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
Line 558: Line 558:


[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 10:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 10:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

== http://spam.videopopcorn.com ==

{{spamlink|videopopcorn.com}}

;Spammers
*{{IPSummary|220.227.133.26}}
*{{IPSummary|59.93.102.112}}
*{{UserSummary|Mdevalla}}

[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:57, 22 November 2007


Shortcut


Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

ifood.tv

I've noticed links to ifood.tv popping up here and there. In most cases, by spot checking, I found the links added by IP users mapping to India. (Look for 122. IPs). I'm not entirely convinced that this is spam ... well ... it's spam, but it's borderline useful content as opposed to merely being a link aggregator or trying to push a commercial product. Maybe I'll be more dogmatic tomorrow, but I thought I would post it here first to see if anyone has a strong opinion one way or the other on removing the links. --B 02:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's monitor how it gets used. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wiredforbooks.org

See Also→ Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wired_for_Books#Wired_for_Books

Users:

Not sure, seems to be long missed (seen the many edits by some of these WP:SPA's). Maybe it is a good link, but I am afraid that this has to be cleaned. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier reported by Katr67; Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Oct_2#http:.2F.2Fspam.wiredforbooks.org. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, earlier, they were simply changing the wording of the existing links (probably added in good faith by other users), but it appears that now they are actively spamming the links as well. Katr67 16:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed, the 132.235 IPs originate from the same place as Wired for Books--Ohio University. Katr67 18:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I blocked an IP after a spam1 and a message to join the discussion here (though the editor persisted in adding more). I would like to suggest to run AWB on the list of pages these editors (or maybe only one) have been hitting and convert them into a (for now disabled) template. Someone know a suitable wikiproject to bring up the rest of the issue? In that time we can (working together with the wikiproject) decide what to do. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the template {{WiredForBooks}}, and will start on cleaning the 465 pages in my sandbox here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a problem with these external links. wiredforbooks appears to be a university-based non-profit with an archive of author interviews. It seems like just the thing to put in external links for a notable author. If there is any change necessary, it might be to eliminate links to their home page, if there are any, rather than to their WP article, but the link directly to the archived interviews seems like a good thing. BTW, I had never seen their site before--I just saw this because I was watching one of the articles you edited.--Hjal 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, this is a case of heavy spamming (under wikipedia definition). Massive violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:EL (in row, the 5 accounts only add links to one site, quite singular in point of view; we are not a linkfarm (as some pages contain quite some links already ); the accounts mainly add external links; they seem quite involved in the link (especially the IPs); and I have encountered in my latest work quite some pages where the links are not appropriate (on the page of a book, a link with 'an interview with the editor of the book' is certainly 'links to avoid; example). I will strongly suggest that the link-additions in this way stop, and that these editors contact appropriate wikiprojects or start discussing on talkpages (which would also have attracted this attention). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I am currently only changing the links these accounts have added into a template which can be disabled and removed, but that is after it is decided that it should be done. The links may indeed be useful, BUT I do believe that they serve better as references, we are, after all, an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to this issue, and don't have the expertise or time to really dig in. I want to point out, though, that separate from the origin of the links, some of them may be perfectly legitimate. In other words, the behavior of propagating links may be a violation of policy, but some of the links may still constitute a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. The only one I'm aware of is the link at Katherine Dunn. This is an extensive interview with an important literary figure, that may be a great help in expanding that stub. Whatever the outcome of this debate, I hope that this particular interview will remain linked from this particular article. -Pete 21:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem if established editors endorse certain links. There have already been quite some cases where removals of links have been reversed. For now, I am putting them in a template. Maybe a wikiproject (question is which) can ge through the transclusions later and check appropriateness? --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't chime in earlier. As one of the suspected spammers, allow me to explain. Wired for Books is indeed a non-profit project. I work for the project under Federal Work Study, and I was asked to update the links (I don't know when the links were originally added or by whom; I only added a small minority of them) to ensure (1) interviews are linked to on appropriate articles, (2) links are consistently worded, and (3) Don Swaim is credited and his article linked to. I believe the vast majority, if not all, of the links are appropriately placed, and I think, for credibility purposes, altering the wording to include links to the Wikipedia articles of Don Swaim and Wired for Books is also appropriate. I'll certainly discontinue and inform the head of Wired for Books if it is decided that the links are inappropriate. I'll review the policies in the mean time regarding exactly what should or should not be linked to, but as far as single-purpose accounts go, I don't believe mine falls into the illegitimate category. The information I link to does not push a single point-of-view when taken as a whole. I'll continue to participate in this discussion as desired, and I will cease editing the links until this is resolved. --Michael Blohm 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michael for your post. Let me clarify, the links are quite often appropriate (and thats why I did not just remove them), but the way they have been added is a problem. As far as I can see is about 90% of the links added/changed by these 5 accounts. Often only as external links (I think on the 300 pages I have seen only 3 or 4 use the link as a reference). At least the three IP's have a conflict of interest, and I think it is better that all these people contact an appropriate wikiproject before continuing. About the being non-commercial, that does not matter at all here, it is the way links are added. Often commercial links are even more appropriate than non-commercial.
