Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar

Travel Victoria site

There seems to be an operating presumption that websites with the word 'Travel' in them are always spam. That's a fair enough general principle, but I do request that each individual case be checked on its own merits. There have been two users who have removed links to Travel Victoria from various articles on Victorian towns and cities, unjustifiably I believe. I have had the following conversations: first and second, and I'm placing a comment on this site so that this can be discussed publicly and so that, if the links in question (most of which have been removed already) are generally considered to be valuable additions to the articles in question, spamfighters can in future be referred to this discussion. Does anyone, having read the two conversations, nevertheless believe the links should be removed and if so why?GSTQ 22:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely if you added 130+ links to a site, across many articles, that is likely to be viewed as spam. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just pre-judging the situation. I wasn't the one who added the links, I'm defending their right to be there. For the record, I have no connexion with Travel Victoria.GSTQ 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.travelvictoria.com.au

travelvictoria.com.au

Spam sock accounts

144.137.50.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
144.137.51.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
144.137.53.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
144.137.3.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
144.137.15.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
144.137.4.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
144.137.49.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Mabey someone should request a checkuser, if this topic is going to be a reference for inclusion of travelvictoria.com.au. Clearly there is wide scale long term abuse of Wikipedia by this site owner/operator per Spam policy, External links policy, WP:NOT, WP:COI, Advertising and conflicts of interest, WP:RS, WP:VAND & WP:CANVASS --Hu12 03:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow everything in the post by Hu12. How can you tell any one of the above policies has been breached by anyone at all, let alone the site owner or operator? Isn't this jumping to conclusions? Adding a whole lot of links to a site does not in itself constitute spam, vandalism, conflict of interest or anything. It's true Wikipedia is not a repository of links, but adding these links is not making it that. As I've pointed out before, the links are not indiscriminate. They're made to the relevant section of the site in each case.GSTQ 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

193 link additions (WP:NOT, Spam policy) to promote the same site (External links policy, WP:RS), from the same IP range/individual (Advertising and conflicts of interest,WP:COI), with no other contributions other than this Long term abuse of Wikipedia (WP:VAND), Clearly a WP:SPA. There are certain stylistic behaviors that will say "spam!" loud and clear to anyone who's watching. I'm suggesting this should be investigated further for sockpuppetry.--Hu12 11:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense you're feeling like - wtf, where did all these policies come from, and why are they after this guy? Keep in mind that it is almost ALWAYS bad to spam ANY kind of link. When policies and guidelines are good, and we got some good ones, when you drop 130 links onto a string of articles you do get like 8 policies/guidelines that come down on you because spamming is a behavior that isn't cultivated on Wikipedia. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really wasn't feeling sorry for the chap who'd gone through & added all the links. I am aware of all those policies. I was feeling sorry for the articles themselves that are all losing out on valuable links. Wikipedia could be better if they were added. Ergo, per my argument, adding or restoring the links does not equal spam. They are not the same. And you shouldn't just be naming umpteen policies in a row without more. That doesn't prove anything. Instead, you should be showing why each policy applies to this particular place. That is the point which everyone who has removed these links is trying to evade. It's about the content of Wikipedia, not about how it got there. What if we had no links to AllMusicGuide on album pages and someone went through and added links to all of them? We'd get exactly the same Wikipedia as we've got now. And yet according to all the arguments I've seen so far those links should be removed because that kind of activity is spam. I really can't be bothered going back through and putting them all back in, even if I were confident they were going to stay. There is more important editing I can do. But what have you got against the links when they add value to an article?GSTQ 03:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re added the link to Wangaratta, Victoria, as you are a major editor in that article. I am a bit concerned that the policies mean so little, Of course it's about the content of Wikipedia, but is also about how it gets there. Linking to sites, as in this case 193 times, for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote travelvictoria.com.au is not tolorated. It also fails Microsoft's Detecting Online Commercial Intention Tool. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. Wikipedia is Not for link-promotion, Advertising or advocacy of a particular site of any kind. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Leaving messages on multiple talk pages as you have since early january in attempt to get a second or third opinion on travelvictoria.com.au, is usually deemed "internal spam" or "forum shopping". I'm not sure you do not have some connection with this site, however i do believe you're here to improve Wikipedia. You obviosly have an interest in Victoria, as its where your from. Please be aware of these type of spam additions in the future, and understand the policies which lead to their removal. Note-worthy of reading is How not to be a spammer and How to identify spam and spammers. thanks--Hu12 06:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for re-adding the link. I am not going to contribute any more to this talk page after this post, but I do wish to defend myself against a number of unjustified allegations which have been made.

