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
New section: London spam
Line 743: Line 743:
Despite the .org domain, has quite a few advertisements. Most of the data presented on the site is freely available (though perhaps not as centralized). As you can see, it covers quite a few articles. I should also note that a quick survey of some of the articles found no obvious spam patterns (i.e., link seems to have been added independently by various authors). Thoughts? <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Despite the .org domain, has quite a few advertisements. Most of the data presented on the site is freely available (though perhaps not as centralized). As you can see, it covers quite a few articles. I should also note that a quick survey of some of the articles found no obvious spam patterns (i.e., link seems to have been added independently by various authors). Thoughts? <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:This isn't a particularly good link, but I don't think it's spam. If you Google for info on schools in the U.S. the schooltree.org link comes up near the top. It was used in good faith to populate lists such as [[List of high schools in Oregon]] (for which I found a better source, so I deleted the schooltree link). I think people should work to find official school and school district pages that contain the same information (from where does schooltree get its info?), but I don't think the schooltree links hurt anything either. It's similar to doing a search for sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. You often get www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, which isn't affiliated with the official www.nps.gov/nr site, but has the same public domain information. The link to the dot com NRHP was added in good faith by a lot of people (some by me, because it had me fooled for a while!) and isn't terrible, but I've been going through and replacing it with the link to the official Oregon NRHP list, because it seems like the best link is the one closest to the source. [[User:Katr67|Katr67]] 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:This isn't a particularly good link, but I don't think it's spam. If you Google for info on schools in the U.S. the schooltree.org link comes up near the top. It was used in good faith to populate lists such as [[List of high schools in Oregon]] (for which I found a better source, so I deleted the schooltree link). I think people should work to find official school and school district pages that contain the same information (from where does schooltree get its info?), but I don't think the schooltree links hurt anything either. It's similar to doing a search for sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. You often get www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, which isn't affiliated with the official www.nps.gov/nr site, but has the same public domain information. The link to the dot com NRHP was added in good faith by a lot of people (some by me, because it had me fooled for a while!) and isn't terrible, but I've been going through and replacing it with the link to the official Oregon NRHP list, because it seems like the best link is the one closest to the source. [[User:Katr67|Katr67]] 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

== London spam ==

;Sites spammed
http://spam.20thcenturylondon.org.uk
:{{spamlink|20thcenturylondon.org.uk}}
http://spam.medievalists.net
:{{spamlink|medievalists.net}}
http://spam.deremilitari.org
:{{spamlink|deremilitari.org}}
http://spam.untoldlondon.org.uk
:{{spamlink|untoldlondon.org.uk}}

;Spammers
*{{ipvandal|217.206.186.114}}
*{{vandal|Jasonwebber}}
*{{vandal|Peter Konieczny}}

[[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:51, 7 September 2007

Shortcut


Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

Were there ever talk here about a bot monitoring external links? If an external links section is tagged e.g. {{NoMoreLinks}}, The bot could monitor and maybe assemble added links somewhere. -- Kl4m Talk Contrib 20:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle User:COIBot could do such things, were it not that the template gets substituted so it is difficult for COIBot to see if a page has that template (except for parsing all pages where links get added to, which would impose a high strain on the bandwidth of the computer COIBot is running on; I tried something similar earlier, and the computer seemed to have problems coping with that). If these articles could be put into a category (or their talkpages), it would be easier to parse. The bot could then just make a list of the pages in the category (refresh that every say 5 minutes), and test for each page reported by our linkwatchers if they are in the category or not, and then make the bot report all added links. Any other thoughts someone? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.noooxml.org

Noooxml

Accounts

Pieterh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
84.64.233.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Kaern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
72.40.2.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
190.48.122.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Adi86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.233.255.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 10:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually not sure if these two sections do belong on wikipedia at all. After all, we are not a soapbox. A factual section in the text (which I think is there) should be more than enough. And if noooxml.org is a key link, then it could be used as reference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly, is not appropriate as it advertises a pettition rather than a resource about the subject. Per WP:EL and as Dirk Beetstra points out, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox for Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Including Opinion pieces and Advertising --Hu12 17:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved two external links sections on Office Open XML to the talkpage, where some editors were edit warring over the inclusion or not of this link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.tourdates.co.uk

tourdates.co.uk: 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

See WP:ANI#User Posting Spam. MER-C 09:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added an IP.--Hu12 09:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

boxing-memorabilia.com and famousmuslims.com

boxing-memorabilia.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
famousmuslims.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