About the appropriateness. I have indeed seen many links which are certainly appropriate (but sometimes there are already a lot of links on the pages, see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, we are not a linkfarm). But I have also encountered many links where I think they are not appropriate. One example I gave above, on the page John Steinbeck. There is a link to an interview there "1989 Audio Interview with Elaine Steinbeck talking to Don Swaim about John Steinbeck, RealAudio at Wired for Books." I would call at least this link excessive (not directly linked, and seen there are already quite some links there).
I started updating the links into an own template. I indeed did not want to clean as some do add to pages (though sometimes they could also be used as references, as to add information to the page).
May I ask you to (help me) put the links into the template as defined above ({{WiredForBooks}}; to get all into a standard format), and to assess where the links may be excessive, or where they could be used better as references (you can use this list: special:whatlinkshere/Template:WiredForBooks. I also would urge the other people who are mentioned above to join that operation (and at least stop adding links only). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have indef blocked Bono06. I have left several warnings, and left twice an invitation to join the discussion here (the second time together with a {{uw-spam4im}}), but to no avail. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed the head the project about the situation, instructing him to tell anyone else who is contributing here to discontinue. From here on out, it should be just you and I. I will help as you ask. Is it fair to say that any links that do not fit the template (i.e., the interviewee is not the subject of the article) should merely be deleted? I will most likely begin work this weekend. Thank you for your civility. --Michael Blohm 05:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Off course other editors are allowed to help with this, you might want to point them to the policies and guidelines (Wikipedia:5 Pillars and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines are good starting points; especially WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV are the policies and guidelines related to the situation). For further question, please don't hesitate to contact me (on my talk page, e.g.). Thanks again, and I hope (and I am sure) we can resolve this in a positive way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is David Kurz, producer of Wired for Books. I think part of the problem here is an emabarassment of riches. Don Swaim produced nearly 700 radio interviews of famous authors when he worked at CBS Radio in New York. Although Don had to edit the interviews down to a two-minute radio show, Wired for Books has made available the entire audio interview, usually lasting 30 to 60 minutes. Check out the current issue (November 20, 2007) of PC Magazine in the "Best of the Internet" column for a feature about Don Swaim. As an example of continued relevance, Doris Lessing just won the Nobel Prize for Literature and you can go to Wired for Books to listen to two interviews of Doris Lessing by Don Swaim. Thousands of Wikepedia users come to Wired for Books every week through these links, so we know many people appreciate the links to the audio. I hope this helps. Please write to me directly at kurz@ohio.edu if need be. Wired for Books is a nonprofit, educational project of the WOUB Center for Public Media at Ohio University. --Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkurz (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is David Kurz again. Wikipedia really needs to re-examine its definition of "conflict of interest." The current system primarily punishes honest people who are upfront about who they are and what they are writing about. The less-than-honest Wikipedia authors simply have anonymous cronies write their articles, while hiding behind the pretense of having an independent point of view. Of course, the more money and power one has, the easier it is to find a willing puppet. Wikipedia articles should be judged on accuracy and relevance, not an unfair or even malicious definition of conflict of interest. --Dave— Dkurz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi David, Thanks for your posts. No, there is no need to re-examine our conflict of interest guideline. We don't punish people who have a conflict of interest, or show that they have a conflict of interest when they are properly improving the wikipedia (adding content), we don't punish at all. The others are warned, first in good faith, later in more direct terms. But these accounts were plainly spamming links to wikipedia (and continuing after they were asked to discuss; if you read our policies and guidelines, that is actually what is suggested in most of them .. discuss your edits when there are concerns). Whether or not they have a conflict of interest, wikipedia is NOT a linkfarm. These external links do not add to the content of the page, they do not (fully) enrich the page. Don't you think that it is a shame that these interviews, rich in information (you say 30-60 minutes long .. there must be a wealth of information there), are just used to tunnel people away from wikipedia to your site. Instead, they could have been used to draw information from, and the link could have been used as a reference!! That would have been much more yielding for your site, it actually values your site more than just being plainly used as a link. In this case, (at least) 80% of the links here were added as external links by people involved in the site (some of the remainder were actually used as a reference), and although 90% of these additions were proper when judged against our external links guideline, it are just external links. I am sorry, these people, involved in your site or not, are just plainly spamming (see also this part of our spam guideline). If we would allow that, we could just add a couple of hundreds of interviews to each page, just because they have some involvement with the subject (maybe you should have a look at {{dmoz}}. Indeed, the links which are about the subject are very permittable (though still, they could better be used as a reference to add content), but otherwise, no, these links are not wanted. By the way, the nature of the site linked to does not matter, e.g. often commercial sites are even more appropriate than free content sites .. commercial sites make sure that information is correct (a.o. for legal reasons), that is more than one can say from a self-published site (where no control whatsoever exists). If your site would have been close to the latter, we would have plainly removed all of them. That we discuss it here already shows that we do see that the site does contain proper information. That still does not mean that we should plainly allow these links to be added en masse to external links sections. I hope this explains. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avsb spammer

