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 MER-C (talk | contribs) at 04:47, 10 June 2009 (→‎cimm-icmm.org: sigh, perhaps I should start googling user names). 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]

    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[1] with a quickly discernible conflict of interest.[2] 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]

    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 [3]. --- 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

    More accounts above (only the IP=IndustryProj has been active recently). Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    ibisworld update

    IndustryProj has started editing again. Here is the result of a series of edits that might be useful, or might be promotional. I'm inclined to revert as introducing extraneous material that is likely to encourage more and more "according to Some Big Firm ..." material. It's interesting how a number of IndustryProj's edits are of the "according to" variety, with a link.

    A few related edits have been made by 203.16.173.17 (with lots more that are unrelated). For example, these four edits are two by the IP then two by IndustryProj to introduce a new para with an ibisworld promo (IndustryProj has now removed the reference to ibisworld).

    An earlier editor was Jreconomy with this first edit (plan promo in sandbox) and this second edit (put promo on user page). The first edit to an article was to create IBISWorld where we learn that Justin Ruthven is the CEO (note "JR" in user name). A typical edit is to add a couple of fluff paragraphs with a link to ibisworld.

    I haven't got the energy to do anything more at the moment, but I will return. Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sampling these edits, they seem to have a "dropped from the sky" look as though copied verbatim from some other source (perhaps one of those $650 reports?). Although well-written, they don't seem to quite fit. I'd agree they are extraneous and probably should go. The IBISWorld article seems okay if we ignore who created it, with few inbound links from other articles. I've added it to my watchlist. Company itself seems notable, at the moment it's quoted 41 times in the media, according to a Google News search. --CliffC (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand if the link is not relevant to the article then it shouldn't be there and any feedback on this by the editors will implemented (such as the criticism on my entry on Stockbroking and the relevance of entries as well as the warning on too many links to the IBISWorld website). I still think I'm in the position to add add a lot of well written, relevant contributions to the industry based and economic based articles here. Its only by contributing that I can refine the posts to fit in with what Wikipedia wants. My aim is to try and contribute within the boundaries given, so apologies if some of the initial posts don't fit in with these, it just takes time here to figure out what the boundaries are as well as the stylistic preferences and rules that Wikpedia runs on but I am quickly learning them and will adapt to them. IndustryProj (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CliffC's phrase "dropped from the sky" is exactly how I regard many of the edits I saw. All useful edits are welcome, but dropping a paragraph into an article and leaving someone else to worry about whether it interrupts the text is often unhelpful. In particular, any link to some-big-firm that you add is likely to be viewed with suspicion. You will understand if you think about the number of people who would love to put a link to their web site in every paragraph of every article on Wikipedia. There is next to zero chance of any links to ibisworld being added in the next few months unless added by a totally uninvolved editor with an extensive history of useful contributions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 7 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]

    As the person who brought it up there, I think the site should be blacklisted. See the link above for reasons why. DreamGuy (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    barringtonarch.com

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

    bacon maple donut

    Could members of this project please look at bacon maple donut? It documents a "craze" less than 2 months old, and mentions some random restaurants a little more prominently than I think makes sense for an encyclopedia. It is DYK from the front page right now. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Zen Technologies Ltd

    Spam pages
    Sites spammed
    Spammers

     Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 09:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated. MER-C 04:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    spiritoftheages.com

