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
Shadowbot3 (talk | contribs)
51,520 edits
m Automated archival of 4 sections to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Sep
Hu12 (talk | contribs)
91,877 edits
Line 750: Line 750:
:'''Accounts'''<br>
:'''Accounts'''<br>
{{vandal|Skapate}}<br>{{IPvandal|72.90.221.32}}<br>{{IPvandal|72.85.199.66}}<br>--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
{{vandal|Skapate}}<br>{{IPvandal|72.90.221.32}}<br>{{IPvandal|72.85.199.66}}<br>--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

== parental-alienation.info rgardner.com==
*{{spamlink|parental-alienation.info}}
*{{spamlink|rgardner.com}}
:'''Spam sock accounts'''<br>
{{IPvandal|80.100.149.125}}<br>{{vandal|Sextant}}<br>

BL'd --[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] 08:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:04, 18 September 2007

Shortcut


Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

Thank you. --CliffC 03:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domain:
Account:
  • I left first request to stop adding links (other accounts have been warned before)
    • Traceoutes to Baltimore, Maryland
Article:
--A. B. (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional spam domain:
Related domains:
Additional accounts:
Registered to an Owings Mills ISP
  • Employed by site-owner[1]
Articles:
Public registration data:
Irwin Kramer
500 Redland Court
Owings Mills, MD 21117
--A. B. (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All mainspace links cleaned up except those added by others and/or admissible per WP:EL: Foie gras controversy, Todd Bertuzzi, James J. Kilpatrick, Joseph C. Wilson, The Legal Television Network. --A. B. (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense 2846453156922259 spammer still active

Some of these sites, as documented by A. B. are still being added:

Now add:

And users:

All cleaned as of now. Burlywood 14:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still spamming.[2] --A. B. (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

caiuszip.com and sciarthistory.com

History of personal caiuszip.com/relativiting.htm and the recently created copy sciarthistory.com/relativiting.htm from ISP COMITE GESTOR DA INTERNET NO BRASIL.

201.53.33.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings, 2 more entries after final warning, block, 1 more entry
189.13.60.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings
201.8.194.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Warnings.
201.37.236.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 warnings, 2 blocks
201.8.194.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2 attempts
201.53.33.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 1 warning, 2 blocks
Profes001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 4 warnings, indefinite account creating block
201.53.0.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
201.53.42.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 3 warnings, 1 block

Spamlinks entered on articles Theory of relativity‎, Agatha Christie‎, Charlie Chaplin‎, Pablo Picasso‎, Cubism, Principle of relativity‎, Mass–energy equivalence‎, General relativity‎, Albert Einstein‎, Mathematics of general relativity‎, Special relativity‎, The Einstein Theory of Relativity‎, Principle of relativity‎, History of gravitational theory‎, Annus Mirabilis Papers‎.

Countless final warnings and multiple blocks, some of them indefinite. Blocking does not help.

DVdm 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding spamlink templates. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35 spam links (30 + 5 respectively) on interwiki spam search. Blacklist globally? MER-C 09:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I guess that global blacklist is called for here. DVdm 11:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I manually removed all the Interwiki links except this one. Is it protected? Are the sites now globally blacklisted?
Thanks, DVdm 12:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
es:Albert Einstein is semi-protected. The links haven't been blacklisted yet. MER-C 09:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting requested. You've got some more spam to revert. MER-C 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but what do you mean with "some more spam to revert"? The only entry I find is the one on es:Albert Einstein, but I can't edit it, nor can I explain in Spanish on the talk-page. Cheers, DVdm 10:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eagle's spamsearch only covers the top 57 wikipedias. A search of some of the spammers' contributions reveals other wikis were spammed. Blacklisting was successful. MER-C 08:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sign, I notice that they're also using caiozip.com: 35 links on Interwiki link search:
caiozip.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
so, I'll start removing. One more for the blacklist? DVdm 09:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. MER-C 09:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I monitored the IP of the URLs (200.234.196.135) on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

world-religion.org citation spam

Ad-sense pub-4015403507195401

Link claims to be a public domain version of the 1921 Canney Encyclopedia of Religion.