Adsense pub-4374320986956790

Accounts

Avsb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hmmm...[1]--Hu12 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GHG Corporation spam abuse

See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GHG Corporation
See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ETSS
Articles

GHG Corporation
ETSS
Etss

Accounts

Jodenny1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hmushtaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Fbeshr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.44.226.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.44.226.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia articles.Hu12 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted now. — Coren (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts!

Firstly thanks a lot for all who supported my RfA (I'll get around to spamming talk pages later!) - appreciated and hopefully now I can help more here.

Generally speaking blacklisting sites doesn't worry me however I've learnt a bit more from time on Meta so a couple of points.

  1. A frequently comment is that they weren't warned. I know they probably have been however I'd like to see a block on an account/ip before listing the site. Comes under the heading of "brick between the eyes" form of warning which it is quite hard to ignore:) I have no problems placing such blocks and don't see it needs listing elsewhere - here will be fine if I'm around. That way they cannot say they didn't know.
  2. That kinda takes me to the second point. When I was here last (early stone age) we revised the spam warning templates. These are now far more extensive than they were then and seem fine for purpose. The issue is the "spam" word - for quite a proportion of what we refer to as spammers they really do not see themselves as that. They are providing information, allowing citations, have no advertising, it's only a hobby, they do good works by helping rehome teenagers who are no longer required by their families or provide secure home for fluffy animals who have run away (might have got something wrong there!). However the block template ({{Uw-sblock}}) still uses the spam word when in practice we mean "the excessive placement of external links deemed unecessary by the community". How do folk feel about rewording that one slightly?

If I make mistakes, point them out, if I can help, ask. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1, that is fine, though not always applicable (IP-changing spammers don't feel blocks too much (except if they get range-blocked). Warnings on their talkpage which can be linked to them should be enough, though.
Re 2, People doing link-additions indeed misinterpret the word 'spam', spam is not 'adding a link to a bad site', it is adding links which are (probably) unwanted, or adding them in a way that is unwanted. Also, being free is more a problem (as in, probably unchecked/reviewed) than being commercial (established companies/organisations make sure the information they provide is OK, e.g. not wanting to risk legal actions against information they provide, or because they want to get a good reputation!). IMHO, that is the wording as it should be in WP:SPAM, and the templates should maybe reflect that. Still, it is spam (even if it is served with egg, egg and bacon, or even Lobster thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce garnished with truffle paté, brandy and with a fried egg on top). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, congrats! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A)Congrats (again!) .
1) Sounds reasonable in general - how do you see that working when there are multiple accounts involved?
2) I'd like to see us change our language in general away from using the word "spam". In my experience it just doesn't help the conversation much and seems to put people immediately on the defensive. With those who spend their whole time doing SEO spamming, or who really don't care what guidelines Wikipedia has, it won't matter what words we use. But with the people who genuinely think what they are doing is helpful, our language could make a big difference. I'd like to see almost all our messaging changed to talk to the latter group rather than the former. I don't think even the uw-spam1 template is very good at telling someone who thinks they are adding value with their many links to their organization's great new resource on recipes involving fair trade peanut oil that actually it's not the way to improve our articles. It would be nice to see more of an emphasis on what they can do to help (like adding well sourced NPOV content). -- SiobhanHansa 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like working on some of the wording of templates might be helpful. Last time I was here we set up a sub page here for discussion - worthwhile? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I think that contributions of several IPs should be enough reason to blacklist, even if none of them gets blocked for it. If they complain that they did not know, then I am sorry, but I do not believe it is our task to tell them that the link-additions are not wanted (it is not like we did not try to tell them if there are warning on talkpages).

2) I can agree with that we could make the templates reflect those thoughts.

