Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

Archives
	List of archives (with sections)
	2005 Archive; 2006 Archive Jan & Feb; 2006 Archive Mar & Apr; 2006 Archive May & Jun; 2006 Archive Jul; 2006 Archive Aug; 2006 Archive Sep; 2006 Archive Oct; 2006 Archive Nov; 2006 Archive Dec; 2007 Archive Jan; 2007 Archive Feb; 2007 Archive Mar;

Shortcut

[[:|WT:WPSPAM]]

Detroit External links

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

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

No follow? No problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second opinion on fact-sheets.com

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

fact-sheets.com (*|search current) The site's business model is to take public domain content, slap some ads on it, promote it, and sell concessions for the ad revenue. There ought to be not a single link on Wikipedia, ever. It's not a reliable source. If it's cited anywhere, we can and should cite the original sources instead. For example, the reference [1] in gasoline was scraped from ftc.gov.

This is worrying: [2] "Advertising Services: In addition to designing and hosting your fact sheet on this site, we can create a targeted, cost-effective advertising campaign to bring your sheet to the attention of potential customers or other interested web users." — If you want to get ad revenue for specific topics, what could be more targeted than a link in Wikipedia's articles? Customers are encouraged to place links for pages they bought on other web sites. (essentially saying: of course within ethical limits, but that's your problem, not ours…).

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

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

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

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

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

www.moviesbuzz.com

*.moviesbuzz.com Spammed by:

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

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

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

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

Black listed [3]--Hu12 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Spammer or just a big Discovery Channel fan?

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

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

Blacklisting URLs

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

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

If a spammer uses multiple accounts/IPs

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

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

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

Vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The socks are on the march again.

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

TOC box overlaps text in Firefox 2 at 800x600

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

Practitioners of sustainable architecture

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

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

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

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

Spam and art promotion

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

Quent Cordair Fine Art
Quent Cordair
Difs of this artists/gallery added to other articles as wiki link/See also - [4], [5]

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

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

Obsessed with Wrestling - linkspam?

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

Adsense pub-7354244893659533

obsessedwithwrestling.com

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

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

Looks like

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

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

Avalanche and climbing external links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

franteractive.net

Spam sock accounts

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

Spamming of www.321books.co.uk

Adsense pub-3372801561704177
321books.co.uk

Spam sock accounts

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

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

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

Welcome to Wikipedia Pgreig. Well the first one I tried was scraped from [[6]]. Also the amount of advertising is high and the content is very low (book reviews from members of the public). We don't link to Amazon which is less commercial with better reviews. We shouldn't link to this: blacklist it. --BozMo talk 12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

321books is a proven MFA, (made for adsense) scrapper site. Quick examples include, this link (321books.co.uk/gutenberg/cousin/front.htm) scrapped from University of Adelaide [7], and an instance where 321books (321books.co.uk/gutenberg/cousin/p578.htm) even scrapped wikipedia content [8]. Your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links to 321books, and Campaigning, and Forum shopping for its inclusion on talk pages which is also considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be related only to this site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Hu12 16:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Adding links to your own websites is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. see Advertising and conflicts of interest and WP:COI. This link campaign as noted once before by Notinasnaid back in early December About the 3 2 1 Books link. Other notable discussions are located on PEST analysis. I've had to resort to using particular versions of these discussions as a result of Pgrieg deleting or editing others comments. See" [9] and [10].--Hu12 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Links elsewhere:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forbidden uses of sock puppets WP:SOCK

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

Voting and other shows of support

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

Avoiding scrutiny from other editors

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

"Good hand, bad hand" accounts

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

Circumventing policy

"Policies apply per person, not per account.

Types of vandalism committed WP:VAND

Spam

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

Sneaky vandalism

"hiding vandalism" [11]

Modifying users' comments

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

Excessive lengthening

"Adding copious repetitive or meaningless content to a page" [12]

Link vandalism

"Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended" [13]

Talk page vandalism

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

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

Response:

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

On sock puppetry:

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

On Vandalism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does, and they were listed above.

Types of vandalism WP:VAND

Modifying users' comments

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

Talk page vandalism

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

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

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

"On the Lot" - heads up

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

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

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

removing 404's and 301's

heres a fun project Wikipedia:Dead external links. and [14]--Hu12 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No, the reference is everything to the article, more important than any of the words or facts in it, so it is utterly wrong to remove it. Consider: a reference might be a fantastically rare book, out of print for 100 years. It's still a valid reference. There is a common impression that references are bonuses, and really much the same thing as external links; in fact, anything in an article without a reference should be removed. Good faith removals of dead-link references are a major problem, to be reverted on sight! But there are particular useful things to do in this case. See [15]. Notinasnaid 09:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worth noting that an entirely different "spam-o-meter" has to be used for references. That is not to say things listed as references may not be spam, especially if added by an editor who has not otherwise touched the article. But a commercial link supporting a reference may be entirely appropriate unless either another reference can be found or the information is not worth of inclusion, and both text and reference are removed. Not everyone appreciates this, and the dilgent editor preserving references may be accused of spamming: see for example [16]. Notinasnaid 09:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment: Vandalism getting worse