Conversation at my talk page and RapidReferenceWriter's talk page. -- SiobhanHansa 18:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just signing off after leaving a note on Siobhan's talk page and saw his entry here. Here's a bit more:
  • 2 more accounts:
  • 2 more domains:
Goggle Adsense ID for all three domains: 4015403507195401
I'm on an urgent trip and can't follow up -- can someone else? These should probably go to meta, given the x-wiki aspect. --A. B. (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks A.B. Now reported at meta(permanent link). Are we supposed to get it blacklisted locally as well - or only if it's turned down at meta? -- SiobhanHansa 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If meta blacklists, then there's no need to here. Otherwise, if they don't, then take it to the local blacklist. In my own experience, spammers increase their x-wiki spamming over time, they don't decrease it. Herbythyme, the most active meta admin handling blacklisting issues nowadays, is very sensitive and responsive to this sort of thing once someone makes a good case as you have. (At the same time he's very chary of requests where the supporting facts haven't been laid out very thoroughly.) --A. B. (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now blacklisted on meta. --A. B. (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only the two webkinz related sites have actually been put on the blacklist, not the world-religion.org site. I've left a message on the admin's talk page asking if this is an oversight or not. -- SiobhanHansa 13:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. -- SiobhanHansa 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.kqed.org

Already meantioned earlier, and there are some warnings on the talkpage of the IP today:

Apparently a good link, as it contains a lot of data. But the account has been adding the link repeatedly, and has itself not responded whatsoever to any of the warnings. I gave it a {{uw-spam4im}} earlier, and an explanatory text shortly after, but that was ignored.

If this is indeed deemed to be a good link, then I suggest that the people involved in kqed work together with a wikiproeject, and that the wikiproject endorses a template. That template can then be used to add the links. As the IP in question does not seem to respond, I think further linkadditions should be treated as linkspam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Craigrosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
65.168.148.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
These were being spammed back in july, apparently its continued.--Hu12 01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charliequest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
another--Hu12 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

musicemissions.com

Guess I am being punished for not following up as soon as I saw it.

One account, I guess the sock-master User:MusicemissionsSolitaryMan started with it, now there are several.

  1. MusicemissionsSolitaryMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Green_clash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Hstisgod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. 192.187.144.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  5. 76.187.42.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  6. 66.222.242.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  7. 66.222.227.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  8. 75.31.122.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  9. 199.126.217.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  10. 4.167.238.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  11. Dscanland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
You can consolidate 199.126.217.145, 192.187.144.240, 66.222.242.170, 66.222.227.49, and dscanland. We are all the same "Vandal". Dscanland 18:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs cleaning up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found a couple more spammers and cleaned up the additions from those spammers listed so far (1 - 9). There are good faith additions by other editors too so clean up is messy and blacklisting may not be appropriate. Do you think bringing it to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums would be useful? -- SiobhanHansa 15:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan to me. The data itself does not look to bad, album reviews, but the way it is added is not the way forward, especially when some of the accounts have been warned, but continue while not discussing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message for them. -- SiobhanHansa 01:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please let me know what the issue is? I quite regularly add links to our reviews (as other sites do as well). MusicemissionsSolitaryMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is new to our Editorial team and maybe he is not aware of any issues here. Thanks. dscanland