Where is the subpage? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review page now here, please contribute if you would like to see changes, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we review the welcomespam template as well? I made my own copy at here because I got the feeling that people skimmed over the warning part - or just ignored it entirely, thinking it was a standard welcome. Not that the colorful red box at the top helps that much, but it does draw some attention. --Versageek 12:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops new since I was last active. Feel free to put it on there and yours is waay better than the default one, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://wiki.idebate.org

See also - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IDEA_Youth_Forum

wiki.idebate.org: 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 This is a wiki-based debate website of the International Debate Education Association‎ (a reasonably well respected org). The wiki is new and does not yet have many editors making it inappropriate as an external link. Many of the links being added were to empty debate pages. About a month ago I had a conversation with User:Debaterx about her promotion of the website (which she admitted to being involved with). I assumed good faith on her part and didn't follow up, but it seems that wasn't so well founded. Since then it has been added to a bunch of articles and spammed to talk pages by Debaterx, a bunch of closely related IPs, and another single purpose account.

Accounts

User Lmnopsic is also adding links to the Association's main website, www.idebate.org, in articles where they seem to be appropriate, though the wiki ones still aren't. -- SiobhanHansa 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added two more--Hu12 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
added three more--Hu12 (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there is a concerted effort to WP:CANVASS this site.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]--Hu12 (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debatepedia
--Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long term COI spamming by Carnegie Council

See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Policy Innovations
See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethics & International Affairs Journal
See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgenthau Lectures

Policy Innovations
Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs
Ethics & International Affairs Journal
Morgenthau Lectures

cceia.org →Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs
policyinnovations.org →The Carnegie Council's online magazine
Accounts

RMcKenzie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) →Rushaine McKenzie, GPI Global Internship (staff)[9]
216.25.150.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) →Carnegie Council NETBLK-CAR123-NET1
Grantwishman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mikean23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Shmifi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Areihing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.173.210.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
70.19.103.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
24.215.248.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Devintstewart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
485 edits within 216.25.150.128-135[10] since November 2005 --Hu12 05:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting BL[11]--Hu12 09:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting removal from blacklist. this is a major organization of international repute. Adding a few of their publications to WP is not long term spamming. Looking at the articles edited, putting in links to their role in the Councle was probably reasonable about half the time. Over-reaction by Hu12. DGG (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very few if any edits by those accounts were outside "Carnegie Council" infact, since November 2005 all seem to be "Carnegie Council" related only. I removed Over 250 links just last night that were directly deposited by Rushaine McKenzie, IP 216.25.150.134(Carnegie Council NETBLK-CAR123-NET1) and the other WP:SPA accounts used to spam Wikipedia. This of course does not include the 389 WP:COI edits or links remaining. Conflict of interest editing involves These above accounts contributing to Wikipedia for the sole purposes to promote the Carnegie Council and their adjenda. This type of contribution is of no benifit, or is it in the spirit of the project to use Wikipedia in order to promote Carnegie Council. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for propaganda and advertising, repository of external links or for Self-promotion. Uniformed assertion by DGG.--Hu12 05:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the articles you put AfD on were examples of an over-expansive view of what spam and COI is. The spirit of the project is to provide encyclopedic information. the prohibition about spam is that the information is often not appropriate. the way to deal with it is to examine the individual edits, and, as i said, about half were clearly inappropriate. When I remove spam, I do it link by link, considering each of them. As for COI, there is, rightly, no prohibition against COI--we just scrutinize such efforts carefully. I think you may wish otherwise, but such is the established policy. DGG (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is contrary to fact as I've outlined above. The evidence is clear and dates back to late 2005. When I remove spam or research an organizations spam capaign, I do it edit by edit (all edits). This is how I find sock accounts, IP's, existing articles, deleted articles and every other web site an organization is or has been spamming. The method, although time consuming, is extremly effective. In being so, I can find every existing link added by each account within each article. As for the AFD, consensus by others will determine that. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the above is not true.--Hu12 (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DGG - I think putting this organization on the spam blacklist is an overreaction, and quite a few of the links I looked at appeared to be valid additions to the articles on which they were added (although the RMckenzie account, as mentioned, appeared to be overzealous) JavaTenor (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with DGG and JavaTenor. I think this could be handled differently then banning an entire website, especially since the organization is so world famous and does so much beneficial work.
If banning a site because of spammers was the norm, then people opposing a site could start spamming wikipedia to get that site banned.
RMckenzie appears to be more than overzealous as JavaTenor states, he is violating WP:SPAM and should be sternly warned, then blocked if he continues, along with the other possible Single purpose accounts. A simple message after warning RMckenzie on WP:ANI would suffice.
I would happily help you in policing these links and asking ANI to ban these users User:Hu12. I strongly respect your work on COI and spamming.
User:DGG, you stated that you are Requesting removal from blacklist, have you done this already?
I notice that some of these anon spammers are from the Carnegie council itself. Maybe the Carnegy council should be punished for a month or so for spamming. Travb (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "..people opposing a site could start spamming wikipedia.". Asserting that theory of spam is inaccurate. Manipulation to that effect is easily transparent and identifyable. This spam in fact origionates from an IP associated to this organization and spam accounts were created in order to deceive editors in order to promote Carnegie Council. This organization knew what it was doing.--Hu12 (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Surely Hu12 and I aren't the only people who perceive some irony in the fact that an ethics organization violated multiple site policies for two years. If someone who opposes this blacklisting takes it upon himself or herself to do outreach to this organization and obtain a pledge from them to abide by WP:SOCK and WP:SPAM in the future, then go ahead. Short of that, this blacklisting is the most effective preventive measure against a PR debacle for them. DurovaCharge! 00:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was struck by the ethics aspect too! Carnegie Council's actions are problematic and hurt Wikipedia's ability to be NPOV and relevant for readers. But I do think it's problematic to have to blacklist a link that is also used in hundreds(?) of instances in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. If we can come up with a way to resolve the spam/POV issues and get the link off the black list I think Wikipedia will be better off. A prominent note on the talk pages of the editors listed above inviting them to this discussion could be a start in better communicating with them. On most of those talk pages there have been no indications for the editors that their behavior is inappropriate until now (and at an organization like that I doubt it's a case of one person editing under all those accounts). Sometimes black listing a link is a great way to get the editors involved to realize this is a serious issue they need to escalate within their own organization, and it can help get them to agree not to engage in such editing.-- SiobhanHansa 02:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rushaine McKenzie was mentioned above as one of the editors adding links. A web search indicates she is likely an undergraduate working part time for the Carnegie Council, and has not been on Wikiipedia since July. From the cceia.org website, you can find the email address of the president of the Carnegie Council. Wouldn't it make sense to address a high official with the problem, and see if we can get a response? EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very glad Hu12 finally caught up with them--and most of the links did need to be removed. If the principal spammer has left, then perhaps there is no immediate problem but cleaning up after her. In my experience, people like the president of the Council is not a reasonable approach--we want to identify the head of Public Relations. But at most such organisations, people like summer interns can pretty much do what they feel like regardless of policies--we will have to watch for it next summer also. DGG (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a program director at the Carnegie Council and editor of the Carnegie Council's online magazine Policy Innovations. We just became aware of this COI issue last week. We will not post links to our content going forward. Please understand that from our perspective the content seemed legitimate, for example audio or text interviews with experts that had Wikipedia entries. Sorry for any inconvenience this episode may have caused. I can be reached at dstewart at cceia.org.Devintstewart (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the above, I think it is now time to remove from the blacklist. DGG (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The item \bcceia\.org has been removed from the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.lyricloungereview.co.nr http://spam.lyricloungereview.weebly.com