First, forum shopping is not leaving messages on multiple (read: two) talk pages. It is leaving messages on administrators' talk pages about administrative decisions (not editing decisions).

Second, as for your allegation of "internal spamming", it sure sounds like a bad thing, but I don't quite think I've crossed the line as once enunciated by an arbitrator: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine... Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." I think two conversations with two editors who have actually edited the page is a reasonable amount of communication.

Third, a distinction exists between adding an external link to a page 193 times and adding an external link to a page 193 times for the purpose of promoting a website. Only the latter is spam ipso facto: see here (although the former may be spam for another reason). Moreover, point three in the External link important points was complied with by the person who added the 193 links. This fact appears to have been completely ignored.

Finally, I do not appreciate it being said that "policies mean so little" to me. Making such an allegation when I am trying to have a discussion in the light of those same policies, apparently because our interpretations of the policies differ, is insulting. I think that the policies on assuming good faith (both on my part and on the part of the alleged spammer), and also on merely repeating rules without justifying them in light of individual circumstances have played far too small a rôle in this discussion in particular.GSTQ 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial MySpace sites

On Ira Losco, somebody keeps adding the link to her MySpace in the article.

http://www.myspace.com/iralosco claims to be the official site. However, http://www.iralosco.com has no links to her MySpace at all, and the about section in the latter is just copied from the former's bio section, so I believe the latter is the official site.

Judging by this, would it be right to remove it, or does it stay based on the line at the top of the guideline "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject..."? ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 13:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the main reason I usually remove MySpace links. How can you tell for sure who's myspace profile is official? It isn't verifiable unless it's by another reliable source like a different official page (like www.artistbandnamewhatever.com), and then you might as well link that site instead because myspace has reliable sources issues, is a social networking site, etc. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases it is clear when a MySpace page is official. In those cases, it's perfectly acceptable as an external link.

I would advise digging up the MfD for the MySpace link template as these issues were thoroughly discussed there. The result was either a keep or no consensus - I don't remember. But it was good discussion. --ElKevbo 14:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006's TfD discussion and November 2006's TfD discussion. JoeSmack ^Talk 14:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I am aware that in WP:EL it states that if an online community site is used as the official site of a person, and I agree that such links should be included in Wikipedia. However I can see nothing to indicate this in the example above. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and thats the problem with myspace links! lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself, and thus myspace 'official' pages are hard to prove without a alternative source. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is that if there's an alternate 'official' site, then unless I can find a link from the official to the myspace, delete the myspace. If the myspace is the only link available... I dunno. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And its that 'I dunno' that makes me pull it too. Proof when adding or retaining info is burdened on the contributor, and they're i'm thinking 'I dunno, I can't back it up' then it shouldn't go in. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you really wanted to prove that www.myspace.com/iralosco is official you would have searched the official page. You didn't. The official page does not have a links page so you stop there?! Quoting Ira Losco herself from her message board,
"Nickname: IRA LOSCO 18:54 on 8/2/2007
Subject: Hey Guys!!!!
Hey guys sorry it's been a long time since I posted a message here!!!! Hope to see some familair and new faces in Nadur this Saturday...please visit www.myspace.com/iralosco and add yourselves in the friends section!!! Very soon it ill be looking similar to the site and videos will be available on it...Videos will also be available on this site...see you soon! Hugs Ira

Check for yourself. Email her contacts and get confirmation if needs be - before removing the link again.

