Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
govtech
University spammer - newmedia.ufm.edu
Line 432: Line 432:
*{{userlinks|Mudgen}}
*{{userlinks|Mudgen}}
:I won't have time to investigate this for a while. At a glance it looks like this is the sole spammer and that the website could be a useful source in some circumstances. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
:I won't have time to investigate this for a while. At a glance it looks like this is the sole spammer and that the website could be a useful source in some circumstances. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

== University spammer - newmedia.ufm.edu ==

Some accounts have a single purpose to add links to a university site. Has been noted on AN/A ([[WP:ANI#Possible spam]]
* {{spamlink|newmedia.ufm.edu}} (site of [[Universidad Francisco Marroquín]])
Accounts:
* {{Vandal|lvmtridas}}
* {{Vandal|lvmxavis}}
* {{Vandal|ivanmorales}}
* {{IPvandal|200.0.176.17}} (range 200.0.176.0/23 = Universidad Francisco Marroquín).

The link may be good, but the way of adding is [[WP:SPAM|spam]], and at least the IP (and I suspect the accounts as well) have a [[WP:COI]]. Time to clean? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:19, 28 June 2007

Shortcut
Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

mobygames.com

There are 6490 mobygames.com external links and most of them use the Template:Moby game. There has been a lot of discussion about the MobyGames template and the links are still being added at a rapid pace. Removal of some of the links caused an edit war. The template's usage is semi-sanctioned by WP:VG but it seems to violate WP:EL and WP:NOT. The spam coefficient is extremely high here. Read the threads for extensive details.