Spammers

The former site was blacklisted on antispambot yesterday, but the user has continued to spam. MER-C 08:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll block if they place again - nudge if I miss it, cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both links are blacklisted on user:AntiSpamBot (and user:COIBot will pick it up), that will give the nudge in the end ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well hang on a minute...the warnings for spam came AFTER the links had been placed. The link os not a spam link and you haven't explained how I can verify this and make it a legitimate link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyriclounge (talk • contribs) 13:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In passing you were first warned on the 15th and you continued to place links ignoring warnings as far as I can see. Equally it is looked on as wrong to place links to a website that a user is associated with which would seem to be the case with you? Just my 0.02 --Herby talk thyme 13:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do not blacklist before the links get placed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm, you seem to have a conflict of interest, and were performing link-additions only, which is considered spamming here. The links are now on autorevert, since you continued adding the link after being warned (in good faith) by me (welcome and warnings at 14:20 yesterday, you continued at 8:00 this morning. Again, the content of your site may not be the problem, the way you are adding it is. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The warning I received yesterday referred to a .co.nr site, which i assumed may be considered spam, it is after all, a masking domain name. I should point out however that the warning yesterday stating if any more were added i would be blocked came after i had edited 2 more pages, once the warning was received, i did not edit anything. I assume there was a time difference between my editing and the time i actually received the warning; obviously you understand that if i am in the process of editing when the warning is received, i am unable to actually view it - i cant be in 2 places at once. Likewise, the same happened today, I (wrongly) assumed there was no issue in the original domain name instead of the masking domain which i assumed the problem was with, after all, no one had actually explained what the problem was. Still now, you say it is the way in which it is done, and yet you still havent offered any idea of how i should be doingthings to comply with your rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyriclounge (talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the warnings I left you after I noticed your edits (the 14:20, UK time post on your talkpage) you see:

... For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest.... </blockquote

and

...If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it....