Ilenia_D

I looked at the site the best I could, but I did miss the message board page. It's difficult to judge whether a mention in a forum post makes the site official, especially as Ira never implies this. If it is, it might be OK to include in the article.

But on the minus side, it still doesn't change the fact that iralosco.com has more information and is a more reliable source than the MySpace site. On iralosco.com I can find quite a lot of facts about the artist as well as get the latest information on gigs without scanning through archives.

I'll send an email to Ira for confirmation if it is an official site. But first I would like to ask everyone else here whether including her MySpace website is acceptable taking into account the negatives mentioned earlier. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 18:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have no requirement to link to anyones official site. If someone has two official pages and one of those two pages is worthless, then don't link to it. If the pages are redundant then link to the better/more complete site. If nether page is worth the paper it's not printed on then link to neither. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you even missed the message board no wonder you didn't find a reference to myspace!!!! Scroll down to the bottom of the page and there is a link called.... surprise! 'Message Board'. I've even posted date and time of the message, more than that I do not know what you want as proof. Myspace compliments the official website and that is why it should be included. As to whether Ira Losco implies it's an official myspace .... hmmmm .... get to the message board?!?!

OK, I sent an email to Ira and confirmed that it is run by Iva herself. I'm still not convinced it's of much use, but as it's now proven I guess there's no harm in adding the MySpace link to the article.

Ilenia, the message board posts does not necessarily prove that the site is official. Anyone could be using that IRA LOSCO account, however unlikely you might think it is. I've seen several name impersonations myself on other boards. I've sent an email to her personally, which is the proof we need. ~ ► Wykebjs ◄ (userpage | talk) 17:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indiabroadband.net

Adsense pub-9588274242501467

indiabroadband.net

Spam sock accounts

202.177.186.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
210.214.91.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
61.17.226.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
202.177.185.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
210.214.91.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
202.177.186.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
210.214.91.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
http://www.bsnl-broadband.com
http://www.bsnl-internet.info
--Hu12 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone mentions this on the blacklist, I will be glad to add it. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done--BozMo talk 18:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tutorialspoint.com

tutorialspoint.com

Spam sock accounts

You think this should go to the meta blacklist? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not quite yet, but almost there. Femto 14:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

related amrood.com

amrood.com

Spam sock accounts

59.144.85.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.144.77.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.144.73.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 22:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria2007 and NewsMax.com

Can someone else please help (a) keep an eye on Victoria2007's contributions and (b) figure out how to constructively deal with this problem editor? It's pretty obvious that he or she works for NewsMax.com as 99+% of his or her edits consist in adding links to NewsMax.com to various articles. Further, the links often are added with text identifying NewsMax.com as the source of the information when it's usually wire reports from the Associate Press or Rueters. When used as references, the date is always misformatted, showing me that he or she doesn't even care enough to check his or her edits and learn from mistakes. Two of us have left messages on his or her Talk page to no avail. --ElKevbo 01:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a final warning now. The account has added negligible other value to wikipedia and I propose to indef block it if it continues to spam without answering questions. --BozMo talk 12:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as soon as the self-references continue it should be blocked as the promotional-only throwaway account that it is. Femto 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has (2 more edits today) so has been indefinitely blocked. Need to watch out for an IP account appearing doing the same thing. I've picked a few pages Victoria2007 has spammed to watch I suggest a few other people do the same --BozMo talk 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming through ezinearticles.com to Wikipedia: James B. Allen spam

Ezine articles is a frequently linked-to site with self-published articles:

http://ezinearticles.com
- Current list of pages with ezinearticles.com (159 as of today)

Authors submit articles for free and ezinearticles makes its money off web ads. The incentive for authors is either to showcase their writing (starving writer looking for gigs) ... or get a link back to their web site (SEO types):

Benefits to authors page

Picking an article at random:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Become-A-Video-Game-Tester-In-3-Easy-Steps&id=375873

was added to Game tester by 221.38.194.8 (talk · contribs) several days ago.[1]

