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
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Feb 1.
Line 367: Line 367:
:* {{LinkSummary|au.ibtimes.com}}
:* {{LinkSummary|au.ibtimes.com}}
:--[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] ([[User talk:CliffC|talk]]) 04:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
:--[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] ([[User talk:CliffC|talk]]) 04:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

== andamanbeacon.com ==

Google Analytics UA-20920491

*{{LinkSummaryLive|andamanbeacon.com}}
also spammed, but some time ago and probably unrelated:
*{{LinkSummaryLive|explorehampiwithme.in}}

;Spammers
*{{IPSummary|64.104.131.138}}

[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:56, 15 February 2011

    When reporting spam, please use the appropriate template(s):
    As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed.
    Shortcuts
    {{Link summary|example.com}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template - Do not include the "http://www." portion of the URL inside this template
    • {{IP summary}} - to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
    {{IP summary|127.0.0.1}} --- do not use "subst:" with this template
    • {{User summary}} - to report registered users suspected of spamming:
    {{User summary|Username}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template

    Also, please include links ("diffs") to sample spam edits.

    Click here to start a new report
    Indicators
    Reports completed:
     Done
    no No action
     Stale
    Defer discussion:
     Defer to XLinkBot
     Defer to Local blacklist
     Defer to Global blacklist
     Defer to Abuse filter
    Information:
     Additional information needed
    information Note:

    Internet Brands spam on Wikipedia

    Parked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/Internet Brands for now. MER-C 12:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    aspnetbook.com - refspam?

    Can someone take a look over Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/aspnetbook.com? This link has been added pretty often within the past month to reference some articles by what appears to be a dynamic IP. Should these be removed as spam, or is the referencing helpful? ThemFromSpace 21:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just looking at the link itself, it doesn't seem inherantly spammy. Not knowing much about ASP, I can't really speak to its reliability, but it looks like a reference that is entirely online and free of charge. It's probably harmless and could be a good reference. l'aquatique[talk] 02:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly WP:REFSPAM.
    domain aspnetbook.com
    created 19-Dec-2010
    The beginning of the spam campaign began 2 January 2011, Just a little over a week after the domains creation. Has not stopped since. --Hu12 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Defer to XLinkBot Done. If this SEO'ing continues, Local blacklisting should be considered...--Hu12 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't add it to the right revertlist - the main revertlist explicitly ignores references and hence won't stop the spam. You want User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. MER-C 02:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks MER-C, fixed that..--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear wikipedians, i got some complains from some users of my website that my domain aspnetbook.com has been reported as REFSPAM. What is the reason for this? I am 100% sure the contributions i made were not spams, and I would like to know a good explanation as to why my contributions were disregarded? Does the wiki guidelines anywhere mention that the source domain should be older or some sort? I think this is an abuse of editorial power. The user Hu12 is abusing his power and has not even read through my contributions to wikipedia. If you read the comment from l'aquatique above you would see that the references made are not of any harm to any copyright laws or cause any SEO. I would appreciate if you reconsider your allegations of spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.102.49 (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunatly, contrary to your statement, 100% of the evidence shows Reference spamming. Your contributions to wikipedia under multiple IP's consist entirely of adding links to YOUR site, aspnetbook.com and is considered SPAM. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a "vehicle for advertising".
    Despite the warnings, you continued to add links, including redirecting links[1][2] (never a sign of good faith). aspnetbook.com was Created it on Dec 19 2010 and just a little over a week after, You began spamming it. The prima facie evidence still remains; you have attempted to exploit wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of promoting aspnetbook.com, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests.--Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So what should i do in order to get the link from the being blacklisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.101.114 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

    SpamBlog the drone

    Accounts
    Cmathon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    The8bc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Cosmosmonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    80.13.60.54 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    82.247.10.246 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    88.161.67.173 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    77.233.115.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

    All WP:SPA accounts. Site is Excessivly slow to load and fails WP:RS, WP:SOCK and WP:EL. Clément Mathon (Cmathon) [3] = COI.