It is not only MusicemissionsSolitaryMan, also the other accounts named above. That the data is available on your site (as well as many other music related sites) does not mean that wikipedia should have a link to all that information. We are writing an encyclopedia here. Although your links may be welcome, when they are added by single purpose accounts to external links sections only, these accounts are probably in violation of quite a number of policies and guidelines (not all may apply for each specific, but: neutral point of view policy, Policy 'what wikipedia is not', directory section (and other parts maybe as well), external links guideline, spam guideline, conflict of interest guideline and maybe more). The violation may not be direct, but because such linkadditions can be questioned against so many of the policies and guidelines I would strongly advise that these accounts make contact with a music related WikiProject (and find a solution there), or only suggest the links on talkpages. Hope this explains.
Regarding this, I have also been contacted on my talkpage by Hstisgod (whom I have given a similar explanation). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all fine but I'm not sure exactly what the issue is. We have been following the exact guidelines that are listed here: Professional Reviews I ALWAYS make sure that I put the site's rating and put the link in alpha order. So is it not OK to add our reviews to Wikipedia? Or are we going at it the wrong way? I can't find any difference to the way I added the Music Emissions review to Wincing_The_Night_Away to any others that are on this page. I guess what we need is just some clarification of what our violation is/was, Thanks Dscanland 18:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try and explain:
  • 'what wikipedia is not' policy, directory section. Although it is OK to provide some good on topic links, we do not have to link to all the external sites available.
  • conflict of interest guideline, some of the accounts have a clear conflict of interest, and this guideline states "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when .... 3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);".
  • neutral point of view policy/pillar, why link to this site only (these accounts show a quite singular point of view). There are surely even more notable reviews, and still these accounts do not add these.
  • external links guideline, "links should be kept to a minimum", and "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines."
  • spam guideline, "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." Although it is often unclear if the edit is good-faith, or indeed to promote the organisation, still it is better to avoid such implications.
All these policies and guidelines suggest: discuss first.
Now the question here is, should we link to this site anyway? This Articles for Deletion discussion has 4 votes for delete, and the nominator, while the only contestant is you. I am sorry, I again suggest you to contact an appropriate WikiProject (see this list), and when they think the site is notable enough to be included in reviews, then they can coordinate the addition of links.
The page that you show indeed contains a huge linkfarm (well, there is quite some work out there that still needs cleaning), and I am afraid that when we start digging, many of those links should not have been added either. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did a bit more digging. It appears that most of the links (8 out of 17 currently there) on Wincing_The_Night_Away are not on the list of review sites WP:ALBUM provides. Guess there is a lot of work to be done for the link-cleaners in this area. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, asked for some clarification on that. The 'whitelist' on WP:ALBUM is merely as an example, and they do define your site as being notable, usable as a review. Still I will ask you, and other people connected to your site to not add the links only (if you think they add to a page, please discuss on the talkpage, or via a wikiproject), per the cited policies and guidelines above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I will notify the staff that they aren't to add the reviews directly and that they need to be added to that album's talk page first. Is there a way to turn around all of the links that you have removed then? A lot of those did indeed add value to the articles being largely positive (4.5 stars or more). Thanks for your help with this. Dscanland 17:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.whatiftees.com http://spam.cafepress.com/whatiftees

whatiftees.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
cafepress.com/whatiftees: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

MER-C 11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the article CafePress.com itself I have a hard time imagining where any cafepress link would be appropriate in Wikipedia (other WikiMedia projects might have uses though). Is this something we could locally blacklist for all but the actual link used on the website's own article? -- SiobhanHansa 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot selectively whitelist links for separate pages. Blacklist means it can't be linked to, period. Still, I don't see a reason why we should have cafepress.com links on Wikipedia - the blacklist beckons. MER-C 11:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.themall.co.uk

themall.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

Has some remnant links, not sure whether we should get rid of them. MER-C 12:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added afd--Hu12 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.paspn.net

Adsense pub-1623043375639391

http://spam.pistonshistory.com Redirects to paspn.net

Spammers

MER-C 12:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added IP--Hu12 18:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some details--Hu12 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.sporha.com

sporha.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

MER-C 13:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.vibereview.com

vibereview.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 18:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.mojouniverse.com

mojouniverse.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Account

Target site is just a basic cookie-cutter page with some Google ads. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Videmus, it may be spam but I wished I owned that domain name -- do you suppose Dr. Evil is behind this one? See any sharks on that site?
--A. B. (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With frickin' lasers on their frickin' heads - yeah baby! Videmus Omnia Talk 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
300px..clean for now--Hu12 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referrer codes