Domains


Socks - term used in the unknown sense


SPA = special purpose account or IP address that only added moby games links


Threads


I haven't discovered the WP:COI yet but no one manually adds 6490 templated external links for the fun of it. I have no idea how to proceed. Removing this many links is not humanly possible so bot aid might be required. I request advice and guidance. (Requestion 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, TnS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was basically acting like a bot, indiscriminately adding the template to every game (alphabetically). This is noted in some of the discussions. I don't know that you will find a COI, but many of those links ended up being to articles with less information than the WP article already contained. In some instances, it linked to the wrong game. In my opinion, all of the the TnS's edits should be reverted. It seems like the template could be added in good faith (and in some instances the articles linked could provide more relevant content.) Not sure how else to sort out the good links from the bad, but the onus for justifying linking is on the linker and most of links should probably be removed. Nposs 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found the WP:COI connection. It turns out that User:Flipkin is "David Berk" who is one of the mobygames.com cofounders. I suspect that he is also several of the above socks. (Requestion 23:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Linksearch reports that there are now 6518 mobygames.com external links. (Requestion 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I just added User:68.46.123.33 who is an extremely interesting sock puppet of the banned user User:Pioneer-12. Here is the timeline: Pioneer-12's Comcast Cable IP address gets indefinitely blocked but somehow continues editing. Then in December 2005 roughly +300 mobygames.com external links are added in a rapid SPA fashion. Then the IP address gets warned, the spam is deleted, and then re-added after some pleading. Why are all of the mobygames.com SPA spammings fishy like this? (Requestion 00:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Linksearch reports that there are now 6528 mobygames.com external links. This is a gain +10 links from 10 days ago or +1 link/day. (Requestion 20:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm going to add my 2 cents in there by saying that mobygames.com is a video game encyclopedia. Putting an External Link in encyclopedia that leads to another encyclopedia is kind of pointless. Also, most of the info on mobygames.com is very basic and odds are, the Wiki page of that game has all of that info and much more. Mobygames.com as it's own Wiki page, a lot of websites that have been online for a longer period of time still don't, so this should be enough for the moby fans. Duhman0009 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo, whats next? TfD? JoeSmack Talk 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy the links, what else is there? I think the only acceptable link should be about the official home page of a product. Duhman0009 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we have another go at getting the template deleted but try to take out sock votes this time? I am prepared to block the more obvious spam sock accounts before we start. --BozMo talk 09:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way this site [1] seems to being heavily spammed by the same people. --BozMo talk 09:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say go for it, can't hurt to try. Duhman0009 12:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are you linked with http://screwattack.com at all? You seem to link to it a bit? --BozMo talk 14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I just felt like they should deserved links on Wiki since crap like Mobygames.com already did. Duhman0009 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think another TfD is a good idea but the WP:VG project will probably put up a lot of resistence. Just discovered that Special:Linksearch/*.klov.com has 811 external links and is another WP:VG sanctioned Template:KLOV game. I wonder how many more there are? (Requestion 15:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
My Two Pence for what it's worth - I don't believe that MabyGames.com classes as Spam. The site is a well known resource/encylopedia. Howver wether these links are appropiate under WP:EL is another matter. In my Humble Opinion' where a game has its own website (all modern games) that a link to Moby Games is not appropiate. However for older games which do not have their own website - Moby Games might be the only resource covering it - in this case a link to Moby Games would be appropiate. However I also feel that this should be discussed with WikiProject:Games or WikiProject:Computer Games (or whichever WikiProject this falls in the purview of). -- Rehnn83 Talk 14:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't 6490 mobygames.com external links seem a bit excessive? Isn't the fact that the website's cofounder added several thousand links a major WP:COI problem? (Requestion 15:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If the majority of the links have been added by a few editors then you have a clear case of link spamming. I have not checked to see who the links have been added by. -- Rehnn83 Talk
If you check out the contribution logs of User:Corn Popper, User:Flipkin, User:TnS, and User:Ravimakkar you'll see some very dense SPA addition of about 4000 mobygames.com external/template links. (Requestion 20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Mobygames is like the IMDB or AMG of games. KLOV does the same for coinop. Linking to them is clearly useful.
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Templates#External link templates, and discuss with the relevant wikiprojects before coming to any conclusions please. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Useful"????????? --BozMo talk 08:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many discussions with WP:VG about this, see the threads above. The conversation never goes well. The vast majority of the spamming has either been done by the mobygames.com founder or by one of the several throw away SPA accounts. One of the SPA's spammed for exactly one year (Jan 1 2006 - Dec 31 2006) which is very suspicious. More importantly, there is strong evidence to suggest a COI spamming by MobyGames. (Requestion 20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Best to go by the guidelines then. MobyGames itself does not in my view meet the clearly laid out criteria for a webpage so lets see what happens when I flag it. --BozMo talk 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I had skimmed the arguments earlier, and only just today got around to actually taking a look at some of these Mobygames links. And oh my goddess I didn't realize just how bad it was. Comparing a a featured article to its Mobygames counterpart seems hardly fair. Even articles in pretty bad shape still far outpace corresponding pages on Mobygames; the only (emphasis on only) manner in which Mobygames is actually useful or reliable is its collection of professional reviews, a feat duplicated by any given editor's site of choice. Nifboy 05:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you make a comparison, though? Clearly Wikipedia's Chrono Trigger article goes into more detail about gameplay, story, and development, but is lacking things like screenshots, most cover art, product codes, and complete credits. They seem quite complementary. I agree many MobyGames entries aren't in a state that deserve to be linked to, though. JoshuaJSlone 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mobygames.com seems to be spam in the same way that IMDB is spam. Links to the site should only be added where there's some actual relevant content on the site. So if mobygames.com merely has a "placeholder" page for the game, adding a link to it would be spam. However, where mobygames.com has considerable content regarding the game, adding a link is fine, just like adding a IMDB link for, say, The Godfather is ok. --Oscarthecat 07:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what percentage are any good? If the templates (more than one exists) are say 80% being used for inappropriate links I would argue for deletion of the template on grounds "mainly spam". Deleting the template doesn't stop links to the article of course. --BozMo talk 09:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: if 80% are inappropriate then removing the template altogether would be appropriate. --Oscarthecat 12:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COIN#MobyGames.2F_Flipkin: I strongly advocate removal of the links (in external links sections) added by the spamming accounts (see WP:SPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."); established editors can then readd where they think the link does significantly add to the article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked with Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Moby_game and there are slightly less than 4500 links back to that template. 6500 - 4500 = 2000 direct mobygames.com links. So a TfD on the template would solve a majority of the problem but not all of it. (Requestion 19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
There's also {{Moby developer}}, which has around 250 uses. GarrettTalk 22:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a person who added +200 links to Mobygames pages and was suspected of being a sockpuppet, I want to clarify:
  1. I am not a sockpuppet nor a spam bot.
  2. I am in no way affiliated with MobyGames authors nor have I any interest in promoting the MobyGames website.
  3. I kept adding links with good faith, and on the (as I now understand, eroneous) assumption that some consensus on this topic had been reached before.
After all, I agree that deleting all MobyGames links and re-adding them if they contain "relevant information", is a good way of solving the problem. --Krótki 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Krótki. I apologize if I offended. I didn't mean to imply that you were a sock puppet. A "sock" is just a generic term we use here at WT:WPSPAM that has a lot of different meanings. I used it in the unknown sense as I sorted out who added all those moby links. (Requestion 19:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
No, I'm not offended, no problem. Just wanted to clarify that I'm cooperative. --Krótki 10:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo, again, are we ready for a TfD? Seems like it. JoeSmack Talk 19:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this page for the previous Tfd. I don't know that a new discussion would be any different, but heck, go for it. While MobyGames has some great content, some entries are too rough to even be worth visiting let alone linking to. GarrettTalk 22:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 9#Template:Moby developer. MER-C 06:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TfD doesn't look like it's going well. The keeps outnumber the deletes by a factor of 2 with WP:ILIKEIT as the popular rational. I see that there is a TfD message in every one of the 4500 locations where the template is being used. Is this the correct procedure? All the other TfD's I've seen didn't do this and it would explain the massive keep support. (Requestion 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I agree that the template won't go: fine. I don't have a problem with every appearance of the template flagging possible removal: that happened with spoiler warnings at least. We still have a decision on the COI though. I think we should push for an automated removal of all links put in by the linkspam campaigners, put the hardcore criminals on final warning (bearing in mind I wouldn't support a community ban even for something this flagrant without any prior warning) and move on. --BozMo talk 08:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were prior final warnings and even a block was issued. There were also promises that the spamming would stop. None of that worked. New socks popped up and the cycle repeated. IMO we are way past the warning stage. (Requestion 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#3 comments. Thank you. --Quiddity 16:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bhirt, and I want to clarify a few things...