Looking at the linked-to ezine article itself, click on the author's name to pull up a list of that author's 25+ articles:

http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=James_Allen

Starting with the first article above:

http://www.beagametester.com

which redirects to:

http://jobkeg.gamertest.hop.clickbank.net/

which redirects to:

http://www.gamertestingground.com/?hop=jobkeg

Current list of pages linked to this ezine article
Current list of pages with beagametester.com links
Current list of gamertest.hop.clickbank.net links
Current list of gamertestingground.com links

"James B. Allen is the iconoclastic webmaster of the mystical life enhancing portal PowerLivingPress.com. Visit to discover self improvement ideas you may choose to apply to your life - starting now!"

http://www.PowerLivingPress.com

Current list of pages with PowerLivingPress.com links

"James B. Allen is a niche marketing consultant who provides private research for a small, exclusive client list of internet marketers, website designers and SEO professionals. Download a free sample of his market research at: http://www.NicheGuild.com"

http://www.NicheGuild.com

redirects to:

http://www.onlinestorms.com

Current list of pages with NicheGuild.com links
Current list of pages with onlinestorms.com links

"James B. Allen blogs regularly about disaster recovery planning. To learn more about data recovery and other aspects of disaster recovery, visit James at: http://DisasterRecoveryData.com"

http://www.disasterrecoverydata.com/

Current list of pages with disasterrecoverydata.com links

"James B. Allen is looking for a few motivated individuals to join his heavy hitting MLM nutrition supplement marketing team. Come see if you qualify to be part of this full support team and system promoting a new in-demand health product: www.acaifruitmlm.com"

http://www.acaifruitmlm.com/

redirects to

http://www.acaiplus.com/index.asp?site=19982

Current list of pages with acaifruitmlm.com links
Current list of pages with acaiplus.com links

"James Allen is the webmaster of Best Sunless Tans. Come learn everything you need to know to save your skin and still look golden all year long. "

http://www.BestSunlessTans.com

Current list of pages with BestSunlessTans.com links

"James Allen is the 1st mate behind YourCheapCruises.com Before you set sail, come learn about planning your next cheap cruises at his website's home port."

http://www.YourCheapCruises.com

Current list of pages with YourCheapCruises.com links

"Want to see an even more eye-opening list of free equivalents that are available for internet marketers? James invites you to visit his Tightwad Marketer's site. You may never look at an internet marketing sales page the same way again: http://www.TightwadMarketer.com"

http://www.TightwadMarketer.com

redirects to:

http://www.onlinestorms.com/

Current list of pages with TightwadMarketer.com links
Current list of pages with onlinestorms.com links

"Many home remedies can be safe and effective though. If you want to learn about, request or submit old home remedies that people still use now, come swing by http://www.HomeRemedyGuide.com."

http://www.HomeRemedyGuide.com

Current list of pages with HomeRemedyGuide.com links

"James Allen is a niche market researcher who provides his private high-end internet marketing clients with valuable information on untapped niche audiences. He has just released a brand new compilation of his latest niche market research that you can use to profit from right now at: http://www.NichesExposed.com"

http://www.NichesExposed.com

redirects to:

http://www.onlinestorms.com

Current list of pages with NichesExposed.com links
Current list of pages with onlinestorms.com links

"James Allen is the creator of GatesToWealth.com, a website which introduces tools of offshore asset protection and wealth generation. To learn more about going offshore and to subscribe to "Mind the Beach" the newsletter of offshore living and lifestyles, swing on by:"

http://GatesToWealth.com

Current list of pages with GatesToWealth.com links

Looking at 221.38.194.8 contribution history leads to interesting link additions:

http://expertwitnesstestimonyguide.com
- Current list of pages with expertwitnesstestimonyguide.com links

http://myorganicgardeningsupplies.com
- Current list of pages with myorganicgardeningsupplies.com links

http://www.degrees-online-guide.com
- Current list of pages with degrees-online-guide.com links

http://www.laketahoerealestatetips.com
- Current list of pages with laketahoerealestatetips.com links

http://www.panicattackguide.com
- Current list of pages with panicattackguide.com links

http://www.RebellionCoffee.com
- Current list of pages with RebellionCoffee.com links

http://www.sushi-recipes.com
- Current list of pages with sushi-recipes.com links

http://www.yourchiangmai.com
- Current list of pages with yourchiangmai.com links

http://www.gamblejapan.com
- Current list of pages with gamblejapan.com links

http://www.japangambles.com
- Current list of pages with japangambles.com links

Accounts known to have added these links:

221.38.194.8 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)
221.19.108.118 (talk • contribs • links • count • user logs • user page logs || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • RBLs • tor • search)

Adsense ID# 6502115418074451

Affected articles:

While I think most of the ezinearticle.com pages don't meet our criteria for external links, I think we gain more by working through them slowly and identifiying spammy domains and spammer accounts than by just deleting ezinearticles.com links wholesale and blacklisting ezinearticles.com. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

videomaker.com

http://www.videomaker.com

Search videomaker.com

Adsense pub-9623655437671280

Spam sock accounts

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

Spammed in by Vburgess (talk · contribs). There are 12 other links in articles. (see here). I'm not sure if they are legit or not, and I'm not sure if they have been added recently or not. Thanks —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After your warning it looks like the spammer switched to an IP to dodge the final warning. All that remain now looks legit, however they were all added by SPA's during article creation. --Hu12 13:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. AfD for a couple look possible. Does this magazine have notability? It doesn't seem to claim any. --BozMo talk 19:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about embedded links

A city like Eugene, Oregon ends up with a million embedded links to various organizations. (Like this) I once attempted to encourage the writing of articles by removing the embedded links and making them into redlinks with references, (Like this [2]]) thinking that if an organization isn't notable enough to have an article, it probably shouldn't have a link either, and that I would eventually remove the redlinks. Others disagree. The article looks like a directory. Am I taking the concept too far? Does anybody have any suggestions? Katr67 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult. My personal view is that being named in an article does not entitle you to a link to your website but there are lots of editors I have run into who disagree with this, notwithstanding policy. My own approach is to stick to the more blatant cases of which there are plenty. --BozMo talk 09:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded titled links are not appropriate per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Link titles. So I think replacing such inline external links with article redlinks is exactly what should be done. And if it's not worth getting tied up in a debate over this, the external links can be kept as a bracketed citation-style 'reference' (which they are not, they're still mere web directory links, not citations for the article content). Not at all too far if you ask me. If anybody has a problem even with this approach, well, they're wrong. :) Femto 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and the policy links. I think I'll refrain from correcting editors I work with regularly, (in the meantime being secretly smug about the fact that I was right all along) but if I see any blatant cases coming from newbies or anons, I'll take 'em on. Civilly of course. :) Katr67 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

justlearnmorsecode.com

I have been watching this very persistent link spammer for some time. All spamming activity is to the justlearnmorsecode.com web site and the current count is: 30 linkspam adds, 10 warnings from multiple editors, and a couple blocks from an administator. Here is the suspected puppet list in chronological order:

85.165.70.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.238.123.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.115.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - see only the first edit on August 2006 since this is a dynamic or shared IP
85.165.117.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.77.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.115.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.76.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.123.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.165.69.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
GerdLivJalla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has just started to become very nasty (see User_talk:GerdLivJalla). I think it is time to black list the justlearnmorsecode.com domain. (Requestion 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

naxos.com/composerinfo

http://naxos.com/composerinfo

[3] (35 links in articles as of now)

Some of these are old links from legit editors I think; I have taken out most of the blatant ones including all by the below. --BozMo talk 09:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added by at least 1 user account and 2 IPs associated with this link:

I'm heading off to bed, I would appreciate it if someone else takes off with this one. Thanks! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the links to [4] from the same places look pretty thin too. --BozMo talk 08:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_German_Jews is horrible: needless external links to hundreds of people with perfectly good internal articles on them. --BozMo talk 08:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template spammer back

Going through these I found template spame again: see: [5] I guess there will be more (one user per template): can everyone watch out for it. --BozMo talk 08:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC) [6] was an older template spam by the same guy: not easy to track. --BozMo talk 09:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress 4GL