MER-C 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The boxing links were widely cross-wiki spammed. I noticed the boxing spam a while back when I was investigating another big, unrelated spam operation ( languedoc-france.info) that used the same shared corporate IP (cross-wiki edit history for 168.224.1.14). I noticed it was cross-wiki, but I was so pre-occupied with the langue-doc.info cleanup I forgot about this one.
The same boxing spammer also added links to ezinearticles.com pages with his links on them. (Ezinearticles.com is already blacklisted at meta).
I think the boxing-memorabilia.com stuff should go to meta:Talk:Spam blacklist for blacklisting on meta.
I don't know anything about the famousmuslims.com links but there appear to be a number of these links on other wikis. --A. B. (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to Flickr search results?

I've noticed this a lot recently, external links to search results with specific tags. Is there a guideline on these? This seems similar to linking to a Google image search, although usually Flickr results are more specific than Google. 172.207.92.192 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our external links guidelines state put 10. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages under the normally to be avoided header. So generally these are not a good idea. You can get more input on this at the external links guidelines talk page. -- SiobhanHansa 17:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conventions.net

A site currently announcing its imminent launch on September 1st. Spammed since at least June. conventions.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Editors adding link:

Time to blacklist?

-- SiobhanHansa 04:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done the long term nature of this is concerning--Hu12 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reincarnation of visaforu.com spam

visaforu.com is blacklisted on meta - so they've switched to:

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

--Versageek 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added it to the local BL for now, if i recall they have in the past used redirects and "iframed" from various domains.--Hu12 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COIBot is now watching all links with the text 'visaforu' in it, they should now be visible in the link reports. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now blacklisted at Meta --Herby talk thyme 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.petitionspot.com

Quite a few links, most likely needs a closer review--Hu12 14:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody look into this range of IP addresses? 67.171.115.0-255 appears to be someone from Utah, works at Albertson's (maybe), and loves putting a lot of unnecessary content into Wikipedia. --Dude Manchap 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rawartint.com and girafa.com spam on Wikipedia

Spam domains:

Accounts:

Cross-wiki spam:

Aside from software and art gallery articles in different languages, this spam campaign also hit articles about giraffes in different Wikipedias with spam links to Girafa.com Inc, a small software company.

Spam articles:

Disputatious discussions

Meta blacklisting request:

--A. B. (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nbjmp.com

From the domaintools search - they describe themselves as "a technology used to track online advertising campaigns for our partners. It is owned by NeverblueAds, an affiliate network."

  • Spamsocks:
PowerULife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LoveIsGreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Flyinghigher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Liveyourlife9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Versageek 03:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Two more.. and another waiting for me to revert it!![reply]

Sweetspicelife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SenseOften8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Universe82378 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
AreaMinx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
HeavyCivil29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SnakeTabler82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MyLoveLife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've blacklisted on shadowbot, but if someone could add this to the local MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist that would be wonderful! I have also reported nbjmp.com account #8617 (based on the URL used to spam) to nbjmp.com, so hopefully he'll have his account frozen and his membership canceled. and..

MyLoveLife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also spammed Amazon.com affiliate links, I have reported that affiliate account to Amazon.com. --Versageek 04:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Water4Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mate132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and I've also seen a few others. The site is now blacklisted locally. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.splashacademy.com http://spam.miamiwatersportscenter.com

miamiwatersportscenter.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
splashacademy.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

MER-C 11:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.midnightmarketingonline.com http://spam.salestimes3.com

midnightmarketingonline.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
salestimes3.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

See WP:ANI#inveterate spammer needs a block. MER-C 02:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.sciencemadefun.org.uk

sciencemadefun.org.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

MER-C 12:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

health topics spam

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

--Versageek 15:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalspam

This domain is being used to replace the official domains on high profile articles like Google and Flickr. Apparently Linkwatcher isn't picking it up.

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

--Versageek 16:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.firsteditionpoints.com http://www.pprize.com

Fairly low-key campaign, some uses might be OK, but users behave like spammers. I cleaned these up, please monitor.

Accounts

Also:

Has been discussed with Tklein27, COI for sure, haven't looked into usage and I haven't cleaned up.

Thanks. Katr67 17:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

startingiseasy.com

Now the cross-wiki linkwatchers are starting to become stable, the first notices of active cross wiki spamming are visible.

