Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CliffC (talk | contribs) at 13:22, 5 June 2009 (→IBISworld.com: please don't do that). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:
    Archive

    Archives

    List of archives (with sections)

    Ctrlclrskn

    Ctrlclrskn (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) Repeatedly adds advertising to site as well as non-free images, has had 5 deletions in the last few days (that I've kept track of)

    Timestamp. MER-C 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    americanchronicle.com

    There are almost 400 links in wiki for what is essentially a blog - anyone can contribute and at least one editor of the site has posted their own articles as references in articles. An article has been created on the website by an editor of it and this was bought to my attention at the conflict of interest noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hatashe. The article is at AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chronicle. I've been advised that this is the best place to report this to ensure there is consensus that these constitute spam links and that they should therefore be removed en masse. There may also be sister websites with a similar concept with many links too. Smartse (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ouch. I added spammed modernghana.com and user Hatashe. Yes, it's spam and needs to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed modernghana.com and user Hatashe - modern Ghana is definitely a different form of website to american chronicle and is probably a reliable source. Hatashe has contributed good content - its not a SPA spam account at least. Smartse (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK (and sorry to have put it over your name). I am still finding my way here, but I think that adding a user is not an assertion that the editor has done no good work. Instead, it allows people here to get a quick idea of the likelihood of additions being spam. Edits to the last six articles on Special:Contributions/Hatashe involved adding the americanchronicle.com link. I haven't had much time to check, but the first (and only) link to modernghana.com that I checked was an (I assume) MS-Word .doc file which I personally don't regard as desirable, however that's different from spam. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm adding the usual links for both Hatashe and modernghana.com, not as an assertion that they are spam, but to allow readers of this report to assess the pattern and make up their own minds:

    I've also notified Hatashe that the value of the links is being discussed here. It's probably worth checking at least ten of the Modern Ghana links to see if they are appropriate to their respective articles. I've not looked into the American Chronicle links carefully yet. With this edit Hatashe adds a link to two American Chronicle articles that he wrote himself! Googling for his full name (declared on his user page), Hasanuzzaman Talukdar Shemul, might also be useful. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleaning up 398 links to americanchronicle.com will be difficult. Consider, for example, this edit from April 2008 that added the link to the first article I looked at. In this recent edit, Hatashe added a link to americanchronicle.com and one to modernghana.com. It's interesting that the two linked articles appear to be identical, and as EdJohnston noted above, the author is Hatashe. Here is another case of two identical linked articles by Hatashe. I would be happy to remove some of the links added by Hatashe as redundant, but others require some consensus to remove. I don't know which discussion can resolve that. However, I would describe many of the links I saw as spam. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A temporary measure might be to remove links to americanchronicle.com and modernghana.com that were added by Hatashe himself, or by people who seem likely to be his colleagues. I did notice one link to American Chronicle being added by Carolmooredc who is a regular Wikipedia editor, and I imagine she found the article via a Google search. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No one else seems to want to comment, so I will say that your suggestion sounds very reasonable to me. I will wait a while to see if any further responses are made, then will try to check Hatashe's contributions and remove, per your suggestion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just done a run through the Hatashe articles and did some cleaning. There are now 383 links to americanchronicle.com and 154 to modernghana.com. Some are good, but most are dubious as far as WP:RS goes. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    virtualfestivals.com

    virtualfestivals.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.virtualfestivals.com

    Spammers

    MER-C 11:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    cruisevolution.com

    links
    accounts

    Multiple SPAs all spamming links to cruise review website, most of whom were all active within a few hours of each other. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    blanked this report. MER-C 13:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    links
    accounts

    Commercial links being repeatedly added to Organizational chart article. The IPs have been edit warring over the links, and engaging in persoanl attacks with those who remove the links (example). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Artist Arena spam on Wikipedia

    Domain-tracking

    Domains:

    Related domains:

    Possibly related domains:

    Domain registration:

    Artist Arena
    853 Broadway
    Suite 1715
    New York, NY 10003
    US

    Accounts:

    Reference:

    Moving one's link up is never a sign of good faith:[1][2] --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ramcoondemand.com

    Spam pages
    Sites spammed
    Spammers

    MER-C 04:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 30#User talk pages with spam notices categories