    anusthanokarehasya.com

    Accounts

    117.205.104.229 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    117.205.96.162 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    117.205.101.224 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    117.197.54.72 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    117.205.101.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    117.205.97.214 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    --Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    117.205.105.42 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Again--Hu12 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and again
    117.205.102.94 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    117.205.106.245 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    BL'd Done--Hu12 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    adding a soft redirect site
     Done--Hu12 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Requesting delisting [4]
    117.205.96.240 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Continuing adding soft redirect spam
    Sumitgwal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
     Done--Hu12 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA adding promo material to Cineplex Entertainment

    Sara tiara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

    This SPA has been racking up edits adding promotional material to Cineplex Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the past few weeks. The edits are unreferenced and read like a press release. I've reverted 'em and warned the editor, but they don't seem to be paying attention to their talk page. Given the nature of the edits, I'm concerned that this editor may be affiliated with the article subject and therefore have a conflict of interest. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs: [5] [6] // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Identical material is being added by multiple IPs now. I've posted a request at WP:RFP for temporary semiprotection. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yiser Hosting and Website Design Services spam on Wikipedia

    Spam pages
    Sites spammed
    • blacklisted on en.wp, hi.wp
    Spammers

    IPs are heavily shared.  Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 12:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ms&e card

    Ms&e card (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

    Reverted and/or deleted pages.

    Not sure if this is such a useful site in general (on Wikipedia, I mean) - useless as a reference, and I am afraid also useless as an external link ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Outside the senario where there is a standalone article about a survey, links like this have no purpose anywhere on wikipedia. strange link count and placement --Hu12 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    - Hello, Thank you for letting me know. We are a group from Stanford University. We met with Diederik, Howie, and Steve at the Wikimedia office in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago and discussed the idea of finding out why new editors join as a means to study overall editor retention. Please let me know if we can go ahead with the surveys. Thank you for your diligence in keeping Wikipedia clean! Ms&e card (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a "Vehicle for Surveys, Advocacy or recruitment".--Hu12 (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Constant spam at Latex and PVC fetishism

    Someone is using multiple IP addresses (87.178.208.63, 87.152.237.110, 87.178.202.200, 87.152.254.101, etc.) to add his own blogspam to Latex and PVC fetishism. He has been adding the link daily since January 25th. The IPs all resolve to Germany and the blog is registered there [7]. 99.135.14.131 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Accounts
    RajeshKakkad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Latexgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    87.178.192.117 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.152.237.110 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.178.216.173 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.178.208.63 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.178.202.200 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.178.215.178 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.152.254.101 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.152.241.114 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.178.207.118 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.178.196.183 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.152.239.108 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.152.253.139 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.152.236.184 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    87.178.221.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    80.153.240.151 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    80.153.240.151 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    80.153.240.151 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    188.106.1.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Blocked  Done--Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Adsense google_ad_client = pub-7083669820511164

    Also spammed
    Accounts

    Deses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    24.61.169.240 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    141.154.120.151 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Langskip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    67.103.187.213 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    --Hu12 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    rhlaw.com

    Lawyer spam/refspam added to Piercing the corporate veil‎‎ and other articles, now cleaned out. --CliffC (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    minisubs.org

    Spammers

    minisubs.org/page5.php : "New Website Launch" - "7/2/2011 11:37:55 AM". MER-C 10:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    datingsites247.com

    Spammers
    • Inline spammer, see [8]
    • Inline spammer, see [9]

    Redirects + excuse content to various affiliate links. MER-C 10:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional spammers
    Inserting spam link on redirect page, [10]

    --bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Spamming affiliate links found on datingsites247.com:
    Blacklisted by Beetstra. MER-C 09:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    howticle.com

    google_ad_client = "pub-1706457511606271
    accts
    88.242.113.19 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    217.174.46.174 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    78.179.189.7 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    X-wiki
    http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/217.174.46.174
    http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/217.174.46.174
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/217.174.46.174
    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/78.179.189.7
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/78.179.189.7
    http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribui%C3%A7%C3%B5es/88.242.149.207
    http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribui%C3%A7%C3%B5es/88.242.113.19
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:Contributions/88.242.113.19
    http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/88.242.113.19
    http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/88.242.113.19

    --Hu12 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Opinion on this editor's images?