Hence, it was told early on how you can contribute links to the wikipedia. As further hints, as we are writing an encyclopedia here, you can also contribute content to the pages (as you may know more to tell about the subjects of the pages where you add the link to), or you can contact an appropriate wikiproject. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

despite that, the warnings could not have been read whilst i was editing, as im sure you can see, it is simple common sense. so what am i supposed to do now? both links are blocked as spam, so can i still discuss it on the relevant talk pages, or will i just get another warning for typing in the address?

When you are editing (even if you are only browsing) the first thing that happens when there is a post on your talkpage is that you get a big orange 'You have new messages banner' (that should have attracted your attention), hence you have had all chance to read them. Also you say that you read the initial messages before you changed your IPlink to your page, so apparently you had already seen it. The links have been blacklisted on User:AntiSpamBot, which only reverts on content pages, not on talk/project pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but when you are editing, the warning for new messages appears after you have already posted. So, chronoligcally, I posted and went on to post on another page, whilst i was on that other page about to edit, the warning was sent, i then posted the new post, then received the warning that if i posted any more etc etc, but by that point i had already posted again.

So what happens after i have added it to a discussion - can it then be linked within an article? or is it forever blacklisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyriclounge (talk • contribs) 14:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that, you are right, still you continued adding links after the first set of additions and accompanying warning. This bot only reverts IPs and new accounts, established editors can add the link. When there is appropriate use links will be removed from the blacklist on user:AntiSpamBot (seen you are the only editor using the links now and are actively participating in this discussion, I am going to assume good faith, and remove them now). The linkadditions are still monitored, though. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did add new links today, yes, but as I said, i assumed the problem was simply the extension of the domain used, so that's why i didnt forsee any problems with its original format. Thank you for your help, I will ensure links are used in discussion before adding to a main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyriclounge (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.barrie-realestates.information-center.us http://spam.calgary-realestates.information-center.us

Spammers

MER-C 11:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They continued, they are blocked, maybe they will notice that! --Herby talk thyme 11:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.hostadfree.org

persitant anon IP keepa reinserting his/her personal link on Free web hosting service. ---- Hu12 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam. opchost.com

Accounts

122.164.160.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
122.164.167.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
122.164.155.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
122.164.161.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
hosting spam---- Hu12 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BL'd to avoid rangeblock--Hu12 (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Wolfe Ford-Dodge in Vernon Texas

See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfe Ford Dodge
Articles

Wolfe Ford Dodge
Wolfe Radio
John C Wolfe
KSEY
TOP GEAR
Scotty Preston
WOLFE RADIO

Accounts

Espn1230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.154.69.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) →WOLFE AUTO GROUP-041201035412
70.254.144.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
---- Hu12 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://.sportscar-official.com

Adsense pub-8378053264127493

Accounts

Matrix wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Johnmcenroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.ideas4development.org

Accounts

Quentingue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.255.63.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) →Agence Francaise De Developpement

Cross wiki spamming:
tr.wikipedia

--Hu12 (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to steam

It's bad enough that my name shows up on some faulty COI list, but I'm starting to steam about how hard it is to get to the bottom of this. Can anyone here help? User talk:Beetstra#COI SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, that's a bot generated page that simply lists occasions when a monitored link is added. It is not intended to imply that every addition is a conflict of interest. The lists simply help a human editor to review additions of monitored links to see who is adding them and in what circumstances. A reviewer would see an addition by a user like yourself and see that the link is used in good faith by a an editor improving the encyclopedia, while multiple additions by a range of IPs would likely draw scrutiny. Use of the bot helps us monitor links where blacklisting is not ideal for whatever reason. I am myself on several of the COI report pages (e.g.:Oct 6th) as are most active users. Does that explain it and relieve your concerns? -- SiobhanHansa 14:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I have given a similar explanation on my talkpage, I hope that helps. If you have further questions, don't hesitate to either ask me, or another regular here.
To give a better explanation on the records, I have created for templates in COIBot's userspace (which, if all is correct, should now appear on top of every report). I'd like some help with the wording/layout of the templates:
I guess these boxes should provide enough information to a) answer any questions that frequently occur and b) bring people to someone who can answer their questions (me, this project, or wherever). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.compareshares.com.au

Accounts

125.253.32.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
124.176.77.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
218.215.17.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.bollywoodzone.wetpaint.com

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Spammers

MER-C 09:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.spliffs.110mb.com

Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.ilanijanovic.wg.am

Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 20:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ports-guides.com