WildKard is not MobyGames staff. WildKard has an account on MobyGames and helps out with editorial on a purely volunteer basis. If that qualifies as staff, every single person with a wikipedia account is wikipedia staff, myself included. Also, a lot of wikipedia users and wikipedia editors are MobyGames games users too and participate in both projects.

Also why are you labeling my account as an SPA? I've never ever even edited a single article? Also, your list is completely misleading implying all these account are involved with MobyGames, which they are not. Flipkin, Trixter, Corn Popper (you can mark him as a co-founder if you want) and I are the only 4 people that are a part of MobyGames, and flipkin left the project a month ago. MobyGames does not have any employees or paid staff. We all have full time jobs and work on MobyGames on the side. --Bhirt 08:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you personally are not an SPA. I also am warming to the actual site content now I've had a look but allowing or getting people to linkspam this site was totally out of order. You also need to come clean about who Ravimakkar was. --BozMo talk 08:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at User:Bhirt's contribution log. Bhirt is an SPA. The single/special purpose is to keep the thousands of mobygames.com links. I'm also a bit curious now, there isn't an SPA tag next to Bhirt's name above. So what does Bhirt mean by "why are you labeling my account as an SPA?" Which account? Hmmm. It really doesn't make a difference though since all the socks are treated as a single MobyGames entity. (Requestion 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry I caused the confusion by taking the SPA comment off. Anyway lets move on to some sort of solution. --BozMo talk 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It always makes me shake my head at how these spam templates can just be created but it takes an act of God to get rid of them. Moby games can merit a link sometimes, but the abusive use of this template is astonishing. Some socks and fanatics say it should be placed on EVERY game article, no matter what. (Seriously this was advocated.) If a bot added links, they should all be removed immediately Extrnal links should be added based on merit, and a bot can't decide that. personally I'd remove every Moby games link, delete the template, then start from scratch. Any link added by a human can be judged on its own merits. 2005 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, whoah! This is Frecklefoot and I am not a sockpuppet of a MobyGames founder, admin or anything else related to MobyGames. I did create the MobyGames templates, but only as a convenience for when I added MobyGames links to articles I've written. I add them when I think their entry has something to add to the article (like full credits and dozens of screenshots). Look at my contributions. Does it look like I exist merely to promote MobyGames? Please take me off the list! I take offense at the suggestion that I am a sockpuppet. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Frecklefoot. I didn't mean to imply that you were a sock puppet. A "sock" is just a generic term we use here at WT:WPSPAM that has a lot of different meanings. I used it in the unknown sense as I sorted out who added all those moby links. You created the moby template and you have added a huge number of moby links, so your inclusion in the above list is required. I added the tag good faith editor next to your name above, hope that helps. I have three questions. Is my estimate that you added +900 moby links accurate? What are your thoughts on the unchecked spam / COI abuse by the MobyGames founders? Do you have a plan or a suggestion for dealing with this problem? (Requestion 19:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Same here. I was reverting the edits because I thought it had been decided to include Moby links at the bottom of the pages in question and stopped when it was clarified that it had not. --Marty Goldberg 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well. I reverted two links because I thought that policy had been decided at WPVG, and the Moby pages in question contained credits, which in my book counts as informative (however, I agree the links should be deleted where they serve no useful purpose). Before that, I added a few moby templates here and there because I didn't know there was a debate. As well, I added only one or two templates, not the hundreds that some other users have. I wish you could use a different term then "sock" here, as I also take offense at being called a sock, regardless of whether you mean sock puppet or not. Green451 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also find this a blatant violation that this goes against the principles of AGF. Look at my contribs. Do I look like a spammer to you? Green451 02:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I forgot to mention. I am not associated with Mobygames in any way. I am not a staff member, I am not a member, and I have never contributed anything to their site. I've just browsed it occasionally and find it to be (on occasion) a useful site. Green451 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Green451. Nobody accused you of being a socket puppet or a spammer. I have added the good faith editor next to yours and Marty's name above, hope that helps. You need to understand the immense amount of work it is to dig up and uncover who was adding all the mobygames.com links. This was a huge mess. Like you said, you only added a few templates which were part of a blanket undelete done by a few members of WP:VG. Nothing to be alarmed about but your help and understanding would be greatly appreciated here. Thanks. (Requestion 17:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Okay, sure, I can live with this. While I still think that the site can be useful, COI subjects adding the links is completely unacceptable. Hope you get to the bottom of this. Green451 00:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2005: Please Please take a read through the thread Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#3 comments. I'm trying to delicately but emphatically explain my own perspective, which in short form is that a slash&burn response is a overreaction, and vastly more harmful than beneficial. However, please read the full thread, and give a response there if you feel so inclined. Much thanks. --Quiddity 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extremely clear case of spam and WP:COI and the links should immediately be removed and the site added to our blacklist so the spammers don't just go put it all back. DreamGuy 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County Guide spam