    Some recent images added by User:Delsiegrates have set off my (perhaps oversensitive) spam alarm. The images all seem to be sourced to commercial sites. The IMO poor-quality image added here to Acoustic guitar is sourced to http://www.34acousticguitar.net/3-4-acoustic-guitar-an-introduction/ As another example, this edit to Grants Pass, Oregon adds an IMO unneccessary photo of rental units sourced to http://www.riverwood-apartments.com/category/rentals-in-grant-pass/ . An image of an "E-Z Grip Clamp" sourced to http://www.horsematting.org/5/horse-matting/ was added to both the dab page Clamp and to C-clamp. An unhelpful photo of "A man with back pain" sourced to http://www.backpainreliefreports.com/decompression-therapy/back-decompression/ was added to three articles dealing with the human back (I will be removing these three as not improving the target articles). --CliffC (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Image spam
    Delsiegrates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    note; "myown llc" owns about74 other domains.
    All are Nathaniel Pulsifer's "Internet marketing, website development, online sales".
    Some form of seo/marketing... unencyclopedic Looks like a duck to me--Hu12 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Related
    --Hu12 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, that was a bigger rock than I expected. Thank you. CliffC (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Democracynow.org

    Redthoreau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) is spamming political links to Democracy Now! in external links sections in violation of WP:ELNO. THF (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I dispute this accusation, and would ask User:THF to provide some actual evidence of just how these videos on the topics of the articles in question violate WP:ELNO. 90 % of the time when I utilize a video report or interview from Democracy Now!, the person who the article is about is literally interviewed in the video link added. On other occasions, they are the subject of the video interview in question.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is one example of what THF insists is (and has reverted) as irrelevant WP:SPAM. The article I added the DN! link to was Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants and here is he link I added ---> "The Full Story Behind the Case and How Corporations Used it to Promote Tort Reform? - video report by Democracy Now!". I would challenge THF to provide actual evidence (instead of just throwing around acronyms to Wiki policies as he has shown he is prone to do) of just how a link used in this manner would violate Wiki policy? If he can not, then I would ask that THF immediately desist with this offensive accusation and stop edit-warring with me over it. In fact I could argue that he is much closer to violating WP:HOUND at this point, than I am WP:SPAM.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another example of what THF insists is spam. The article I added the DN! link to was Black Power and here is he link I added ---> "The Black Power Mixtape – New Documentary Featuring Angela Davis, Huey P. Newton, & Stokely Carmichael - video report by Democracy Now!". I would love to know how the recent discovery of rare archival footage and thus a 30 minute video report by DN! on a new documentary on the Black Power movement, is not relevant to the article on Black Power? The fact that THF has the chutzpah to nominate me here on this page with 1 day old account IP trolls proverbially spamming their own myspace pages - is insulting. I am adding video report links from a highly reputable independent news source, who provide information and specialized content on subjects that are commonly ignored (or intentionally censored) by the larger corporate media.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • THF - haha, that is ridiculous. It is not enough to just spout off numbers and attempt to WP:wikilawyer, without justifying just how these stipulations are being violated - see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Moreover, DN! is not a WP:Fringe source (although you are welcome to challenge that in an rfc if you believe the majority would agree with you). My statement that it deals with content that is “commonly ignored” deals not with the fact that their content is "WP:Fringe", but that they are often times the only news source even reporting about an important international story in the U.S. see WP:CSB (as their non-commercial format allows them to cover "boring" global material in an English format - without concern for chasing tabloid-esque "ratings"). They often times feature interviews with ex-presidents, prime ministers, leading intellectuals, dissidents, academic authors, etc and because of their format can feature 30 minute interviews (unlike your usual cable news show, which instead attempts to squeeze information into 6 minute segments with the latest "reality news" tv star). You have shown yourself to be highly unreasonable, and thus I have lost my initial WP:good faith that I can deal with you in an objective or rational manner. Lastly, you should get WP:Consensus here on this page before continuing to edit WP:WAR.