Adsense pub-9479747191609376

Accounts

82.25.187.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.27.151.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.9.16.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.0.84.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.27.82.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.14.64.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.12.225.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.107.218.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.27.228.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.14.73.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.0.122.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.13.36.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.105.63.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.3.92.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.20.50.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.105.66.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.27.170.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.110.16.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.27.143.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.12.232.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.27.253.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.31.116.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.3.245.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.2.85.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.3.255.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.20.14.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.27.144.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.0.106.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.31.49.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.3.245.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.9.18.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.109.222.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.27.90.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.27.125.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.3.239.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.27.231.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.27.227.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
82.3.246.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.110.27.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.0.102.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.31.58.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.107.75.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.0.85.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Individual uses one IP per addition BL'd--Hu12 (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.waterpillowonline.com http://spam.solidnation.com

Spammers

MER-C 08:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deliciousa.com

Adsense pub-1826482250735288

Accounts

85.108.171.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
88.242.33.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.100.192.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.planeturban.com.au

Spammers

MER-C 12:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.hornymatches.com

Accounts

66.29.16.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
66.246.206.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.bakotopia.com

Accounts

24.161.196.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
65.165.144.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
24.161.207.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.99.127.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
74.196.170.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.belizenorth.com

Accounts

Senor Reek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Site owner[12]
212.123.206.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Actualy asks in a round about way the he wants to use wikipedia to advertise[13]..--Hu12 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fair question to me. If the consensus on the talk-page is to use his website then it's dandy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.travellerstv.com

Accounts

123.200.197.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
60.241.160.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam.brighthub.com

Spammers

121.246.26.90 was blocked on Friday for spamming this link, but the spammer has returned with the IP 121.246.25.140 today. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 08:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Labour Office