Is there anything the bots can do about spammers adding referrer codes to links, apparently in an attempt to make a commission from site visits/subscriptions? (See this for a guy on dynamic IPs I'm fighting now.) I requested page semi-protection on Flower Tucci, not sure what else I can do about this. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I semi protected the page, other than blacklisting the link this is the correct move for now. I had the same problem on Moneybookers moneybookers.com search doccumented Id's and IP's. I even uncovered wikipedia foundation refferal id LOL. Any way, you should check for the affiliate spamming cross-wiki[3], I'd assume others have attemptd the same on other wiki's. --Hu12 03:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Account

The above IP spammed the following sites:

In the past, this IP has spammed the following sites:

Following links from the spammed sites gets the following additional sites:

There are undoubtedly more, I only followed the link pages out for one hop - some of the above sites link to even more sites. Some of the pages have a different look, so either our guy is changing his template or has a buddy or partner included in his site links. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These pages are related (partially similar layout), but certainly not the same. They contain banners and the most of the names are now not just the name of the person, but more extended. Also old tricks to find the related pages don't work (or did our spammer quickly change the strategy (and server settings) after he saw our previous block)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eagle 101/SpamInDabs

That list contains a long listing of external links in disambig pages from last month's database dump. As disambig pages are really not supposed to have external links (rather they should have internal links) every instance of an external link is spam. Have fun. Let me know when the first batch is done, there is 2 more batches to follow for a total of ~4,000 pages. —— Eagle101Need help? 10:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone hire a bot for that job? Should be easy to match to a regex, and just kill the external links and references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that myself, but there are two problems with a bot, number one, the formatting of the spam is not consistant, sometimes the spammers put an == External Links == header in there, or use other shenanigans. Secondly its useful for a human to review these as the articles that are next to the links in the disambigs may need to be deleted per per the no-spam speedy deletion criteria. Example
A bot would simply either remove just the link, or would remove the whole line, failing to note or delete the spam article. —— Eagle101Need help? 10:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, true. Hmm .. quite a task ahead then. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.allthingshidef.com

Accounts

Jeb69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.107.118.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.107.113.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Pacone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.84.197.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid-gowns.com spammer back as dress-codes.eu

Previous spam report. The same content is now being spammed under a newly registered domain

New IP spammer

This version does not have the store that the previous version did, but it is still promotion (of poorly written content) by multiple IPs who add nothing else to Wikipedia. I'm recommending this go straight to the local blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 20:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it.--Hu12 21:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few more Dagnez domains we may end up seeing:
Already blacklisted
Google Adsense: 2649206639795347
--A. B. (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.shoutwire.com

Article Shoutwire
Article Shoutwire.com
Article Tubearoo
Article PeteMate

Accounts


JohnnyStallion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lieutenant Clone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jimbobzeway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Th3perfectdrug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Why me30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chivie1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bryan8m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Franktastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Franktastsic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TheRandomAvenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
156.34.93.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.111.153.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
156.34.67.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.157.116.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.115.227.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
99.242.144.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Persistant recreation of articles, a hand full of WP:SPA sock accounts and all the url's I removed Iframed other sites for there content--Hu12 20:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: They have a thread up, which explains a lot of the SPAs.-Wafulz 21:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really spamming, just another classic example of users of a non-notable website who have no concept of notability.
Solution:
  1. Go to nearest lake
  2. Catch trout
  3. Smack SPAs with said trout
  4. ???
  5. pr0f1t!!!