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, there's a lot of breath being expended here. Ok, as it happens I regularly watch DN and have seen the episode regarding Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. It's an interview with Liebeck's daughter and some info about Hot Coffee, the documentary about the incident. I would say that in terms of WP:ELNO, I believe mentioned about was 1, 2, 8, 13. It doesn't violate 1 to me, as per 2 the interview with Liebeck is a firsthand account so don't know why it would go against 2 there, as per 8 when you click on the page there is several formats available (flash/real/mp3/transcript) so I have no clue why that's there, and for 13 if it was the whole episode I'd say no but this is just a segment. I'd vote keep, and looking at Redthoreau's contribs, I'd say it's in good faith and not spam. Now I noticed some persistent reverting here, if you really want to discuss this in-depth regarding the validity/reliability of the source use Talk:Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. JoeSmack Talk 00:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither the documentary nor the interview is neutral; they're one-sided promotion of a special-interest group's view of the litigation. It thus violates WP:ELPOV. THF (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    THF, as fun as it is to watch you chase your tail and fling acronyms against the wall like it was wet spaghetti - it really would be best if you gave it a rest. Now admittedly DN! is not the paragon of "objective virtue" that you apparently think National Review Online is --> link, but it is a notable and reliable news source providing an acceptable and non-fringe interpretation of our daily World events. I am sorry that you resent them, but you are not justified in trying to censor them or remove them from Wikipedia. Not to worry though, you'll still have plenty of your other pov-projects to work on :o)  Redthoreau -- (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the sarcasm helps Redthoreau. THF, honestly I think it's about as bad as FOX News on the other end of the spectrum. Fox still counts, so, *shrug*. It's a discussion for other pages. If you want, let me know where you put it and i'll comment further. JoeSmack Talk 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would move to have an Admin close this politically-driven and absurd nomination (with no corroborating support), so that I can get back to the work of the actual encyclopedia.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold on, please. Can someone please explain why these links are suitable as ELs instead of being used as references for material that should be added to the articles? I think WP:NOTDIR needs to be addressed. ElKevbo (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ElKevbo, it depends on the particular link or article. Sometimes a link to a 30 minute video report is more valuable as an EL than as an inline citation. Other times people will watch the video and insert it later into the text. However, this is a forum for discussion on "spamming" allegations, which this clearly is not. The placement of various links on articles can be discussed on those specific article talk pages.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're all entitled to come to our own conclusions about whether this activity is spamming so please don't tell us your opinion as if it is fact. It's not helpful to the discussion and it's quite off-putting and disrespectful. ElKevbo (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think references are better than external links, but they have more stringent policy. This isn't the most outlandish external link proposal I have ever seen, and I don't feel like this is so much spamming activity. Once again, I would motion to bring this to the article's talk page to discuss the link's relation/merit. JoeSmack Talk 23:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The videos have been spammed to multiple External Links sections in violation of WP:NOTDIR; there seems to be a coordinated meat-puppet campaign to add Democracy Now videos to Wikipedia. They're admittedly fringe views that wouldn't even be appropriately included as in-line citations because of RS problems. They violate ELPOV and NOTDIR, and it's appropriate to discuss them en masse. Redthoreau's attempt to change the subject doesn't change that. THF (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    THF, there is a separate avenue available (not this one) if you would like to have Democracy Now! deemed WP:Fringe and inadmissible (other partisan-driven hacks have tried and failed before you, but you’re welcome to give it a whirl). Moreover, put away the tin foil hat as there is no "meat-puppet" conspiracy here – (if anything I take offense at the insinuation). You continually violate all sorts of Wiki-civility guidelines, so I am done trying to reason with you on this matter.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one edit-warring to add inappropriate partisan content -- and you violate WP:CIVIL by calling me a "partisan-driven hack"? The meat-puppet allegation is based on the fact that I've seen multiple editors who've never contributed to articles before add inappropriate democracynow links to multiple articles on my watchlist that managed to survive Wikipedia for the last several years without any links to this non-RS. And you have yet to defend those additions by reference to the relevant Wikipedia policies: instead you've spent this entire page attacking me and the mainstream media. By your own admission, this stuff is fringe and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. THF (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    THF, I have never admitted that it is "fringe", so stop putting words in my mouth. Fringe implies inaccuracy, or that the conclusions are outside of the mainstream – DN! is not – they simply cover topics in an English video format that are not usually covered through that medium. You continually keep parroting the "fringe" accusation (after all of your other acronyms failed - see WP:Game) without one single example of just what makes their show, format, or coverage so. I get it, you are a far-right conservative who doesn’t like anything to the left of National Review, that is your prerogative, and Wiki benefits from having an array of views and perspectives – but don’t expect the entire project to subscribe to your ideological point of view. Now if all you have are the same baseless accusations without evidence, then I would suggest you give it a rest and stop wasting both of our time.