    You are invited to contribute your comments to this discussion, pro or con. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    asiaing.com

    asiaing.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

    This site has been added by a various IP accounts. The content of the pages is taken from other sites. Some of it is public domain text, others of it is copyright vioaltions. The public domain ones are not illegal, but they are almost univerally unnecessary, as we would already have links to wikisource or guttenberg. This site ges its content from other sites so has nothing that wouldn't be better linked to elsewhere (and which we usually already link to in the articles in question). DreamGuy (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed around 10 of the links so far. A couple were from IP 122.230.x.x with only one contribution. So far I've only found one (listed below) who did several (removed now). Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's down to about 130 links (from about 200). I found around 50 IP addresses with one contribution each (some two each) who added a link, vast majority being 122.230.x.x. My guess is that they are able to use individual IPs and do so to avoid detection. Is that a known strategy? The site seems to have gone to a lot of trouble by putting up good quality pages, but the pages I've checked are text copied from somewhere with a link to download a document derived from other public source. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted a list at: User talk:61.153.52.7#asiaing.com spam on Wikipedia (permanent link). This is cross-wiki with 100+ links on zh.wikipedia (Chinese) also. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "My guess is that they are able to use individual IPs and do so to avoid detection. Is that a known strategy? " -- yes. It can also be due to someone using an Internet cafe or a dial-up modem. We see this especially coming from developing nations.
    I have some concerns that there may be some copyvio stuff in all this -- I noticed there were links to free electronic copies of books published in the last several decades, however I did not investigate further to see if they were actually copyvios.
    I spent a couple of hours going through this stuff to ensure we weren't blacklisting a valued reference. Out of 300+ articles affected, only 3 had links or references added by other editors. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone clean-up the links here on en.wikipedia? I'm working away at the 100+ on zh.wikipedia (the Chinese Wikipedia).
    By the way, here are the 3 articles with links added by others; I suggest we leave them alone:
    -A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Neighborhood Parcel LLC

    Spam pages
    Sites spammed
    Related domains
    Spammers

    MER-C 13:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    topsalesblog.com

    Previous incidents
    Sites spammed
    • Already blacklisted.
    Spammers

     Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 13:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeking expert help to judge suspected spam

    Those whose Wikipedia edits are concerned primarily with getting rid of linkspam may lack the ability, or maybe even the willingness, to judge the difference between two sorts of sites:

    • Those that are supported by advertising and are competently and professionally done pages on topics unrelated to the thing being advertised, maintained for purposes other than advertising;
    • Those that are created for the purpose of advertising and include either material on some other topic of interest, crudely copied from other web pages, or links to other web pages superficially appearing to be on that other topic of interest, but without professional or competent judgment, or any judgment, as to what material is good and what is worthless crap.

    It would appear to me to make sense for people getting rid of linkspam to seek the advice of those knowledgeable on the topics involved, often by contacting relevant WikProjects on their talk pages. That they should do that should be mentioned at WP:SPAM and on this present WikiProject's page.

    At Wikipedia talk:Spam I proposed this. I also mentioned the particular case that brought this to my attention. The only response so far as been that if I mention a particular case, that amounts to a "personal attack" and "veiled insults" against the editor involved. I don't agree that that is an attack or an insult, but for now I'm omitting the specific case from this posting. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see you've also raised this issue at:
    Here's the domain information:
    I can't speak for others but typically when I see a potential useful site that's been spammed, I'll revert the link additions with an edit summary along the lines of:
    • "deleted link inappropriately added by an editor with a conflict of interest; non-involved editors feel free to add it back if it's appropriate here."
    Even if it's a great site, I'll revert spammed links, especially where conflict of interest issues have already been pointed out to an editor, as they were to Agutie, a single purpose account[3] with a quickly discernible conflict of interest.[4] It's about who's controlling our content -- our editing community or an outsider? Removing the link restores control back to neutral editors who can always choose to add it back.
    Then there's the case of domains spammed so persistently that we consider blacklisting them. Most of the time, that sort of domain is also obviously of little value to us, but occasionally we run into one that might actually be useful, in which case I'll often post a link on the talk page of the appropriate WikiProject asking for advice.
    I've got a gray area on this page right now (see "Artist Arena spam on Wikipedia" above). The site-owner has been spamming links to official fan-sites of various celebrities; readers have to pay to use them. I gather the spammer has contracts with the celebrities to operate these sites. Persistently bad behaviour + questionable link value -- yet these are links to the official sites. I'm normally avoid our popular culture/celebrity articles, so I'm not totally confident about how to handle this one. When I get a chance, I'll probably go to the appropriate WikiProject(s) and ask for advice. If nothing else, it heads off wikidrama after the fact.
    One final note -- a major issue for the value of many self-published sites like Agutie's is their reliability. In math, you have the unique luxury of being able to quickly judge whether what he's saying is right or wrong. In most other fields, it's a bit more rubbery. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The information contained on a site is generally not a reason to revert, revertlist or blacklist. It is how the site is being used. Sites may be totally appropriate (but not on the pages they are added to, we are not a linkfarm e.g.), the site may be used in the wrong way (linking to mainpage on site, while there is sub-info which may be of interest), &c. &c. For practically every site contained on the blacklist there are appropriate forms of usage thinkable. It is in all cases weighing, how is the ratio appropriate use against inappropriate use, and that decides how to handle. If we are in doubt, and the abuse of the site is not too bad, we take time to discuss first, otherwise it is plain abuse-control. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the cases where value of the link versus the bad behavior of the submitter are hard to weigh against each other. If something like this were submitted at WP:COIN, the test would be 'Is the submitter willing to join in a conversation, and does he show willingness to follow policy?' (At least that's how I would reckon it). In the case of Agutie, he has never left an edit summary or a talk comment, so he would flunk that test. I'll leave him a warning that he is expected to discuss his changes. The blockability of the submitter can be left independent of the value of the links. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    watersanitationhygiene.org

