wrong URL in the edit summary of 01:10, October 16.

I have not added links to this discussion on the user pages since the inserter(s) use a different account each time. Maybe we should add such links on the article talk pages instead? — Sebastian 05:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sites spammed

http://spam.chrisbosse.com

http://spam.chrisbosse.de

The vanity page seems out of the range of deletion. MER-C 05:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.safecarecampaign.org

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Spammers

MER-C 12:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity, Inc.

Articles

Note:created by the founder, and placed as a sub page of the Objectivity disambiguation page
Objectivity/DB see also →Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Objectivity/DB
Note:created by the webmaster for Objectivity, inc (deleted)
Objectivity (software)

Accounts

Lguzenda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) founding members of Objectivity, Inc [5]
Kingsrealm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) webmaster for Objectivity [6]
LGuzenda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
208.57.179.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seek guidance on Find-a-grave.

Background: A major project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, is linked directly from the Wikipedia:Community Portal. It has a subproject, Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people. This sub-project aims to make sure that we have an article for every notable person in the Find-a-Grave database. As a side-effect, the subproject page also reccommends that we add a link to find-a-grave from each of these Wikipedia articles. We are even encouraged to use a template: template:Find A Grave.

I personally find these links useful, but Find-a-grave is right next to being "too commercial" for the WP:SPAM rules. I work a lot on fixing DABs and adding Project Gutenberg Author links. As part of this, I often add a find-a-grave link.

Question: Is Wikiproject Spam OK with all of this? I don't want to add the links if they are going to be removed. So far, I have not seen any such removal, but I'm not watching all of these pages and I might not notice. If the links are objectionable, the Spam project should work with the find-a-grave project. If the links are not objectionable, may I please add a statement to that effect to the find-a-grave project page? If the spam project has a list of "approved" projects, just point me to it. Note that I have no connection with find-a-grave or with the find-a-grave wikiproject. Thanks.

-Arch dude 22:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would forsee some controversy in this. The plus would be that there is a WikiProject involved for some oversight. The minus could be WP:NOT. Some may feel linking to every page at Find-a-grave more a benifit to Find-a-grave than Wikipedia. I for one am interested to hear dialogue from others here who might be able to add more guidance. --Hu12 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Find a Grave project is basically a spam project. There is no other way to put it since we aren't here to make articles based on what some other website does. We are here to make bios of notable people who deserve articles, and NOT make articles for people who don't qualify, regardless of whether they are listed on some commercial site. Find a Grave spam is some of the worst of the encylopedia. Sometimes links to the site will be approriate, but often will not. It is certainly NOT okay to say such links are in general encouraged. 2005 00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm adamantly against linkspam, I've personally added a link to Find-A-Grave here and there using the template. I think it's an OK resource for the history-related articles I work on, especially if there are images, though I wouldn't trust it as a reference since there's no oversight as to what biographical info gets added by the users there. I'm not too familiar with the Find-A-Grave project, but I'm hoping that their identifying possible candidates for having articles is driven by the need to improve coverage of historic people, and not by a need to drive traffic to the Find-A-Grave site. On the other hand, if anybody starts going around spamming links to Find-A-Grave, of course they should be stopped. I don't think this has happened yet, but in that case I think the spammer should be penalized, but not the links. Katr67 00:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tfd's for the find a grave template showed definite widespread conflict of interest spamming regarding find a grave. 2005 00:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people be a candidate for deletion, being the nature of its fuction?--Hu12 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess somebody better block me because I've added multiple find-a-grave links! For some background, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Find a Grave. There's also these two big lists[7][8] of people that have been involved with Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people -- lots of admins and very respected editors. By using Find-A-Grave's records of famous people, we've been able to identify 1000s of missing articles which have since been written. Finally, from my own article-writing experience, nothing beats a photograph of a granite tombstone as a reliable source for basic biographical stats.
Months ago, we had over 3 million links in this Wikipedia. I submit that there are 100,000s of truly spammy, wretched ones that await our attention; find-a-grave is not among them.--A. B. (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't the slightest reason we need to use Find a grave photos of graves as opposed to any other. Let's not be silly about this. As stated before, sometimes the links are fine. Sometimes they are totally useless. Other times it isn't as clear cut. However, the owners of a company adding thousands of links to their own website is COI spam, period. 2005 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long term adsense Spammer

Adsense pub-1715703222720309

  • cmsarticles.awardspace.com
  • e-zeus.narod.ru
  • uarticles.blogspot.com
  • allhostinginfo.com
  • nedvarticles.narod.ru
Spam sock accounts

Sergeant85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
82.207.20.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
193.41.62.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
91.124.247.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
212.58.180.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
212.58.183.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
92.113.46.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
92.113.22.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.207.22.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
92.113.13.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be time to meta-blacklist cmsarticles.awardspace.com, coibot picked up spamming on de.wp and tr.wp recently. Not sure about the others. --Versageek 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are localy Bl'd for now, maby Herbythyme can take care of it on meta?? :)--Hu12 04:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.craftform.org

Accounts

Nigelskeels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
--Hu12 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Publishing Spam-2

See also - Dennis Publishing COI Spam (may)
See also - Magazine spam (Oct)

IP addresses 194.205.219.0 - 194.205.219.255 are registered to Dennis Publishing. Search 271 edits within 194.205.219.0-255

Domains spammed:

Article Dennis Media Group

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)
82.19.3.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
John Pope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kickdacatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CannonGod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nikplus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Glenarma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.3.70.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
66.65.194.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
129.79.116.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.21.63.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
BobFlower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to say this because of the legitimacy of the content, but I'd say the only way to deal with these spammers is to blacklist the whole lot. MER-C 05:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=170908527"