Second and third opinions are greatly needed here. Especialy since this statement {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Progress_4GL#Rewrite]. It's been notably a haven for Single purpose account's who's only contributions are to "progress" related articles, and becomming more evident there are substantial WP:COI and Advertising COI taking place. related Progress Software--Hu12 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this horse is out of the stable. You could have speedied it (A7) but now it looks certain to survive --BozMo talk 10:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can always be nominated again, because it clearly hasn't established WP:NOTE. Your right, Should have speedied it instead of looking for concensus @ Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Progress_4GL --Hu12 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GIF

I'm currently engaged in a debate over on the Talk:GIF article with someone I view as a spammer. Would be grateful for either support or a slap on the wrist telling me to stop being over-zealous :) GDallimore (Talk) 10:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my opinion which is basically in support of yours. --BozMo talk 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

same here, it is not a resource about the subject, so should no be allowed--Hu12 10:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. Thanks also for being a bit more polite than I was, which will probably be helpful in the long run, as he was getting on my nerves with some name-calling. GDallimore (Talk) 10:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's in it for a spammer

I often remove spam sites that seem to be nothing but a thrown together collection of (usually copyright violating) articles, with some adverts; clearly a money making idea. But what about www . iwarrenbuffett . com? I have removed this multiple times; not the least reason is that it simply copies (without Credit) Warren Buffett for some, but not all, of its pages; a disallowed and doubly pointless link. But there are no adverts. Can anyone speculate on why such a site exists, and why anyone would go to any trouble spamming it? Notinasnaid 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming can many times be about promoting your own site or a site you love, this situation aparrently is not about a commercial site at all. Links such as this that are added for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote it is obviously not allowed. --Hu12 10:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some other possibilities:

If you follow some of the SEO forums, there's a niche business of developing domains for sale to others.[7] You build page rank, etc., then sell it for several hundred bucks to someone else who fills it full of ads. In a month or two, the site could be larded with ads.
There are some advanced techniques I've linked to in the past that involve web sites displaying one type of page to search engines coming from Wikipedia and a different type to humans coming from Wikipedia. The search engine's version would have additional links that would look fishy to humans but OK to search engines (or vice versa). I don't remember the details.
Finally, don't forget to check the source code for the page. Compare and contrast the source code vs. the text for this link on the Zimbabwe page:

zimbab.net ... "Chronology Foundations of Zimbabwe"

Humans see text (probably "scraped") about Zimbabwean history. A search engine gets links to various sites including incest sites.

Sidebar request: I came across this yesterday and haven't had time to deal with it. See 213.184.238.38 (talk · contribs) -- we had another Belorussian IP add such links earlier in 2006. Can someone get his 3 December links blacklisted? I won't have time. Given the incest/kiddie-sex connection, it's probably mandatory to get rid of these immediately and permanently under Florida and/or U.S. law (the legal jurisdictions for Wikipedia's servers). Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Blacklisting requested. Checked the links and removed one from zimbabwe, the others were clear. Femto 15:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks so much! --A. B. ^(talk) 17:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats this edit..?

Came upon this.. {{SpamD|*[http://www.flowerpossibilities.com/encyclopedia.html Flower Encyclopedia]|}} .....?--Hu12 21:49, 28 February 2007 UTC

It appears to be part of a campaign by a reputable editor (Fabartus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) to leave a better record of spam external links by using a new template: Template:SpamD. I think the idea is to leave the links on the page (hidden outside of the edit view) with a spam tag so that if people try to re-add them there is a more immediate record of their presence on the page. I can't say I agree with the logic and it will probably confuse a lot of editors who will see it as a sneaky way to hide spam links in articles. Nposs 14:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mixtapekings.com

User:Official Wiki Member spammed mixtapekings.com on one page; though it should be mentioned here in case more is done. 71.128.189.184 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (really User:JesseW/not logged in)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Official_Wiki_Member definitely looks spammy to me. For a moment I was tricked by the "Official" users name, doesn't it violate WP:USERNAME?

