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
Line 913: Line 913:
*{{spamlink|stainedglass.cc}}
*{{spamlink|stainedglass.cc}}
*{{spamlink|wholesalecarpet.us}} --[[User:Versageek|Versageek]] 05:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
*{{spamlink|wholesalecarpet.us}} --[[User:Versageek|Versageek]] 05:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Website IP: {{spamlink|64.202.163.135}}. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


== voip-services-provider.co.uk ==
== voip-services-provider.co.uk ==

Revision as of 09:44, 27 September 2007

Shortcut


Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

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]


Dennis, it's evident to me, there can not be a clear and definitive reasoning as to why we are violating wiki policy without going directly to a music project editor. Hstisgod 16:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

socyberty.com

Another suite101 type of site - authors can pretty much write what they like and they get a share of the revenue generated by the advertising on their article pages. Little apparent editorial control in terms of fact checking and writers do not need to be subject experts - most seem to cover broad ranges of subjects and use screen names. This makes it inappropriate as a reliable source and unlikely to be appropriate as an external link. It's not that big an issue yet, but a couple of authors appear to have just started trying to get their articles on Wikipedia so it may be the beginning of a push.

Users:

Another set of related "fan sites"

Account
Sites

Additional sites apparently owned by same spammer

This guy's defining characteristic is that he labels his links "Fan Resource". He showed no sign of slowing down despite warnings, right up until he was blocked by Riana. I'm going to look for more sites, but any chance of resolving his IP so that the bots can possibly get these sites? Videmus Omnia Talk 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go...

IP is the same for all sites except for meagan-good.com which is 209.40.202.21. At least it's fairly easy to programatically resolve websites (requires a Java Development Kit). MER-C 13:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(COIBot reads the spamlink templates on this page and puts the reported links on the monitorlist, when finding a common IP for the sites, these can be added via this functionality as well (and please do), as COIBot will also resolve the IPs of added links and see if they are on the monitorlist. Although the links in these templates will not result in any results (though the on wiki google search might give a link to the reports when they exist; I will modify the reports so the linksearch also works). ). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a moment with that, should prepare COIBot for it (as it goes wrong at the moment :-D). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is working now, please use this with some care, as some IPs are hosting many many sites. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.oldwestdvd.com

User's blocked now for 31 hours, was adding links to this site massively.... May want to keep an eye out SQL(Query Me!) 00:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.artistshousemusic.org

Account

The site itself seems OK (the interviews, etc. are legit), but given the uploader's contribs this looks like COI spamming, looking for a second opinion whether anything should be done here. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.thepersiancourtesan.com

thepersiancourtesan.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 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.associatedcontent.com

This website, Associated Content, hosts topical articles submitted by the public. Authors are paid by how many page views they get. Obviously, that gives authors a major incentive to link to their articles. See this editor's history, for example.[1] We now have 481 links to the site, perhaps half are in articles, and they've been added by many different editors. The AC articles themselves are not professionally written, don't have sources, and aren't really suitable as reliable sources, IMO. Do folks have an opinion about links to this site? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been evaluating links to this site on a case-to-case basis, and almost always end up removing them.. IMHO, they should probably be blocked in the same way that squidoo.com is blocked.. the method of operation - and the resulting low-quality links on Wikipedia are very much the same.. --Versageek 20:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

drugstoretm.com

For the record. I just indefblocked a persistent spammer, all contributions have been cleaned. It may be a meta-candidate later.

Links:

Spammers:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also: UrBaByGiRLFoRLiFe (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • COIBot • noticeboards • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)
--Versageek 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
Adbrite ID: 420885
Related domain:
--A. B. (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Related domains:
See these notes:
This spammer appears to be a prolific fax spammer as well with an almost unlimited number of domains and fax numbers. I recommend blacklisting on sight at meta (since this guy is probably also certainly spamming other MediaWiki wikis).
Public whois registration:
Robert Murry
305 Vine st.
Liverpool, NY 13088
ph: 800-217-9246
--A. B. (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the already mentioned links COIBot now monitors 202.64.69.7 and 202.64.77.52, which seems to be the majority of the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my-island-penang.com

Added to several pages by several IPs.

Link:

Users:

All cleaned. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did not even realize I just reported these this morning. COIBot found a maze of IPs and users adding a set of links, if you see the edits per IP alone, it is hard to see that they are related (follow the LinkReports and UserReports from COIBot).
Users:
Voila: m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#bicycle-adventures.com_.28and_affiliated.29. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 20:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.mystique-magazine.com