Starting to see an increasing number of similar sites added to County pages, starting in New York State and now spreading into New Jersey. They all look the same - minimal county information, and links to Real Estate Search and an 800 number - very much a series of commercial lead-generator sites. They only add each site to a single page (and add it again once we take it off).

Sites:

IP addresses adding:

The list seems to be expanding each day, so we need to keep an eye out for it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new batch and IP added. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least they can't claim now that they didn't know that what they were doing wasn't desired... diff -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And he's back - more sites from a new IP. Thanks to Jim Dunning for removing. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another update. Is it possible to do something to stop this? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A rule is in place to revert the users via Shadowbot, but for some reason, it's not seeing the links. Myself and Beetstra are working on the problem and it should be fixed soon. Shadow1 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And even more... and another new IP. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after spending about 4 hours poring over 300 lines of Perl source code, we managed to find and fix the bug that was plaguing Shadowbot and its IRC counterpart, LinkWatcher. Shadowbot should begin reverting these sites immediately. Shadow1 (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spammer is persistent, but at least the bots pick him up now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple of links which have not been spammed (yet). There is still a lot to do ... Have to parse them from the web-pages, I guess this is still not all of it. Shadowbot and COIBot should be noticing most of it now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see a lot of these being picked up automatically, now. Another IP and some more counties.. Thanks for the work! -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are still at it. Have changed their editing now to use different range of IPs. One new domain, and two new IPs. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another IP used to try to get them in. The Burlington-county.com one doesn't seem to be getting picked up by the bots, for some reason... or was I just too quick to revert? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 06:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
still at it, but they all seem to be getting caught right now. Is there still a value in me posting the IP addresses? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really necessary, except if the bots have missed one (there are some links which do not fit in the pattern, and sometimes the (on of the) bots are (is) down). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

truthroom.com

Over the past two years the only activity of this handful of accounts is to add links to a non-encyclopedic, non-notable site, truthroom.com.

Multiple editors have removed the links but this person is persistent. This site is not helpful to quality articles and the editor chooses not to submit the link for consideration on the talk page as indicated by the various levels of warning templates. I would like an administrator to review this activity and block Murderinc for reiniserting a link the day after receiving the last warning. As an aside, is "Murderinc" an appropriate username? It could be construed as a threat. ✤ JonHarder talk 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.earthmusic.net

Adsense pub-8580982275784999

Spam sock accounts

128.143.136.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
80.202.94.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 09:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vernoncorea.info

This looks highly like spam: http://spam.vernoncorea.info - found on Jimmy Bharucha and apparently many other articles.