With a little hunting a Special:Linksearch/*.mixtapekings.com shows 5 links in Busta Rhymes that were added by User talk:69.183.212.221 with this edit [8]. A whois on each of those mix domains all show different owners. Not sure what is going on. It looks like a good faith edit and I guess that guy really likes mix tapes. This probably violates WP:EL in some way but I'm not going to touch it. Some one else please advise. (Requestion 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hu12 cleaned up Busta Rhymes. The spam is now gone. (Requestion 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks Requestion, should have noted that here, must have gotten distracted. LOL--Hu12 08:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the username issue has been taken care of as well.[9] -- Satori Son 15:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.landofcode.com

Adsense pub-6370375015371772
landofcode.com

Spam sock accounts

68.160.213.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.160.237.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

citebite.com

[10] looks very suspicious. how do others feel? JoeSmack ^Talk 05:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought after clicking your linksearch was WOW! that's a lot of spam but then I did some research. It turns out that citebite.com is a web service like an enhanced tinyurl.com that also highlights quotations in yellow. You give it a quotation and a URL and then citebite.com creates a small URL with the quote highlighted.

Citebite.com is kind of cool but the problem is that it is adding a middle man in the external link process and the links look like gibberish. This means that you have no idea what is being linked to unless you click on it. The citebite.com web service is a link spammers dream since it isolates them by one step. This thing is just ripe for abuse. Also what happens when citebite.com goes belly up?

Actually I think it might be a good idea if Wikipedia creates a policy that outlaws linking to services like this. Are the policy makers aware of this service? Who should we mention it to? A quick browsing of the tinyurl.com linksearch shows that it only exists for User: and Talk: pages. Is there currently a Wikipedia policy in place for dealing with tinyurl.com? (Requestion 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Tinyurl.com is blacklisted Wikimedia-wide because it was abused by spammers. If citebite is being similarly abused, blacklisting for it should be requested too. Deli nk 14:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, if there is any abuse of this, please list at the m:Spam blacklist. We have a whole section of the blacklist just for these type links. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is just a matter of time until citebite.com is also abused. Should we be preemptive and replace the citebite.com links to native external links? Would this also be appropriate for any tinyurl.com links we see in article pages? (Requestion 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. Anyone got a bot handy that could (a) change existing links and (b) monitor for new links and change them as they are added? --ElKevbo 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

outrate.net

hxxp://www.outrate.net

outrate.net

Spam sock accounts

I did a request @ meta--Hu12 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blacklisted--Hu12 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on africanelections.tripod.com

Can someone else please look at the links to africanelections.tripod.com? There, last time I checked, 352 of them, and I'm automatically leery of tripod.com links to begin with. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are horrible: the site is a personal site not meeting WP:RS, it has loads of adverts and pop-ups. The only interesting question is where the data is taken from since some of it is quite detailed and useful if accurate. I think it is a hand compliation job (loads of spelling mistakes etc). More recent elections are all here: http://www.electionguide.org which is an official site. The country data seems to be from http://www.state.gov. The older results I cannot find in a DB format anywhere. --BozMo talk 09:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I let a note for User:Everyking who is clearly a good faith editor/admin and who left a couple of the links to this site to get his/her view. --BozMo talk 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have used lots of links to that site, as it is by far the best source I've come across covering so many African elections. The site talks about where it gets the information from somewhere on there and says it was all found on the internet, on electoral commission sites and a variety of places. If someone wants to replace the links, I say go right ahead (although I see little point in it, and it would be hard work), but please don't remove any links if you can't add a replacement source. Everyking 09:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not spam as much as a site that has questionable WP:RS status. So, yeah I would say lets not just remove them all. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ounceofprevention.info

Ounceofprevention.info seems like spam but I am not quite sure, What do you think? -Marcusmax 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, spam, or worthless links at any rate. The .info link is a tipoff to me. According to my email inbox spam, .info is one of the most popular TLDs for spam hosting. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats what I figured, I am going to delete those links. -Marcusmax 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]