Or just leave it salted and wait for them to understand the idea of protection. Shadow1 (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable website? Do some research. Shoutwire has feeds on the frontpage of torrentspy.com and countless other websites. Shoutwire also has a user base of 60,000+. This is absurd that you think shoutwire is spam. It is highly suspicious that of all the sites listed on the wiki page for the social bookmarking website list that shoutwire.com is the only one without a page. I do not know who is telling you guys to delete the shoutwire page, but it is really unprofessional. (Pieszbob1 23:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please read WP:N. Wikipedia has notability criteria that is used to establish the notability of a web site. If the criteria is not met, the article is deemed non-notable and deleted. I'm as much of a critic of questionable deletions as you are, but I do not believe that ShoutWire is particularly notable. As I stated on the talk page, you may take the article to deletion review if you believe that the article was deleted unfairly. Creating multiple accounts and encouraging others to do so as well isn't a way to get the article back. Shadow1 (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Multiple accounts? I only have one account. I'm sorry that our users are upset and remade the page, but saying that we are spam is crossing the line. I ask you to remove myself and shoutwire from the spam campaign page. (Pieszbob1 01:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Pieszbob1, you are very critical of our decision-making processes and the unpaid volunteers that have made them. Here are the standards from which we are supposed to work in this case:
  1. This is how we define spam:
  2. These are our rules for conflicts of interest:
  3. This is our notability guideline for web sites:
  4. These are our guidelines for reliable sources and external links:
  5. These are our spam blacklists used when all else fails:
    1. Spam blacklist (English Wikipedia only)
    2. Global spam blacklist
      1. Covers all 700+ Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc.) in all languages
      2. Used by Wikia for its hundreds of wikis.
      3. Used by a large portion of the thousands of unrelated wikis that run on the same MediaWiki software we use and elect to use our blacklist as part of their own spam filtering
      4. Indexed by Google and other big search engines


Here are the particulars of Shoutwire on Wikipedia:
  1. These are the deletion logs for your articles:
    1. Tuberoo
    2. PeteMate
    3. Shoutwire.com
    4. Shoutwire
      • It's very unusual if an article is deleted then re-created more than once.
  2. This is your internal discussion of this issue:
--A. B. (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I did not create that editorial. Once again do some research. Someone has it out for shoutwire. Kinda strange how DIGG is locked from editing or deleting...

See for yourself:
zorpia.com pushed for articles and links so persistently that it was put on the global spam blacklist for quite a while:
The ball is in Shoutwire's court; you have some options:
  1. Show us that you already meet our standards as listed above, or
  2. Leave us alone for now and grow big enough to meet our standards, or
  3. Continue pushing us prematurely: spamming links and articles as before
In the meantime, I've created a user page for you to practice with until there's an article that meets our standards:
  • User:Pieszbob1/Shoutwire
    • Important: do not link to that page from any actual Wikipedia articles. We don't allow links from any article pages to any user pages.
Good day, --A. B. (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional domain to monitor:
Account adding this link:
Finally, note the following:
--A. B. (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I appreciate that you are taking the time to work with us. I'm sorry if you are offended by the editorial, but many users feel upset about the sudden deletion of the shoutwire page. I'll contact you when the page is finished. Once again thank you for working with us.

(Pieszbob1 15:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I suggest letting each of the admins involved in deleting Shoutwire article know when you think that you have an article at User:Pieszbob1/Shoutwire that meets the Notability and Reliable Source Guidelines. You can get their names from this deletion log. They probably have that article title on their watchlists so you don't want them surprised.
Understand also that our notability requirements have as much or more to do with encyclopedic reliability as with the size and merit of the subject. If we can't use sources that meet our Reliability Guideline, then we won't have a reliable article. We really want at least one source like a media outlet that has some measure of editorial supervision.
Three core editorial policies are:
--A. B. (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you so much for helping us get things straightened up. I'm working with senior editors to get the history section built up and every other section as well. Please ignore any editorials that are posted by people on shoutwire regarding wiki. They are misinformed and do not represent us as a whole. Thank you!

(Pieszbob1 23:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User:HarryPotterWatchDog and subpages

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=HarryPotterWatchDog

any thoughts?--Hu12 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd but it's not clear what's going on. I don't really see it as spam. Blatant copyvio though - copy and pasted without the editor histories attached.... -- SiobhanHansa 15:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

savingkitcat.com.au and ecashloans.com.au

Google ad-sense pub-9704780881063106

IPs adding:

-- SiobhanHansa 12:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More findings. These sites appear to be owned by Steve Szasz "an Australian renowned SEO" according to his ezine article sign off at ezinearticles.com/?&id=65533 (He's also an author on squidoo squidoo.com/creditcardcompany I think this is just more evidence tht these are not good content articles sites....).
Other websites of his:
All found at his stumblupon page (webseo.stumbleupon.com) -- SiobhanHansa 13:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.listentorecords.org