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How many democracynow links have been added in, say, the past two weeks? Jayjg (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Jayjg, if you mean by me personally - the answer from my count is 14. The daily 1 hour show is usually split into several segments (3-5) and usually on average about 1 of those per day I find relevant to a particular article. Today for instance, I included 3 of those 14, which 2 were video interviews with journalists on the ongoing uprising in Egypt on their individual pages see 1 & 2. Now whether including a video interview with a journalist on their personal article is spam - I guess is up to interpretation - but I don't believe it fits the modus operandi of this page, which is mostly 1 day old IP's spamming their own website etc - not veteran editors making good faith additions of material that they sincerely believe further enhances a readers understanding of various articles. P.S. for the record, I also have no affiliation with DN! and don’t benefit in anyway from their additions. I am just a daily watcher of the show who finds that a good deal of their content is potentially beneficial to the mission of Wikipedia and covers topics that are not usually examined in English or in a video format (as most of the material they cover is usually only reserved for foreign policy annals or academic political journals.)  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think you will continue adding 1 link per day from this website? Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayjg, I’m not sure. My additions are based on their video reports having direct relevancy to a specific Wiki article. If I find and watch a video report that is relevant to an article then I usually include it. However, I don’t have a specific quota that I am going for, nor a set duration of time that I committed to watching the show daily as I do now.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, look at it this way; if you continued doing this for, say, a year, then you'd have 365 external links to this site. Someone who did that all in one day would be blocked almost immediately. The gradual nature of these additions makes them appear less disruptive, but in the end it's still fairly obviously a violation of WP:LINKSPAM. Whether or not it is your intent do so, this is clearly promoting a website by adding many links to it. Jayjg (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayjg, at WP:Linkspam it states: "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." However, my goal in adding these external links is not to promote DN! or sell a product. I have no affiliation with DN!, and the videos that they feature do not solicit money, or sell products etc. For instance, some news video clips for CNN etc feature short 30 second ads before the official clip plays (but DN! does not even do this) as they are independent and receive no advertising, sponsorship, or corporate funding. Moreover, this page is not for preemptively stopping spam under the hypothetical that one could post a link a day for a year, and the original complaint by THF was over a few clips that I posted to what he deems a "propaganda" outfit. THF has made his real argument fairly transparent, that his real issue is not with "spamming", but with the fact that because of his ideological point of view, he believes DN! is "fringe" and thus inadmissible in every circumstance (spam or not). That to me seems like an argument for the external link page or another forum, not for this page which is for ip addresses spamming pages to their own products, personal sites etc. The only real issue to be decided in this forum is whether posting the several links mentioned constitutes "spamming", if it does not then the thread should be closed.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Redthoreau, I haven't stated or implied that you have any affiliation with the website, or that the clips solicit money etc. However, WP:LINKSPAM requires neither of these to qualify as link-spam. Also, I don't have any knowledge of or opinion about the website's political views, which is one reason I haven't mentioned them. Rather, I've pointed out that if an editor did what you were doing all at once, rather than one link per day, the account would almost certainly be immediately blocked for link-spamming, even it if were just 14 links. Slow-motion link-spamming is less obvious, but it doesn't change the nature of what is being done. Jayjg (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayjg, I guess the issue then becomes = can there be "slow motion" link adding that is not "link spamming". For instance, if John X read CNN every day and hence included a different CNN report as a reference or external link on average about once a day – would John be "link spamming"? If CNN is considered a RS, then what would be the problem with utilizing them daily as a reference or EL? In my view, the issue is not the additions, nor even the number of additions, but the rationale behind them and what can possibly gained by their inclusion (potential commercial gain in my view would have a much lower threshold and deserve more scrutiny). You seem to be implying that there is a threshold of how much an editor can use a particular source, and that at some numerically equivalent point - accepted use becomes "overuse" and thus "spam". What I would be curious of is at what point that becomes the case, and if there is any Wiki policy that addresses such an action – (as in my view WP:Linkspam does not).