    watersanitationhygiene.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.watersanitationhygiene.org

    Spammers

    MER-C 10:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ukrainian disease spam

    Adsense pub-7306961784872129

    Sites spammed
    Spammers

     Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 10:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See also this comment.  Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 08:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Off-topic link from article talk page to a porn site

    Does anybody feel confident handling this? I have no idea what to do, since it's a rare situation and I can't find any guidance about external links from outside article space. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Did I post in the wrong place? --Hans Adler (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he meant well.. (the Japanese site he mentioned earlier has some artwork that would be appropriate (except for licensing issues)).. I replied on on the thread, but the original message is months old now. If the link is particularly bothersome, you could archive the talk page, it's getting a bit long & goes back several years. --Versageek 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, posting links to inappropriate sites seems to be this user's main occupation. But I am not particularly bothered by this. Good idea about the archive, I will try to set up automatic archiving. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    licensedpracticalnurselpn.tk

    Adsense pub-4346541363938209

    Spam pages
    Sites spammed

    licensedpracticalnurselpn.tk: 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

     Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 11:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    moneimatters.com

    Spam pages
    Sites spammed

    moneimatters.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.moneimatters.com

    Spammers

    MER-C 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    booloon.com

    links
    accounts

    User attempted to spam links to the listed domain onto multiple articles. When warned, the user attempted to re-insert the link by disguising it as a ref in a new paragraph [5]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Generating reports based on spam warnings

    Good day, WikiProject Spam. As a result of a CFD on the several categories that spam-warning templates place on the talk pages of spammers, and the fact that A. B. must do a lot of tedious processing in order to keep an eye on these spammers, and to determine what to add onto the spam blocklist. I think this can be automated to a degree. This can be done by a bot analyzing the IPs/accounts in the various categories (removing them from the category as it goes along), checking it for what links it posts and with what frequency it does this. This will help considerably with the workload, making it easier to deal with spammers. But to make sure it is just what the WikiProject needs, I want to hear input from you -- the people who would use it the most. —harej (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this, and it would certainly help, but I don't know if it should remove the people from the categories. The categories show sometimes nice lists of close IPs, and we continuously have cases of spammers on rotating IPs (which are almost impossible to catch, unless you see them in such long-term overviews as is being found by the categories; see also the example that I give in the CSD). Also, please take care with writing reports, people tend to get quickly offended if they are in reports, something that will not happen that fast with the categories (categories are not Google-searchable, people can't find them unless they know they exist, and the naming of the categories is perfectly neutral). There is a workaround for reports not to be found by Google (noindex), and that has greatly diminished the complaints about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports that are generated by COIBot (though every now and then I do still get complaints!), doing this automated with usernames may give mor complaints of this type. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    New COIBot functionality

    Dear Anti-Spam people, some of you know the on-IRC 'linkwatcher' bots, and their output. They detect the linkadditions in real-time, and try to find some patterns in that. Those have for a long time resulted in the cross-wiki link reports, which are a continuous basis of meta blacklistings.