Accounts:

It is almost a shame the linkwatcher is not yet working on all wikis ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfacts.org

Hi, please keep an eye out for spam by GreenFacts, a "not-for-profit" that is systematically spamming Wikipedia; where they add their links to wikipedia and usually attach them to the link to an NGO report and label the link to their site as a summary of the report. I have removed over 50 links; I noticed them as this IP was updating them

Thanks. --Peta 07:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is keeping an eye out. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.calleridspoofing.info

Added over and over again to pages about spoofing.

Users:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.sleepassociation.org

Advert Sleep association
Advert American Sleep Association

Accounts

Sleepdoctor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sleepdoctor1971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 15:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD:
--A. B. (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.thenisai.com

Songs and movies with india(n) entertainment (a portal). Much advertisement.

users:

Seems to be used as a good site as well, though this was a case of plain spamming. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another fake sex symbol "official site"

Account

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

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 03:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be able to understand this stuff - maybe someone can help me. This IP has added the site once to the article which is the subject of the website. While it may not be an appropriate link (and I'm not judging it one way or the other), is this really considered reportable as part of this project? I don't see any other vandalism from this IP either. Please help me with this. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I reported is that I'm constantly seeing links to these sites on the articles for porn stars, models, actresses, etc. Usually they're purported to be the person's "official site". They always consist of the person's name, and usually have a .org, .net, or .biz extension. The sites have all have a similar look and contain a bunch of copyvio photos along with Google ads. The links always seemed to be added by IPs, and each IP will only add, at most, 2 or 3 of these links before apparently moving on to another IP. I'm not sure if there's a way to find out who's hosting these sites or adding the links, but there's definitely a pattern here. Videmus Omnia Talk 12:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Can you post more examples, then? Maybe that will help the experts get a better picture of it... -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding them here as I run across them - maybe I made an incorrect assumption, but I thought it was a problem of which our spam experts were aware. A recent example I added here was jaydenjames.net...don't remember any others off the top of my head. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok - might be an idea to keep them together in one section, then - that way it's going to be easier to look for commonalities. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but this page is normally archived too quickly for that. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links in the left column at www.joleneblalock.biz led me to 31 other domains. The "Free Nude Cams" link redirects to http://peekshows.com/?wmcode=MPI This is probably not the spammer's site; instead he's getting a referral commission based on the "wmcode=MPI" in the URL.
Here's the list of other domains; all are registered to Mancuso Programming Inc. and the Google AdSense number is 3793717116673284 -- see if any of these look familiar:
1. http://anneheche.biz
2. http://brooklyndecker.org
3. http://camillabelle.org
4. http://carlagallo.net
5. http://carlagugino.biz
6. http://carly-schroeder.com
7. http://chloesevigny.biz
8. http://emilyblunt.biz
9. http://evamendes.biz
10. http://grace-park.com
11. http://heathergraham.biz
12. http://islafisher.biz
13. http://jalba.biz
14. http://katherineheigl.biz
15. http://katie-rees.net
16. http://kerirussell.biz
17. http://lauraprepon.biz
18. http://leeleesobieski.org
19. http://llohan.net
20. http://miasara.net
21. http://michelleryan.biz
22. http://minniedriver.org
23. http://naomiwatts.biz
24. http://rosariodawson.biz
25. http://shawneesmith.org
26. http://shayek.org
27. http://teripolo.net
28. http://thorabirch.biz
29. http://triciahelfer.biz
30. http://vanessa-ferlito.com
Clicking links on each of those pages pulled up these additional sites with similar layouts and the same Adsense number:
1. http://alexisbarbara.net
2. http://alicia-witt.net
3. http://amanda-swisten.com
4. http://chandrawest.org
5. http://chylerleigh.org
6. http://danicamckellar.net/
7. http://elenaanaya.org
8. http://heathermatarazzo.net
9. http://kirstenstorms.net
10. http://lindapark.org
11. http://natashalyonne.net
12. http://olivia-wilde.net
13. http://rachel-specter.com
14. http://robintunney.org
15. http://rosablasi.org
16. http://sunny-mabrey.com
Further digging around turned up some other Mancuso domains:
1. http://getyourwebsite.biz
2. http://www.davidmancuso.com
3. http://www.mancusoprogramming.com
4. http://www.passitonlv.com
5. http://www.cubsfans.com
From the domain registration dates (accessed via the "Domain Tools" links), it appears that Mancuso Programming is registering multiple new sites each month.
I hope this helps. --A. B. (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you unearthed the nest of sites for "respectable" models and actresses - there's another series of sites for pornstars (with more explicit pictures, but almost identical page design) Is there anything we can do besides possibly blacklist the individual sites as they pop up? Videmus Omnia Talk 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you can probably find the other sites by doing what I did -- just go to the porn star pages and click on the links for other stars. (On the joleneblalock.biz site, for instance, the Lindsey Lohan button is linked to http://www.joleneblalock.biz/external1.html but that immediately redirects to http://llohan.net) These redirect links will take you to the other domains. Repeat the process for each new site you see to generate a list of suspected spam domains.
Then confirm that they are all owned by the spammer:check if they have similar registrations (you can use Domain Tools) or share the same AdSense IDs.
If the spammer has been warned several times, then, given the pattern you describe, I suggest preemptively blacklisting all his domains, not just the ones we know to have been spammed. Otherwise I'd make sure he's warned. If you don't think he's seeing the warnings because he's always using a new IP, then you can always leave a note and a link in your edit summaries when you remove his links. If he still never sees your warnings (because he always uses a new IP and doesn't know to check page histories), at some point we should probably still blacklist his domains to protect Wikipedia.
That's my two cents; others may have better ideas. --A. B. (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid-gowns.com