Was added way back in 2005 by 62.255.64.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Resurgent insurgent 12:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some of these but there are many more and I've to go to bed. Resurgent insurgent 14:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
seems clean for now--Hu12 03:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all of the rest. The links pointed only to the home page and were not specifically relevant to the articles linked from. Obviously added as a significant linkspam campaign that stayed under the radar all this time. Good catch, Resurgent. -- Satori Son 03:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense Spammer for account pub-8251988379290484 or 8251988379290484

Adsense pub-8251988379290484

Adsense Sites by this owner

http: //spam.dreamcrowd.com blacklisted
http://spam.rantcrowd.com
http://spam.comedycrowd.com
http://spam.remedycrowd.com
http://spam.rumorcrowd.com
http://spam.predictcrowd.com

Accounts adding this link:
Theqbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Earthie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.130.240.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
75.80.20.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.235.49.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Blacklisting requested on Meta (permanent link) -- SiobhanHansa 14:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more from this Adsense Spammer --Hu12 03:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible spamming

I don't know what the position of google video is here on wikipedia, but [[these contribs seem like possible spam to me, even if it is well intentioned. Cheers--Cronholm144 11:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blacklisted the user against the link, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Rludlow. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly :)--Cronholm144 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uniadmission.com

All contribs here appear to be spam for uniadmission.com. This seemed the appropriate place for notification (please advise if incorrect) since there's too many of them for manual revert. → AA (talk • contribs) — 12:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Psycling

User User:Psycling Psycling seems to be spamming a number of pages. There are too many for me to undo. __earth (Talk) 14:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of (so called) 'useful' links in this portfolio:
All monitored/blacklisted now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant spam - healthresourcesonline.com, themcic.com

I wonder if someone with access to the Magic Button could clean out these and these. User 66.252.162.28 seems to have planted most of them, quite recently, and has been warned. Thank you. --CliffC 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, some friends and I have cleaned it all up.  :-) ---CliffC 01:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still at it. Now monitored/blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funnyordie.com

Videmus Omnia 22:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.cmspin.com

Cmspin Adsense pub-2686288562130084

Spam sock accounts

Jay Miksa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cmspin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.79.242.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Krista36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Cjk 117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 12:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.worship.com

Adsense pub-9954117207955195

Spam sock accounts

Aslansrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
70.226.155.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 12:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.shotokanunleashed.com

Adsense pub-5999365516601460

Spam sock accounts

Linhuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.squidoo.com

Adsense pub-9879162776784828

Spam sock accounts

H3athrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Meganjcasey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ricklomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.59.43.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
59.100.20.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.173.75.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.105.229.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.105.229.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
124.187.189.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
216.59.226.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
216.59.254.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
216.59.255.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
216.59.231.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
216.59.253.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Pradco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Extremecitizen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
203.120.68.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
89.53.132.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.75.231.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.252.140.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.198.135.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Linhuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lockwood77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
210.49.94.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
75.55.191.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
66.75.52.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.196.143.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.41.134.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.156.179.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
141.154.243.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Grafic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
59.92.149.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Gurubob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
24.205.158.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Fahnee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GreenWise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
88.108.196.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 10:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whee .. seconds after blacklisting/monitorlisting: 122.164.34.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
squidoo.com is sort of like some blogging sites, individual users are given subdirectories (er.. lenses in squidoo-speak) from which they may reap Adsense profits. --Versageek 11:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sub domain has now magically disapeared --T-rex 13:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This didn't seem to archive properly so I'm reposting. Still working on it.--Hu12 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did today's auto-archiving fail?

I can't find the information that was removed for archiving today. Can someone confirm? --Ronz 02:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.govtech.com/

I won't have time to investigate this for a while. At a glance it looks like this is the sole spammer and that the website could be a useful source in some circumstances. --Ronz 04:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University spammer - newmedia.ufm.edu

Some accounts have a single purpose to add links to a university site. Has been noted on AN/A (WP:ANI#Possible spam

Accounts:

The link may be good, but the way of adding is spam, and at least the IP (and I suspect the accounts as well) have a WP:COI. Time to clean? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=141217973"