    The on-IRC part also does similar statistics per-wiki, and reports them on-IRC. I have for some time sent some people reports on local links which needed to be looked at, but did at that time not write a system for on-wiki (mainly because it is quite error-prone in terms of 'catching good links').

    I have now written a part in COIBot where it saves local reports to meta, all reports are categorised there in m:Category:COIBot Local Reports. En.wikipedia.org specific reports are in m:Category:COIBot Local Reports for en.wikipedia.org.

    Most of you are probably unfamiliar with this system of reports, so I will give a bit of an explanation. The reports are built up in sections:

    Links
    • contains the linksummary templates, the searches there can be used to find similar reports (search on server IP in the second linksummary template) or via the 'whatlinkshere' in the toolbox etc.)
    Users
    • a list of users that have used the link (those that the linkwatcher bots tripped on, it can be one user, or a list of IPs, etc.). Again, the links can find related reports, especially useful can be the 'what links to the user talkpage link, as all reports link to the user talk page, and hence are in the search list.
    Site info and monitoring rules
    • Gives some information on the site, which monitoring rules COIBot has for this link, if there are any links whitelisted, blacklisted or revertlisted (XLinkBot) somewhere on a wikipedia (it may be that the link is already blacklisted on e.g. pt.wikipedia, but now spammed on en.wikipedia; this is a regularly updated, off-wiki, list, though it has often a couple of hours of lag)
    Additions
    • Gives a list of the additions by the users mentioned in the 'Users' section. List is limited to about 100 additions to keep the bot running smoothly
    Entry
    • A bot generated 'log' line for the link; based on the meta Spam blacklist log format, will need to be adapted to local custom AND maybe localised (let me know if you have any ideas on how to localise this, please keep in mind that it in principle should be useful for all 738 wikis that are watched by this system).
    Discussion
    • This is THE discussion section, discussion is not necessery on the talkpage, but at the bottom of THIS SECTION (there is a tag there saying "Please put comments after this remark" in editmode, discussion after this tag)
    What COIBot does, is on new link-additions that trip the rules, it will regenerate the report. It then regenerates everything before the tag "Please put comments after this remark", and attaches again everything after that tag (so the discussion does not get lost). The data in the template "LinkStatusLocal" is adapted according to the previous setting (see below).
    In the Discussion section, there is also a template "LinkStatusLocal", it takes 2 parameters, the first one the wiki the report is for (you can ignore that mostly), and the second parameter is a 'status' for the reports. For the XWiki reports we use 4:
    • 'Open' - the report is open, there have been linkadditions recently
    • 'Closed' - an editor has handled the report, e.g. reverted the links, or discussed and deemed it not a big problem at the moment. If there are new link-additions, COIBot will re-open the report (change the status to 'Open').
    • 'Stale' - generally bot-performed, if a report has not been handled after a certain time, the bot can close it as a non-urgent problem. If there are new link-additions, COIBot will re-open the report (change the status to 'Open').
    • 'Ignored' - If the link is really no problem, change the status to ignore. The bot will update the report, but not re-open it.
    The status of the report has an effect on the categorisation:
    So one only has to evaluate the reports in m:Category:Open Local reports/m:Category:Open Local reports for en.wikipedia.org, changing the status when handled (or leaving it open for more opinions).
    Don't worry in the beginning if you don't know what to do, others who are more familiar will keep an eye, the most important thing is that one edits after the remark. If you are unsure if you have to close or ignore, leave it open, and have a look how others handle similar reports, or wait for others to close it.

    Generally, close reports if it is not too bad, don't leave them hanging around. Also close reports when you have added things to XLinkBot or to the local blacklist and leave a remark about that (they will reopen, but at least it is then easy to see that it has been handled; COIBot clearly states that it is a re-opened report.

    I will copy the majority of this text to m:User:COIBot/Local for future reference). Happy catching. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    loaded-questions.com

    Spammers

    17 ignored warnings, nearly two years of abuse.  Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 08:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ustravelweather.com and www.weatherbyday.com

    There is a conflict of interest discussion related to weather sites at WT:WikiProject Cities#Climate Table Links that may be of interest here.

    domains:

    editors:

    ✤ JonHarder talk 12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BFI Screenonline

    • Can someone else see if this behaviour is appropriate? This IP has added this link over 100 times dating back almost a year. He's using one of our templates; but the site itself doesn't offer much that our articles don't already cover. I haven't reverted any of his edits yet. ThemFromSpace 16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is assigned to British Film Institute (I tagged the IP's talk page) and screenonline.org.uk is associated with the British Film Institute. A clear conflict of interest. ✤ JonHarder talk 18:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    seleniuminc.com

    Accounts

    Wefrisch (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)
    70.72.222.252 (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) 18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    legion-magazine.co.uk

    legion-magazine.co.uk: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.legion-magazine.co.uk

    Spammers
    • IP resolves to Redactive Publishing, the publisher of the magazine.