    spiritoftheages.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 one had been reported in the past -- a coupe of years back -- but someone recently started putting the links back. When listed in external links sections it promises lots of images by famous artists, but when you get to the site the images are postage stamp sized and the pages primarily exist hoping to sell reprints. No encyclopedic purpose for our readers, exists only to try to make money. DreamGuy (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    accounts
    prior reports
    Added links to a user who was recently adding the link, as well as a link to the earlier report. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User active in March 2009:
    All gone for now. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Without seeking to offend any of the editors involved in the decision to remove references to spiritoftheages.com, the comments - including that site has "[n]o encyclopedic purpose for ...[Wikipedia] readers" - seems inaccurate and the action to remove links based upon such comments removes links for readers interested in that artists and artwork accessible on the various links. In making that comment, I would note that spiritoftheages.com is clearly under continuous development - I have noted regular revisions to the site with many of the more recent updates involving the inclusion of considerable material derived from original sources (inclusive of details around publishing, illustrations, the artists and the text related to the illustrations). Some of that information has directly contributed to Wikipedia articles. Further, in a number of cases, the link site (spiritoftheages.com) has highly detailed information of research value that does not otherwise appear to be available on the web - examples that spring to mind are the emerging practice on the site to accompany images with associated text (as is the case in Vernon Hill's illustrations to Ballads Weird and Wonderful), Holbein's illustrations to The Praise of Folly (Moriae Encomium) [in that example, the illustrations are shown with both French and English translations of Erasmus' text], illustrations shown from Der Weiss Kunig (where extracts of translated text from the medieval German is shown on occasions), Der Todten-Tantz (where German and English text is shown with the associated image) and Michaud's The History of the Crusades (where Dore's illustrations are shown with Michaud's associated text). I do appreciate the comments about spam and the like, but believe this to be a significant resource that has relevance to Wikipedia users (and rather than go ahead with inserting references again, would appreciate some considered comment about the points I have raised before taking such potentially inflammatory action). Ruderabbit007 (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There are many thousands of good web sites, and many have teams of eager helpers who want to promote their site. I'm sure your site (like many others) is good value, and you (like many others) are well intentioned. But the fact is that you (and 121.223.25.219) are a single purpose account who obviously is looking for places on Wikipedia where you can inject links to your site. We can't debate the quality or relevance of your site because many articles could have links to over a hundred quality sites. We have to be brutal and cut off all attempts to perform link spamming. Have a look over this page and its archives to get an idea of the size of the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There certainly seem to be a lot of assumptions being made by some otherwise well-intentioned editors, including that I am working for spiritoftheages.com and thus, am "obviously ... looking for places fo Wikipedia where ... [I]can inject links to ... [the] site". That response seems overly emotional and loaded with defamatory assumptions that betray a zealotry that is unwarranted in editing - similar to many of the justifications used, including that "the images are postage stamp sized" and the like (obviously the size of the images depends on the screen resolution - and not all users have hi-def screens). For some time, I have been adding information to Wikipedia on various subjects - and I will continue to do so. Ruderabbit007 (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I will have to make an essay on this (is there one?) because the issue regularly arises where a well-intentioned editor gets irritated by do-gooders such as myself when we remove their text, particularly their links. Some spammers don't need any explanation because they always had a clear intention to exploit Wikipedia for their benefit. However, there are other editors who find a great web site (there are lots of them), and feel that using the site on Wikipedia would benefit the relevant articles.
    To understand why many editors remove link additions, think about the thousands of great web sites. Often each site has lots of workers and readers who are interested in the topic of that site. Some of those people will realize that "the encyclopdia that anyone can edit" is a great place to add links. The personal motivation of the editor is not relevant, it's the effect that concerns WikiProject Spam. We cannot determine whether a particular editor is "good" or "bad". We only know that if those who add links are not strongly resisted, then every paragraph in every article on Wikipedia will end up with links to several web sites.
    The clearest test of whether a particular editor needs to be resisted comes from looking at their contributions. Checking the contribs of Ruderabbit007 and 121.223.25.219 shows that while the edits were good, nearly all the edited articles ended up with links to one site. We cannot say "that's ok because your intentions are good and the site is helpful" because there is a never-ending queue of spammers, and they would want to argue about their intentions and their helpful site.
    It looks as if nearly all articles edited by the two above-mentioned users involved adding a link to spiritoftheages, so there are no assumptions involved in saying "obviously is looking for places on Wikipedia where you can inject links to your site". I will make it clear now that by "your site" I simply mean the site you were interested in. As I hope I have made clear above, your intentions and who owns the site are not relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Assorted spamming

    Spammers

    Looks like a backyard SEO job to me, can't see any connection between the domains. MER-C 10:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tebows List

    Link:

    Spammer:

    Links are all wiped.

    TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 06:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Clients of Quik Internet http://spam.quik-websites.com

    quik-websites.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

    Sites spammed
    Spammers

    MER-C 12:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    thinktalk.com

    Site

    Users

    Spam dating back over a year with many contributions being made in April 2008. ThemFromSpace 20:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the link from Nicholas Sparks (author) (and commented on its talk page with a link to here) so I will just add that I confirmed that this is an extremely typical case of WP:SPA spamming which needs to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    cimm-icmm.org

    Spam pages
    Sites spammed

    cimm-icmm.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.cimm-icmm.org

    Spammers

    Might be a reputable institution, but there's no excuse for blatant spamming. MER-C 05:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    GameTrailers.com

    I don't know if this is the right place to bring this up, (If not, I apologize in advance.) but it looks like a single-purpose account. I have to assume that the "GT" in his account name stands for "GameTrailers".

    Gtfan6204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited only to add links to GameTrailers.com to games articles. I noticed him after these edits. [5] APL (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    linkspam using references in articles to hide

    I started noticing the site "www.kirjasto.sci.fi" in several articles as a reference. It isn't a published reference, just some guys website with a page for every book and author you can think of. Each page has multiple links to Amazon.com.

    I did the following search in google;

    "www.kirjasto.sci.fi" site:wikipedia.org

    the result was

    Results 1 - 10 of about 348 from wikipedia.org for "www.kirjasto.sci.fi". (0.31 seconds).

    I have deleted a few already on articles I've been working on but I don't have the time or energy to handle 348 articles. Thanks.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=295519447"