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    While there's no bright-line rule for establishing exactly when adding links from a single source crosses the line to spamming, I have no doubt that if an editor, for example, added 365 external links to Fox News articles, particularly in a brief period of time, that editor would be blocked for spamming. Would it happen if they added "only" 14 links? That's not completely clear, but at some number they would. One Wikipedia goal is to actually eliminate all external links; our articles should contain all relevant, reliably sourced, notable information, not suggest readers go elsewhere to read/learn about the topic. Rather than adding more external links, you should consider whether or not the material itself would be appropriate to add to the articles in question - that is, would it comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. This has been alluded to by others commenting above. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Redthoreau, I see that even as we were discussing this, you continued to add more links to the website. I don't see this as a good faith action. Please stop now, so we don't have to go to more administrative means of dealing with the issue. Jayjg (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jayjg, since I don’t believe that these links constitute "spam", but help readers understand various topics – then yes, I have continued sparingly using them. Moreover, the only overt objection has come from THF who has shown he is motivated by political bias instead of Wiki policy. If I don’t believe I am doing anything wrong, and if there is no judgment by this board or the community that I am violating policy – then why would I alter my actions just because THF has a pov-driven case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I believe this “case” has been open for a reasonable length of time and that matters like this should not remain under review in perpetuity (or until THF finally has an ideological ally who hates the site as well, wade through and join his cause).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    One needs to look at this holistically: the problem here is WP:NOTDIR. I can add hundreds of EL to reason.tv (which would have the side benefit of promoting NPOV, since that notable point of view is absent from numerous articles), but I don't: if everybody adds their favorite web videos to every page, we run into problems. Redthoreau doesn't get special exemption for his favorite video: on the Stella Liebeck article alone, I can identify a dozen external links more appropriate, accurate, and neutral than the democracynow.org propaganda, which would then inappropriately clutter up the page. Simply put, democracynow.org is only reliable for Democracy Now's POV, which is admittedly fringe since, in Redthoreau's own words, they focus on "subjects that are commonly ignored (or intentionally censored) by the larger corporate media." WP:TRUTH is a very bad motivation for adding external links. Redthoreau needs to stop violating WP:BATTLE and needs to stop edit-warring to include these inappropriate links. THF (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    THF, your argument pathetically changes with every post and continually shifts as you desperately hope that one of these acronyms that you throw out there sticks. WP:NOTDIR has no relevance to this debate, and I am seriously starting to wonder if you even read the policies that you cite – or if you just like to play virtual WP:Wikilawyer and throw out acronyms like this was a courtroom. As for Reason TV, if you believe that they have videos that could be of value to specific wiki articles then you are welcome to attempt to add them and see if they’re rejected by editors on those particular articles. For instance, if a particular conservative/libertarian journalist does an interview on Reason TV, I could see a video link to his/her interview being highly relevant for inclusion on that journalist’s particular wiki article. However, whether or not they stayed, would be a matter of WP:OTHERCRAP and not really be relevant to this discussion. Lastly, as for your comically hyperbolic denunciation of DN! as "propaganda" – it is clear that you are the one that views this as a WP:Battle, unlike myself. I believe there is a place on Wiki for your right-wing views as well as views from the left-wing and center. You are the only one here who views this as an ideological zero sum game – and who can’t seem to separate your own personal beliefs – from your edits and behavior on Wiki.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ibtimes.com

    Each of this user's 38 edits since 2 February has involved a link to the site. They can be straight external links, text-free secondary citations added to existing cited statements, or short blurbs about current celebrities cited to the site, example here. We have right now 432 links to the ibtimes site and I'm sure many have value, but this user's edits seem to have the sole purpose of adding links, not keeping us up to date on celebrity activities and awards.

    The article International Business Times is a bit troublesome also, with 20 or 30 inline links to various editions and sections. --CliffC (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, WP won't let me save this because the site is blacklisted (good), but I found nothing about it in the archives when I came here, edit it out & try again... --CliffC (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly, I can save if prefixed 'au', as all 38 edits by this user seem to be:
    --CliffC (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    andamanbeacon.com

    Google Analytics UA-20920491

    also spammed, but some time ago and probably unrelated:

    Spammers

    MER-C 08:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=414032639"