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

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

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

Most of it is petty vandalism. However a lot of it has been relatively longstanding. Often instead of being reverted vandals are partly deleted and the grafiti stays in through the article being editted repeatedly/reverted to the wrong version by admins e.g. Comment about Jimmy Carter's private parts at start of second section [17] survived 16 reversions including by 2 sysops. Also some topics people seem afraid to revert: put in that some famous historical figure (say Henry VIII) was a noted sodomist and it often lasts weeks. Will Stable Versions fix this? Most of the top 4000 articles get at least 20 edits a day. --BozMo talk 11:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.greylizard.net

*.greylizard.net Adsense pub -5389895745956830

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

Pages spammed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

diff

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

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

User:Veinor/Link count

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

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

Virus-related spam

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

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

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

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

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

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

sustainlane.us

Spam sock accounts

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

http://www.goldenskate.com

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

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

Fantasybookspot.com

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

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

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

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

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

goldengryphon.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

link farm AfD needs closing

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

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

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

http://www.mobygames.com/

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

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

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

Linksearch

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

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

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

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

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

eatsprouts.com

User:Valarch has been pretty active in spamming eatsprouts.com recently[18] [19] [20] [21]

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

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

Political campaigning - spam?

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

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

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

NewsMax.com spammer back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Microcredit

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

Nifty.com

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

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

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

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

Third editorial opinion

Adsense pub-3937876919487297
bulkoil.com

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

The European Library

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

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

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

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

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

Possible spammer

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

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

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

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

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

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

spam whitelist review

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

Template:User WikiProject Spam

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

Interactive Brokers

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

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

Interactive Brokers - [22] [23] [24]
Also edited: Bernhard Goetz, Freedom Tower, Butterfly (options), John A. Mulheren and some others way back in March 06.
Note: IP address is registered to "Timber Hill LLC"[25]. when I do a google search for the name, "Interactive Brokers, LLC." is the first return.[26] According to hoovers.com Timber hill is owned by Interactive Brokers Group.[27]

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

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

Deal Group Media Spam

Spammed by:

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

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

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

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

bookyards

A couple of different IPs are adding links to www.bookyards.com pages in articles on authors. The links go to a site that mirrors WP, but claims copyright for itself. One article that has the link is Homer, see [28]. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Spam sock accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dscannon has one purpose -- spam Wikipedia

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

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

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

Recruiting.... enjoy the irony ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

writinghelp-central.com

Adsense pub-1564638458129247
writinghelp-central.com

Spam sock accounts

Sfawcett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Single spammer and Webmaster of the site writinghelp-central.com, also spams talk pages.[29], [30]--Hu12 07:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to WP:COI

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

This is a travesty, I gave my 2 cents, however more on the project should have a look [31], as it effects WikiProject Spam in a big way.--Hu12 07:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

spilsbycycles.co.uk

The small town of Spilsby has a bicycle shop.

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

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

Another corporate spammer

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

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

These are too easy to pick off

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

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

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

Tom Anderson is a busy boy

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

Detroit External links

No follow? No problem

Second opinion on fact-sheets.com

www.moviesbuzz.com

More Irix Solutions domains owned by the moviesbuzz.com spammer

Spammer or just a big Discovery Channel fan?

Blacklisting URLs

If a spammer uses multiple accounts/IPs

Vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam"

TOC box overlaps text in Firefox 2 at 800x600

Practitioners of sustainable architecture

Spam and art promotion

Obsessed with Wrestling - linkspam?

Avalanche and climbing external links

franteractive.net

Spamming of www.321books.co.uk

"On the Lot" - heads up

removing 404's and 301's

Comment: Vandalism getting worse

www.greylizard.net

User:Veinor/Link count

Virus-related spam

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

http://www.goldenskate.com

Fantasybookspot.com

goldengryphon.com

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

link farm AfD needs closing

http://www.mobygames.com/

Linksearch

eatsprouts.com

Political campaigning - spam?

NewsMax.com spammer back

Microcredit

Nifty.com

Third editorial opinion

The European Library

Possible spammer

spam whitelist review

Template:User WikiProject Spam

Interactive Brokers

Deal Group Media Spam

bookyards

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

Dscannon has one purpose -- spam Wikipedia

Recruiting.... enjoy the irony ;)

writinghelp-central.com

Changes to WP:COI

spilsbycycles.co.uk

Another corporate spammer

These are too easy to pick off

Tom Anderson is a busy boy