Three warnings, not stopping. Pull 'im over. Katr67 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like s/he stopped. Katr67 20:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.pornstars-search.com

Accounts

I may be jumping the gun on this (so far the above accounts only hit the Nikki Benz article) but the site doesn't look like it could ever be a legitimate link, and is apparently expanding to include more porn stars. Worth highlighting in the linkwatcher, I believe. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

video.olympus.ru

Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 03:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammed cross-wiki, see this. Looks like meta blacklist candidate, what do you think? Videmus Omnia Talk 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, added a request at Meta (my first!) Videmus Omnia Talk 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisting successful. MER-C 13:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They requested un-blacklisting here. I found it amusing they promised to limit spamming to ru Wikipedia. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mundoceleste.ch

mundoceleste.ch: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers
Cross-wiki edits
Cross-wiki edits

MER-C 10:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammed cross-wiki with 21 interwiki links. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 10:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisted. MER-C 13:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pragyasagar.com

pragyasagar.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

MER-C 11:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added another link.[4] --A. B. (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has also added content; it would be too bad to lose him but he can't keep doing this. I left him a note[5] asking him to join this discussion.

For those here that report links for meta blacklisting, there is a copy of the spamlink template there as well (updated to include A. B.'s functionality as well). The linklist from the discussion here can now easily be copied to meta, and it gives the admins there also a more complete overview of the evidence available. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, these en.wikipedia and meta templates are great and far beyond anything I've ever done, both functionally and aesthetically (important when you're crowding in so much info).
I've gone ahead and copied over your stuff over to my own template, User:A. B./spam, which I guess you could call "deprecated" now. I did this so that any unsubstituted occurrences of my old template in archives will now display the same functionality.
By the way, you might take a look at coming up with some sort of spam-oriented templates for IPs and user accounts. I came up with:
I'm a plagiarist that cuts and pastes, not a real template-writer or tool developer, so that second tool's got a problem -- some functions (Linkwatcher and Google searches) don't properly handle spaces in user names:
Also, neither template provides an input to the English wiki Noticeboard Archive Search Tool:
The link labeled "noticeboards" just takes you to the tool -- you still have to enter the IP or user name.
I like these two tools because they show me x-wiki contributions. The IP tools are handy, too, especially since CompleteWhois, robtex.com and ippages.com each seem to be off-line at different times.
I'm sure both these tools can be improved on. It would be good to have something more general for everyone than just a user page tool. --A. B. (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on the UserSummary, I guess IPwhois can be adapted similarly. Indeed the space->underscore is a bit of a problem (or you just have to use the underscore in the report ..). Would it be feasable to create {{UserSummary}} and {{IPSummary}} for these (or something similar, I thought of UserReport and IPReport ... but that sounds too harsh, maybe). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.beerdrinkingclub.com

beerdrinkingclub.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

MER-C 13:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linksearcher tool offline

Hello all,

I have temporarily disabled the "LinkWatcher search" tool that I host on the Toolserver. It was generating too many queries and impacting performance for other users' tools. The tool will now display an error message instead of its normal interface until I can optimize its operation, hopefully within the next week. Shadow1 (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.mvremix.com

mvremix.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

Not sure how hard to push on the remaining links as content may be worthwhile. MER-C 12:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

under construction additions

Adsense pub-4593315599699805

Accounts

61.5.149.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkfarm at Service Employees International Union

I'm thinking all the links to the locals need to be removed, since Wikipedia is not a directory. Any additional thoughts before I go about doing this? I have a feeling the link removal will be contested. (As a member of that union myself, I know they're a scrappy bunch.) Katr67 17:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense to just link to the main website... or to it's "Find a Local" page. In cases where a group has a bunch of websites it's common to just link to the main-page and let the reader navigate from there. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense pub-7594990058509251

Accounts

66.54.196.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Prosper Marketplace, Inc
--Hu12 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.ezxinc.com

Accounts

Skapate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72.90.221.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
72.85.199.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

parental-alienation.info rgardner.com

Spam sock accounts

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

BL'd --Hu12 08:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=158678093"