Were spamming links directly to their online store. More recently trying to spam an article (that is mind numbingly dull) on dress etiquette. Still spam.

Will recommend for local blacklisting. -- SiobhanHansa 10:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done its been added--Hu12 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.bestmootcourtprograms.com

Adsense pub-6408601581129020
Article Best Moot Court Programs Twice deleted

Accounts

Jimdugan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.204.73.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
75.18.68.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This situation was brought up at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Article_Moot_court_and_user_talk_discussion, after some investigation, there appears to be a pattern. Perhaps this is the appropriate forum for discussion.--Hu12 13:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Moot court is the only thing I know about. It certainly beats the kneejerk edits that have been going on so far in the moot court article. I have no problem with bestmootcourtprograms.com being deleted for whatever reason. I do care that the "whatever reason" is applied consistently within the moot court article. For example, one person deleted bestmootcourtprograms.com mentioning something about it being an advertiser. At the same time, however, he left an external link to a moot court competition, which no doubt charges a fee to competition participants. When I brought the discrepency in application of so-called standards, he deleted it. But he has still left numerous references to moot court competitions under the "see also" section of the "moot court" article. If advertisers must be deleted, then these references must be deleted (given the probability that these articles document competitions charging a fee).

If the inquiry turns on whether or not the advertiser is notable, I give kudos to the deleter who is backing out since the topic is not of interest. Those in the moot court world know that, for better or worse, bestmootcourtprograms.com is notable - in a "moot court" world that rarely sees anything notable. The site simply adds up top finishes at large moot court competitions. (Competition A has 24 teams competing. Team 62 wins Competition A. Because Team 62 has beat out 23 teams to win Competition A, its program (its law school) receives 23 points. This information is posted beneath each program's rank so that programs can double-check each other's rank. The competition name is also listed. The programs can go to the competition's web site, or contact the competition administrator, to verify the top finishes at that competition. There is absolutely no profit incentive for posting this info, but bestmootcourtprograms.com does it anyway. I can attest to the fact that the site administrator has received not a single penny of compensation from any program (or anyone at all) - quite unlike the moot court competitions currently touted in the "moot court" article.

The web site administrator has posted the methodology. He is uniquely situated to defend it. Though he won Regional Best Brief at the American Bar Association's National Appellate Advocacy Competition, he does not count best brief awards. Though his alma mater (Chicago-Kent) currently boasts the top advocate at the mega-competition Pace Environmental, he does not include best advocate awards. Though he finished Final Four out of 176 teams at ABA NAAC, he does not make top finishes at mega-competitions dispositive of program rank.

This is the first ever ranking of American law schools in the moot court world. Two law schools have already cited to their rank. Bestmootcourtprograms.com was cited as a footnote authority in the UC Hastings article (by someone other than Jimdugan). Because the first ever ranking only incorporates top finishes at competitions with 24 or more teams, programs will think twice about sending teams to smaller competitions. Thus, it is a change-the-game type of "advertiser." Not only should it be added to the "moot court" article in the main. It should be protected so it can't be deleted by every administrator who admittedly has not interest, or every moot court program director who is upset that the program is not ranked higher.