Accounts

Not cleaned yet, I'm going to be away from the computer for a bit. Will check back later and clean it if it still needs to be done. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second account added. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:205.238.135.18 also spammed this cross-wiki at fr, sv, and es. Could someone more experienced take a look to see if this warrants a report at meta blacklist? Videmus Omnia Talk 16:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tunetransfers.com

blatant spam - now blacklisted on AntiSpamBot, recorded here for posterity:

ielection08.com and ibizservicez.com

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Spammers

MER-C 10:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Related domain:
Google Adsense: 9392173521422451
--A. B. (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.redentertainment.com

redentertainment.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 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.chargedaudio.com

chargedaudio.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
10 external links at the moment. I don't have time to investigate further. Looks like a spammer in progress changing ip addresses with each edit. --Ronz 16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All links removed. IPs updated with all the ones I found. --Ronz 04:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's 17 ip's adding the same link, in all but three cases making only a single edit. Looks like someone changing ip addresses to deliberately hide spam activity, but perhaps there's another explanation? --Ronz 04:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Non-commercial content was added. Please do check before removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.65.115 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT#LINK. I've checked them all and they are all in violation. Further, the method of their inclusion alone makes them suspect. Further, you're commenting from the very same ip block that is doing the spamming. --Ronz 16:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- I've checked and besides being non-commercial but resource articles, they are not in violation of WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT#LINK, you might want to double check that with another person. Nonetheless you seem adamant on your actions. So what can I say. All the best. When you have a service provider that sucks and keeps resetting, you will understand the downsides of a dynamic IP address. Til then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.65.115 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have checked as well, we can see that this is (apparently) one single editor who is performing link-additions only (note: wikipedia defines this as spam, however appropriate the links are (the definition spam has here nothing to do with the content of the site, it is how it is added), and indeed, we are not a linkfarm). Although the links are pointing to non-commercial information, the site has a strong commercial part (selling CDs). I would certainly say that these are to be avoided. Hope this explains (by the way, if your IP-hopping is a problem, please register an account). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jcsm.org-related domains

A request to whitelist a blacklisted domain came up:

so I did some checking to see what the history of this domain was and why it was blacklisted. I found a lot:

Lots of history:

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Gastrich deleted 6 times (once as an attack page)[2]
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jason Gastrich
  3. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Evidence
  4. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich
  5. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04#jcsm.org
  6. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/03#jcsm.org blacklisted?

Lots of sockpuppets:

Lots of domains, only a few of which had been blacklisted:

  • Already blacklisted
  • Already blacklisted
  • Already blacklisted
  • Already blacklisted
  • Already blacklisted

Google Adsense revenue code: 6669817858049893

Many interesting "ministries":

  • http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/cheap-long-distance.html
  • http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/free-cell-phones.html
  • http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/cell-phone-plans.html
  • http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/international-calling-cards.html
  • http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/talk-america-local.html
  • http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/voip-broadband-phone.html
  • http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/ztel-mci-unlimited.html
  • http:// jcsm.org/phoneads/wireless-phone-service.html

Please add these domains to our bots' watchlists. Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More cookie-cutter fan sites

Account

I haven't seen this template before but it's the same on all three sites. Could someone with mad Java skilz resolve the IP and feed this to the bots? Videmus Omnia Talk 02:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP for these three sites is 65.99.239.196. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this information is also available if you click the 'domaintools' link in the template.

http://spam.tvshowsongs.com

Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 13:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blacklisted this on AntiSpamBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

childrenofthecode.org

IP adding the links, interviews, may be of interest, but this way of addition is spamming.

Users:

Already on it for quite some time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

metalhead.ro

Romanian interviews, user seems to have a COI (IP user = 194.88.148.1, IP url = 194.88.148.14).

Users:

194.88.148.1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google)

User was warned repeatedly, link is now blacklisted on shadowbot, and the user ran subsequently into a block. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also:
  • This IP is Spanish, not Romanian
--A. B. (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hibiny.ru

Cross wiki addition of the link (COIBot already caught the link on the Russian wikipedia). User is warned that his cross-wiki additions may earn his link meta-blacklisting.

Users:

Link is now blacklisted on AntiSpamBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest just going ahead and getting it blacklisted now at meta. Traditionally once a spammer's gone x-wiki, we've blacklisted immediately rather than waiting. --A. B. (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - proposed for meta blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All my links absolutly different and NOT SPAM!! On russian pages hibiny.ru/ru , on english pages hibiny.ru/en My server - big info center all cities of Murmansk region. hibiny.ru/en/region/murmansk hibiny.ru/en/region/apatity and i.e.