International Labour Organization

Accounts

Morillons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)fr.wikipedia.org
193.134.192.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) pt.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, es.wikipedia.org→International Labour Office, Bureau International du Travail (range 193.134.192.0-255)
Site redirects to ilo.org. Cross wiki additions.--Hu12 (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider the majority of the ilo links spam. This is the major UN specialised agency, and its publications are standards. They belong in a number of articles. I see a tendency to remove links to appropriate major non profit international organisations. Those are the sort of links WP should have, not the sort we should be removing. And I do not see any spam from microinsurance. Neither are appropriate for the blacklist. DGG (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I am sorry if I am sounding a bit critical here (my apologies), but I see you reacting quite often with "I don't consider this link spam". Maybe we should clarify, we do not consider the link spam, where a link is leading to is is not our prime reason to call something spam (OK, if the site is advertising, single purpose to sell, we also call it spam for that reason). In my opinion, spam is the way the link gets presented. If someone performing mainly/only link additions to one singular domain, that is in violation of our spam guideline (".. for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed .."; and see e.g. WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer), our neutral point of view policy (the editor does not consider that other sites may be better, but decided that only this site is appropriate), 'what wikipedia is not' (we are not a linkfarm), external links guideline (often these links are better used as a source, see also the citation guideline), and maybe our conflict of interest guideline (often these people are involved in the site). We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm.
Now I am not sure if this site is added in the way I describe here, though if an account is mainly adding links to one domain, however appropriate, it is worth discussing that, per cited policies and guidelines. If this is a link to a major specialised agency whose publications are standards, then they are much better used to retrieve information from, and to use them then as a reference. If they are only added to external links 'because they are suitable', then they can a) also be suggested on the talkpage with the same effort, or b) there are many more of such links to other sites which would also serve the same purpose. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edits to microinsurance were spam, or at least NPOV, and the ed. involved clearly a spa.
But in the case of the ILO there was neither spam nor spammer. First of all, national or international organisations of high repute are often the preferred ELs, not just an alternative one. More specifically: Of the anon editors from ILO listed, they appear to be various edits by various people there, a few of them inappropriate nationalistic edits, but none of them spam links. Essentially all the ELs for ILO seem totally appropriate. The great majority were added in 06 by an established ed. interested generally in organized labor, adding all the international treaties and conventions, and the link to the site for them is essential. Another large group are safety standards for individual chemicals--an authoritative source for an international standard. They were added by a very established chemistry editor as part of an upgrade of many such articles--and they were not added alone--a group of the key national & international standards including the ILO ones was added to each article. The remainder seem to be miscellaneous appropriate sources used for data by various people. Neither of the eds adding large numbers of links were in any sense spammers, but exactly the sort of subject-oriented independent editor who can and should judge, established & respected subject editors looking for appropriate sources. The miscellaneous links similarly, no apparent campaign at all. Hu12 clearly did not examine the contents or the purported spam before he listed it, and neither did you before you criticised me for objecting to it.
I do not tolerate spam, commercial or uncommercial--I follow several hundred susceptible pages and remove as I see it, and warn the spammer. I have sometimes followed up even outside WP--and once or twice, even reformed the person involved. But before I do this I examine the actual content being added and the pattern of the individual adding it. I do not rely solely on automated tools, and i would never list anything on any notice board without being sure of the details. DGG (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links just provided by Hu12 (I've checked the fr & es ones) look like the IP beginning to publicise the organisation on other wikis. Having been on the website I am unsure exactly what value it is to the project. It seems possible if this continues that Meta may be considered? Just my 0.02 --Herby talk thyme 15:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think here indeed, that microinsurance was spam, but that site does directly redirect to ilo.org, and was added by an editor who is part of ilo.org. So I think it is certainly appropriate to monitor/discuss the use of both links. Although ilo.org was not spammed directly, it surely looks it was/is the intended target (and I am sure that is why Hu12 listed both domains).
About that all the external links to ilo.org are appropriate, there are many links to the domain itself. Per the external links guideline, we are supposed to link the subject page directly linked to the subject. If I examine them, the subjects where they appear on is not about the organisation, it is about a document from the organisation (contained on this site; this link is another link on each wikipedia page). Though not spam (the editor adding them has actually provided a lot of referenced content!!!), I would not call them apropriate.
I have removed ilo.org from the monitoring of COIBot, though the redirect site may indeed be considered blacklistable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the duplicative ILO links were added a good while ago, when standards were lower; there are probably half a million pages on WP with duplicate general and specific links. I do not see where WP:EL says to always use the specific link, and certainly we leave the general, rather than multiple specific ones: "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site" The links from the chemicals go not to the main site in any case, but to the specific pages. The bad examples mentioned seem not to be on enWP, and WP:EL says we block bots in such cases; it says nothing about individuals, though I agree it can serve as a warning. DGG (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As both Dirk and Herby have stated, those are the reasons this is here. It's absoluty appropriate to both monitor and discuss these links. Its even appropriate over on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard!! Microinsurance.org was the obvious first concern, which one needs to visit in order to find that it redirects to ilo.org. See WP:EL#Redirection_sites. URL redirection sites are not to be used per External links policy. This is another case of an "overzealous intern" promoting the company[14]. Today the ILO IP created this article on the Spanish wiki. I will be looking more into ilo.org (931 links) and its method of addition at some point ...quack, WP:DUCK. Not sure what your opposing interest is in this project, DGG, but its clear you make it a point to have one.--Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think I have an opposing interest? I have been a member of the project since June to show support, although this is not my main interest & I mainly confine myself to removing what I find incidentally, or on the pages I monitor. My interest in ILO links or other non-profits is only that of maintaining appropriate ELs at appropriate pages. My coming here more often recently?--because I see more that looks like spam paranoia. Like many projects, this sometimes needs a look from a relative outsider. My approach to COI content is that expressed in the remarkably effective WP:BFAQ, prepared by the most effective of all WP Spam, COI, and sock fighters: even COIs can contribute useful content. For the only previous time my good faith was challenged in public, see [15]. DGG (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some blacklisting rules to User:COIBot regarding this account and these IPs to extend the profile when necessary. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lulu.com

After examination of the coibot LinkReport on lulu.com I see quite some single purpose accounts. The link has now been blacklisted on User:AntiSpamBot, guess it is better that the addition is examined by established editors. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this link bot monitored rather than actually blacklisted may be useful for editors watching for COI and promotional articles. A very brief look through brought up several articles to self-published authors and books that appear to have had no significant impact on the world. Could be a useful way to track down some of those articles. -- SiobhanHansa 13:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COIBot will monitor until an operator decides to remove the rules. It does not matter if it is blacklisted (here, on another language wiki or on meta; in the latter case only if certain parts are whitelisted somewhere), on User:AntiSpamBot's autorevert, or just being monitored. So they will still show up, though hopefully some will decide not to add the link again after being reverted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

taopage.org fruedfile.org carl-jung.net

The 3 sites are linked from the below ips and date back to 2004. The sites are posted in several articles from tao related to psychology related articles. This is similar to thedaoculture.com as the taoism articles are particular vunerable to these types of links but this website is the oldest and persistantly added if removed. StopTaoSpam (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tao-te-king.org

http://spam.koreanmovie.com

koreanmovie.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 07:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.medianetwork.co.in

Adsense pub-5614593227871828

Accounts

220.226.77.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
220.226.30.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
220.226.10.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
220.226.14.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
220.226.56.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

safety-medications.bemerby.com

For the record (and for the bots):

by:

Editor indefblocked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist material .. user switched to IP (thought I blocked that too ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.worldsbestwonders.com

worldsbestwonders.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 10:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.videopopcorn.com

videopopcorn.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 11:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=173087662"