    IP could do with a long term block. MER-C 11:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    IBISworld.com

    Site sells $650 industry reports. Their approach to each article seems to be to drop in a paragraph about the industry (not always optimally placed, may repeat what's already said in the article) cited to a reliable source such as the WSJ, then add a paragraph of statistics cited to IBISworld, linking to a page of general information about the industry and a "Purchase Options" button. In the case of Department store, the button leads to offers of a $650 one-time report or a $995 one-year subscription to all reports for the industry. User:IBISWorldWikiProject switched ids after receiving COI and spam warnings from other editors. --CliffC (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi CliffC. Because of the nature of what we do and the fact that the information posted up is researched and written from a neutral viewpoint, I've been given instructions that as part of this project to help improve the quality, timeliness and accuracy of industry and economic statistics on Wikipedia, we are meant to be uploading as much relevant encyclopedic style economic and industry related information as possible, as long the entries are written from a neutral point of view, the links guide Wikipedia readers directly to freely available data, don't mention the IBISWorld name in the wiki entry, refrain from forecasting statistics, stick to Wikipedia's style guide and incorporate reputable references other then IBISWorld in the entry.

    You can see from the entries I am doing that there are no forecasts and the information is based on economic and industry history and trends. I am making sure to always cite reputable sources other then IBISWorld (such as what I have been doing with the US Census Bureau, Wall Street Journal, as well as other research providers) in the entries as well. These trends do not promote any product in particular but add to the depth of content. We have access to a large library of encyclopedic style economic history that fits in with Wikimedia principles and can greatly add to Wikipedia's content. The data in the entries I am adding can be freely viewed by Wikipedia readers if they choose to follow the links either to IBISWorld data (meaining the info is on the page, there is no need for the actual purchase of the report), or if they choose to follow the citiation I am creating to other recognized government, economic and industry sources or reputable research providers.

    That being said, I understand your point and I'll also be adding a lot more entries that don't mention IBISWorld and don't link to the IBISWorld website at all. I also wrote this on your user page

    IndustryProj (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought I had seen everything when a spammer complained about their efforts being reverted because the client "has paid for the work, and yet is not listed in Wikipedia, and is understandably upset"! Now we have User:IBISWorldWikiProject (blocked due to promotional user name) and the rebirthed User:IndustryProj imagining that spam is ok because they include some lollies with it. I reviewed every contribution by both of the just-mentioned users and I confirm that it is spam and should be reverted on sight. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:IndustryProj has posted a similar canned defense on my talk page, and I've replied, here. --CliffC (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. Why have you so quickly deemed all my entries to be reverted on site? I am not imagining that spam is ok but this is the first time I received any form of warning that this was considered a conflict of interest so I will change how I write further posts. Other editors have been encouraging me to continue going on with adding economic and industry style entries based on proper sources and have appreciated the encylopedic style of entries.

    After the posting about 'conflict' of interest on my discussion page I understand that I shouldn't keep linking to IBISWorld everytime I write an economic/industry entry so I will refrain from doing this anymore unless it is crucial to the entry. The "lollies" I am writing are from legitimate encyclopedic sources that add weight to the Wikipedia article. Can you please outline why the posts are deemed as inappropriate? I changed the user name because I was advised by an editor to keep posting entries but from a less promotional name. IndustryProj (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I will also remove a majority of the links to IBISWorld from my old posts as well. IndustryProj (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't do that. Here's an example of an edit that doesn't belong at all. Article Stock broker is about the regulated professional, you've dropped in a lump of facts and statistics about the industry. (I've now reverted this edit). --CliffC (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BCRockyMountains.com

    links
    accounts

    User advertising website onto a large number of articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com discussion at reliable sources noticeboard

    I posted to a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#examiner.com = paid blogging, no editorial oversight that I'd like some input on if anyone's interested. I think it will ultimately go the way of ehow.com, but I think there is and will be confusion that this new website is related to the print newspapers owned by the same company...Clarity Media. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    barringtonarch.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=294571551"