To all cities in Murmansnk region on Wikipedia, I into links about every cities - is this SPAM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibinyru (talk • contribs) 04:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were, on both wikis, performing link additions only to a site you are affiliated with. You were warned (at least on this wiki) a couple of times to discuss these links, instead of just adding them. In this way you are here violating a couple of policies and guidelines (neutral point of view policy, 'what wikipedia is not' policy, conflict of interest guideline, external links guideline, and spam guideline). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you make your case at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Proposed removals -- that's where any decision will be made to remove your site from the Wikimedia-wide blacklist. You'll have to show that other editors on other projects (such as the Russian Wikipedia) want your links and that your links on those projects were added by established editors and not yourself. If the decision is made that your links have value elsewhere, then it's possible that:
  1. Your site will come off of the Wikimedia-wide blacklist at meta:Spam blacklist and just be listed at the English Wikipedia blacklist at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. That's if two or more projects want your links ...OR ...
  2. Your site remains on the Wikimedia-wide blacklist but is "whitelisted" just for an individual project such as the Russian Wikipedia. The whitelist for that Wikipedia is at ru:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and you can make a whitelisting request at ru:Обсуждение MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Any admin on the Russian Wikipedia can make this change for you.
In any event, it's too bad that you pushed so hard on the English Wikipedia in spite of requests to stop. I don't see your links being allowed on the English Wikipedia unless some established editor (with more than 500 edits) asks that we reconsider. In the meantime, if you are going to appeal your blacklisting, you should first study the material that Dirk Beetstra linked to above. Finally, I suggest you bear in mind that all of these projects work on consensus and our rules have been set by community consensus; you'll have a hard time getting any help if you don't work with the community instead of against it. --A. B. (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add one final comment -- I like your site; nevertheless, our rules on conflicts of interest have been developed over time based on hard and bitter experience and we cannot let site-owners spam their links. Not even the Queen of England gets to add links to her own site. --A. B. (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian spam

Appears confined to en.wikipedia so far.

Domains:

Google Adsense ID: 9611697539638523

Related domains:

Accounts:

--A. B. (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Local blacklisting requested:
--A. B. (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Sullivan spam on Wikipedia

Spam domains:

Related domain:

Accounts:

Article:

Google Adsense ID: 2617828379348300

I will request meta blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta request:
--A. B. (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North South Shootout spam

Domains:

redirects to:

Accounts:

--A. B. (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daystar International spam

Articles:

Spam domains:

Related domains:

Account:

--A. B. (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siwat Chawbangngam spam on Wikipedia

Spammed domains:

Related domains:

Google Adsense IDs:

  • 4215536586235881
  • 6113268413020932

Accounts:

Public whois registration data:

Siwat Chawbangngam
138 Moo 1 Tambon Wangnamsub
Sriprachan, Suphanburi 72140
Thailand

I'll request blacklisting on meta of the 2 spammed domains. --A. B. (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta request:
--A. B. (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book promotion spam

This user has been adding paragraphs with short book reviews & links. He's been warned up to uw-advert4, although he blanked his talk page after uw-spam3.

This last domain is a free self-publisher, which, given it's nature as something other than a reliable source, has far too many links on wiki already.

--Versageek 19:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent cricket spam

Spammed domains
Related domains
Accounts

Google Adsense ID: 7538481819948879

I will list the spammed domains for local blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thesoulmission.com

Account

Also spammed:

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 01:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to run and I don't have time to follow up on stuff I just noticed. I think there's more stuff out there besides these 2 domains. Take a look at:
You may want to get all this blacklisted
Gotta run. Good luck, --A. B. (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

protrails.com

Please have the bots monitor:

  • protrails.com
  • americanhiker.com

Spammed domain

Related domain:

Account:

Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More porn fansite linkspam

Account
Recent spammed sites
Older spammed sites (April/May 2007)
Website IPs (looks like just one website per IP address, but from a common provider, most sites registered to the same company. The sites all have a similar look.)

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 03:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.kgcinternational.com

Articles
Link
Account

From this report at WP:COIN. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music sites

Account

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

Sites spammed
Website IP - there appear to be a lot of domains on this IP, please let me know if I've screwed up by adding it here.

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tonebee.com

For the record:

For a set of the IPs, see the COIBot LinkReport. Now blacklisted on en.wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porn linkspam

Account
Sites
Website IPs

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this seems to be the same spammer as #More porn fansite linkspam, above. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Content links

Are these all self-published spam links?

I'm trying to figure out if this is another ezinearticles or suite101.com all over again:

Take a look at the business model described in the Associated Content article -- what do others think? --A. B. (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.justpressplay.net

(pulled from august archive)

justpressplay.net: 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

Spammer

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 14:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP is adding text with references pulled from this page. Trouble is, the site is a forum, certainly not a reliable source. And I even doubt if this would have a place in external links sections. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


http://spam.chopinmusic.net

Accounts

142.151.130.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 11:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming of ptrades.com

Accounts

Zippymobile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 12:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.celebs101.com

Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 12:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.chemtracers.com

others

Adsense pub-4310647374668370

Accounts

Rothfuss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.144.112.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

informationbible.com

Adsense pub-5640870224015100

Proposed at the local blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its been added--Hu12 21:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

home and office decorating spam

were spammed by:

this IP added spammy inline links & (copyvio) images which had been uploaded earlier by:

to Curtain and Furniture

Other domains advertised on those sites, but not spammed here yet, include:

Website IP: 64.202.163.135: 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 . MER-C 09:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

voip-services-provider.co.uk

Spamsocks:

Spamming articles that have nothing at all to do with VOIP, quite odd.. --Versageek 06:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=160660875"