I'm happy this is going through the proper channels. Jimdugan 17:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, under external links (or whatever) of the moot court article, there is a reference to a First Amendment moot court competition. Nearly all moot court competitions charge fees. Why is this allowed to remain while bestmootcourtprograms.com, which (for no fee) adds up finishes (winner/finalist/semifinalists) across large moot court competitions, has been systematically deleted by the powers that be.

However, not a single one of us should delete the First Amendment MCC unless he/she is also prepared to delete every article referenced under the "see also" section of the "moot court" article. Each of these is a moot court competition (or proxy therefor, i.e. alumni association thereof), and nearly all moot court competitions charge fees. From what I've learned of wikipedia's deletion practices of articles such as "best moot court programs," articles regarding moot court competitions should be likewise deleted.

I understand now that the proper place for referencing the notable bestmootcourtprograms.com may be under external links (moot court article) under the link name "Best Moot Court Programs (United States". People no doubt want to check out how American law schools stack up when facing each other. However, under see also and external links, all referenced to moot court competitions should be deleted. The articles should be as well.

However, if these competition articles are not deleted because someone decides they are consistent with wikipedia's preference for notability and prohibition of advertising, then that decisions-maker should think very seriously about reinstating "best moot court programs" as an article as well.Jimdugan 12:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review "What about ...". --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks = it doesn't speak to my allegations that the "moot court" article is being "run" by those with a eurocentric view of moot court. Also, I'm beginning to see that wikipedia runs the risk of having those with a firm grasp on wikipedia rules -- and with only a cursory understanding of the topic -- beat-out topical experts who possess only the desire to correct a skewed article, and have no interest in editing their way to "wikipedia administrator" status.Jimdugan 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, you were reported here because you were pushing your link, similar as two IPs. I understand that you are not happy with the current status of the articles, but here is not the place to discuss that. Here we discuss why your link additions might not be appropriate. The argument that the articles now contain links which are not appropriate is not an argument that allows you to add (push?) your link.
If you strongly believe that the article as such is not neutral at this moment, then I would suggest that you discuss on the talkpages (I see you already do that), and maybe consider filing a case on the conflict of interest noticeboard (for conflicts of interest), or here, if other people are similarly adding/pushing links which are questionable under the spam guideline or the external links guideline). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
whether my link is appropriate = Okay. On this particular page, I'll try to limit my arguments to whether or not my link is appropriate. I don't need bestmootcourtprograms.com to be an article. I do think it is appropriate as an external link. Someone reading about moot court would like to know more about how American moot court programs stack up against one another. They click on "Best Moot Court Programs (United States)" and are taken to bestmootcourtprograms.com. I don't mind continuously adding this link. Currently, however, I seem to have the status of a spammer on wikipedia. I would like a decision to be made about whether or not I am a spammer. If the decision-maker decides in my favor, though, I would like not to again be added to the spam list (and have to face this ordeal anew) by every moot court director who is upset that they don't rank in the top five at bestmootcourtprograms.com. There are probably hundreds of American moot court programs. Currently, about 60 have performed well enough this year to be ranked on my site. That means that every two-bit moot court program director will be able to report me as spam - that is, unless wikipedia makes a decision in my favor and prevents others from designating me "spammer."Jimdugan 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you appear to be an expert in the field, and you apparently feel that Wikipedia (just as a side remark, it is not the American wikipedia, though that does not exclude that sections address certain countries) does not cover the subject appropriately, then it is better to incorporate that information in the wikipedia. When then certain information can be referenced on the site, adding that site as a reference will not be a problem. As to adding it as an external link, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. External links are subject to our external links guideline, and I have the feeling that this link may fail these criteria. Hope this explains, and if you have further questions, don't hesitate to contact me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming of http://webswell.com

Article Webswell deleted
Article Webswell Connect

Accounts

Webswell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89.102.140.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.aaa.si.edu

Username indicates conflict of interest. There may be other spammers. However this link can also be used as a legitimate ref/EL, such as the one I added, rather sloppily, at John B. Yeon.

Accounts

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

Katr67 14:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited the user stop, and to join this discussion. More information here (should we move this into an own page somewhere, it keeps getting archived, even if it is still a point of discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he won't be Joining for 24 hours. I blocked him. Seems this is WP:SPA spam acount.--Hu12 15:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why this user got blocked so fast, when other librarians and archivists haven't been blocked at all--is it because of the obvious COI? Katr67 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
116 links, 77 today alone. This is an encyclopedia, not a link farm--Hu12 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree about the link farm thing, don't worry. I guess this one has been a bit more prolific than the others referenced in previous discussions. Katr67 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is true (I don't know because I have not reviewed the links), it does not take any more time to suggest the link on an article's talk page than to add it directly to the article itself. Editors with a conflict of interest are not required to avoid Wikipedia completely, simply to work within the confines of our guidelines. -- Satori Son 20:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching this situation with some bemusement (especially as Wikipedia is supposedly the encyclopedia that "anybody can edit" and encourages editors to "be bold!"). I looked through some of the links and frankly, it seems that they improved the articles (as other editors have already noted). So if this user had chosen some user name other than "aaa intern" these edits would have been perfectly acceptable? I'm also a bit bothered by the apparently failure of several editors to adhere to such Wikipedia principles as Wikipedia:Assume good faith and particularly Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. MrDarwin 23:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. MrDarwin 01:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope User:Satori Son has reviewed the links by now - many were worthwhile edits, and they probably should be restored. Modernist 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of all IP's reg. to Smithsonian that have edited on wikipedia.

160.111.254.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.134.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.60.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.110.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.84.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.111.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.112.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.253.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.6.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.69.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.254.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.146.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.80.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.239.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
160.111.21.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, I agree this should have its own page somewhere. Should it be a subpage of this one or ??? Let me know what you think it should be called and I'll set it up and notify anybody who might be interested (like the library wikiproject though they are awfully quiet right now). Thanks. Katr67 23:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you've started a draft. Excellent. My offer to notify people still stands, once we decide where to put this. Katr67 23:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's 24-hour block was changed to an indefinte block. --Shirahadasha 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this user should be unblocked. A look at several links shows that they are links to Smithsonian Institution archive material on the specific artists who are the subjects of the articles. The content is relevant. This is simply is not spam by any reasonable definition. One might as well try to claim that a Wikipedian who inserts links to other Wikipedia article is spamming on behalf of Wikipedia. The inserted links provide relevant material from the Smithsonian Institution archives about the article's subject; they do not market or promote the Smithsonian Institution as an entity. WP:COI does not prohibit a party from inserting information that an independent user would consider clearly appropriate. I would recommend unblocking this user. I think an indef block completely inappropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the user. If I am further overridden I will not act again on this matter, but believe that WP:SPAM simply hasn't been met since the material is not promotional in nature, is specific, relevant, and useful to the articles it was added to. I also believe that this material would be accepted by a non-interested editor if added by an ordinary user, hence WP:COI does not require interfering. I will ask the user to voluntarily refrain from adding links to the Smithsonian Institution for the time being and discuss the issue. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAM has been met, in the header, this is clear "wide-scale external link spamming", and "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." (and here, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm). Furthermore, the account appears to have a conflict of interest. These archivists do have a conflict of interest if they are only linking to their site. I have tried to explain earlier, it is unclear if this is improving the encyclopedia (link additions IMHO seldomly do, why this link, and not all the other libraries and musea and archives as well, are they all allowed to add their links as well?) or (bad faith warning) that it is to tunnel people to your site (even if it is a non-commercial organisation, they still need money, and a measure for efficiency is how many visitors your page has; or for musea, even how many visitors you get into your building). If the information is relevant, then it costs just as much time to make a post to the talkpage and discuss (as per all the relevant policies and guideline). Again, in this case as well, many of these links can be used as a reference (maybe except for pure picture links .. but even those sometimes), I believe libraries, musea and archives are doing a great disservice to their link if they just add them to external links sections. Please add content, and just avoid the suggestion of (coi) spam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that WP:AGF is particularly important here and it's especially important to distinguish editors who have potentially valuable material to add from those whose material is clearly valueless. I'm not sure any of our purposes are entirely free-from self-interest, and like the city that has more streets than saints and has to name a few after sinners, I'm not sure we could survive if we accepted only work guaranteed free of any possibility of self-promotion. Many a Wikipedia editor has increased his or her edit count and presence in well-trafficked talk pages prior to an RfA. The edits no doubt are done partly for promotional purposes; edit-countitis is a problem and many don't help the encyclopedia, but no-one thinks such people should be blocked. I would treat additions of potentially but not particualarly useful material through normal processes, starting with discussion, and blocking people only if they refuse to participate in discussions and for that reason. As an aside, it's been a long time since I've seen a graffito with a datum about musea. It seems people aren't willing to get on the omnibus because they have some sort of stigmata about them. Cheers! Best, --Shirahadasha 23:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The link-removals by USer:Hu12 on this account have been reverted by user:Modernist, as discussed on WP:ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Linkspamming_by_new_editor.3F.3F). I am not sure if this is the right answer, but apparently it is OK to add external links to your library, museum or other archive en-masse to the wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed asked the user to join the discussion. Still I totally endorse User:Hu12's total removal of all link-additions by this account and am not happy with the signals that we give by allowing accounts to perform this type of edits. As I have now said over and over, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. If you think your link if useful, add it to the talkpage and discuss first . I really would like to hear an answer to the following question: what if all musea, libraries and other archives add their external links to the external links sections. As long as the links are appropriate, would we actually allow all of them to do that? --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This I believe is sad. I was asked by email to not mention that one of the users involved is associated with the organization in question. I believe Katr67 recieved a similar email. As a result of this users participation, all spam was readded, project spam's efforts are a wash and I feel policy was subverted. IMHO, I belive that the account User:Aaa intern is a Role account for the purposes of conducting public relations and marketing via the encyclopedia which violates Help:Username#Sharing_accounts. I did block the account as such, however I think I was played a fool.--Hu12 06:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I received an e-mail basically harping about Hu12's actions, I guess because in the above discussion I questioned his(?) blocking the user in question so quickly, but like I told Hu12, I have no quarrel with him. Katr67 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on AN/I, but am copying it here also:

Modernist is an established editor with significant contributions to art-related articles and there is no indication he has a COI here, so he is entitled to make an editorial decision that these links have added value and should be kept. This is open to challenge as with any editorial decision. A good solution has already been found in an identical situation with User:VAwebteam (from V&A Museum), namely to set up a mini-project so that they could work with other editors to assess each proposed EL. This was very successful and they were fully co-operative. See their user and talk pages for more details. Obviously when a major institution participates in wikipedia, we don't want to chew them out. That said, we can't allow mass unsupervised insertion of links either. Careful dialogue is the way forward in such cases. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles, where an editor, Infoart, associated with the Saatchi Gallery had created over 150 articles on artists associated with that gallery. Rather than mass speedy deletes, a team of editors worked with him and attended to each article, with the final result of the addition of much useful content to the project. Tyrenius 13:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Archives of American art is an important source of valuable and valid information for visual arts articles. I actually thought there was a mixed opinion about the links with four or five editors including an administrator or two in favor of restoring the links. I acted with the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:UCS, if I restored the links too hastily - (it was a lot of work) I apologize if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. I think the links add value and valuable information to the encyclopedia. I read a little of the history today about User:VAwebteam (from V&A Museum) and I see where these institutions have stirred issues of which I am beginning to better understand. Modernist 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently trying to write a bit of an essay on the subject of 'archivists' adding external links only (as these discussions here get archived quickly). Although the 'proof' is sometimes weak (and does not always assume good faith), I think that there are several of the policies and guidelines where these link-additions can be questioned against (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:COI, ...), and that is why I think this should be addressed. In my opinion, the way it was solved with User:VAwebteam is the way forward (that is, revert all link additions (except when they are already used as proper references), set up a project page, and check on a case-by-case basis whether the (now proposed) link is good as a reference, should be an external link, or is even better left out at all). Another option would be, move all the added links to the talkpage, where they can be discussed.
The current version can be found here. Feel free to discuss parts on talkpages, add to the page, or to expand on my thoughts there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd endorse Tyrenius's comments above. The V&A approach has worked, as the European Library one earlier really did not, because the COI user was not prepared to do things the WP way. I'd add that modern, still in copyright, artists present special problems as it is often impossible to get the images needed onto WP because of copyright. So good external links are especially useful. Johnbod 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.washingtonhistory.org/wshs

Here's another archivist to keep track of; started and stopped spamming in June. Again, not all links to washingtonhistory.org are bad.

Accounts

Wshs315 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Katr67 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hedgehogs

To Hedgehog and others.

Users:

I am very sorry if I did something that caused an issue. It would have been nice to get an email explaining 'why' listing Hedgehog World where it would seemingly belong as an added resource. There are some broken links there too - hedgehog breeders alliance is a good example. Can someone explain exactly why world isn't allowed to be listed, and is considered spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.191.133 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reaction. I am afraid your link is not allowed because of our guideline on external links. Please understand that we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. You appear to be pushing the link, although I am not sure, you may also want to review our conflict of interest guideline. As you do appear to have some knowledge on hedgehogs (and maybe on similar hedge-row dwellers), may I ask you to contribute content, and maybe your site (or other sites) can be used as a reference (see our reliable sources guideline and our citation guideline). Happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

energ.co.uk

Accounts

82.40.184.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
77.100.81.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Qonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 23:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.MedicalLightAssociation.com

Accounts:


Mdebow has promised he will no longer spam the site. It's unclear if Mdebow was asked about his sockpuppetry. --Ronz 00:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link is broken. Majorly (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I cannot tell how this is spam. Explain? Majorly (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'll note that many, but not all, of the reports above use the format of http://spam.SITENAME It's to prevent adding an actual link to the site to wikipedia.
This is a pretty minimal report, as the spamming is self evident. I can add information though to make it clearer in this case. --Ronz 01:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain? Majorly (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a couple sentences summarizing 75.62.232.106's edits above. I've done the same for Mdebow too. --Ronz 01:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How this is spam? The accounts do link-additions only, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. The links are to the domain only, not to pages that provide more information on the subject (directly linked, see the external links guideline. Also, Matt DeBow has a conflict of interest (and the edit pattern shows that he may very well have used the IP). And why link to this organisation in the external links, and not to all the others that may be appropriate? All reasons that these link additions are more to tunnel people to the organisation (spam), than improving the wikipedia. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.adultdvdtalk.com

Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 16:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Swiss banking spam

Sites:

All registered to the same address.

Accounts:

Could an admin delete the registered account user and/or talk pages? They appear to simply be advertising without any attempt to improve Wikipedia. Thanks.

-- SiobhanHansa 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blacklist beckons. MER-C 08:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.swemorph.com

Accounts:

126 links total, 70 to pdfs and subpages. I'm guessing there are more accounts. --Ronz 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a coi too. --Ronz 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite coi for 80.216.158.236 who identifies himself in the link above as the founder and main contact person of the Swedish Morphological Society, as well as the author of most of the articles that have been linked. --Ronz 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.edistalearning.com

Users: 203.145.171.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

--Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.bradt-travelguides.com

User Zebedeezbd (talk · contribs) has entangled links to bradt-travelguides.com in the form of references to quite a few articles. The links offer no supporting information, but are an offer to sell the guide. The user was asked to explain these insertions, but blanked their user talk page and quit editing. I don't have time right now to wade through all of those articles and help would be appreciated. Burlywood 19:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace is clean. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

schooltree.org

Despite the .org domain, has quite a few advertisements. Most of the data presented on the site is freely available (though perhaps not as centralized). As you can see, it covers quite a few articles. I should also note that a quick survey of some of the articles found no obvious spam patterns (i.e., link seems to have been added independently by various authors). Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a particularly good link, but I don't think it's spam. If you Google for info on schools in the U.S. the schooltree.org link comes up near the top. It was used in good faith to populate lists such as List of high schools in Oregon (for which I found a better source, so I deleted the schooltree link). I think people should work to find official school and school district pages that contain the same information (from where does schooltree get its info?), but I don't think the schooltree links hurt anything either. It's similar to doing a search for sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places. You often get www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com, which isn't affiliated with the official www.nps.gov/nr site, but has the same public domain information. The link to the dot com NRHP was added in good faith by a lot of people (some by me, because it had me fooled for a while!) and isn't terrible, but I've been going through and replacing it with the link to the official Oregon NRHP list, because it seems like the best link is the one closest to the source. Katr67 01:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London spam

Sites spammed

http://spam.20thcenturylondon.org.uk

20thcenturylondon.org.uk: 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

http://spam.medievalists.net

medievalists.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

http://spam.deremilitari.org

deremilitari.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

http://spam.untoldlondon.org.uk

untoldlondon.org.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Spammers

MER-C 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=156253781"