Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,024: Line 1,024:


:One does not need a developer for that, those texts are stored in the MediaWiki namespace, in this case I believe it is: [[MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext]]. Every admin can change the wording there. Would it be up to this project to find a better text for that? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 09:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:One does not need a developer for that, those texts are stored in the MediaWiki namespace, in this case I believe it is: [[MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext]]. Every admin can change the wording there. Would it be up to this project to find a better text for that? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 09:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

== http://spam.simpletoremember.com http://spam.heartoftn.net/users/gary27 http://spam.sagavyah.tripod.com ==

*{{spamlink|simpletoremember.com}}
*{{spamlink|heartoftn.net/users/gary27}}
*{{spamlink|sagavyah.tripod.com}}

;Spammers
*{{ipvandal|212.150.62.151}}

There's probably editors who've added these links in good faith, but the last two should go. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 09:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:48, 11 October 2007

Shortcut


Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

socyberty.com

Another suite101 type of site - authors can pretty much write what they like and they get a share of the revenue generated by the advertising on their article pages. Little apparent editorial control in terms of fact checking and writers do not need to be subject experts - most seem to cover broad ranges of subjects and use screen names. This makes it inappropriate as a reliable source and unlikely to be appropriate as an external link. It's not that big an issue yet, but a couple of authors appear to have just started trying to get their articles on Wikipedia so it may be the beginning of a push.

Users:

Could use experienced opinions

Linked through ad-sense ID - pub-2503529872163142


It appears *83.91.83.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is editing usefully but also adding these connected links.

I looked further and found some similar editing patterns by a few accounts who have also added the pvd-coatings link.

This is looking to me like the work of one person editing under multiple accounts to hide the persistence of their edits, but maybe I'm just too jaded. what do the rest of you think (and does anyone know who i can ask to look through some of the articles to get an NPOV perspective on the content? -- SiobhanHansa 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a touchy situation when a useful editor also adds links to his own web site.
It doesn't look like anyone has ever shared our WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:RS guidelines with this editor. I suggest opening a friendly dialogue (without warning templates), then see where it goes from there. You may want to make sure this editor also learns about WP:SOCK -- he may not be familiar with this. His/her subsequent actions and comments will indicate the next step.
I also suggest that as a courtesy you make him/her aware of this discussion here. We don't want him to feel paranoid but he does need to know his domains are on the radar. --A. B. (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks A. B. I've left a message. Given the editing pattern and the fact it's an IP address I'm not sure if it will reach the poster in a timely fashion, but you're right I should have done that at the start. -- SiobhanHansa 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued additions from various IPs over the last few days:

-- SiobhanHansa 19:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whois and traceroute data indicates these are all TalkTalk (a.k.a. Opal Telecom) DSL IPs in the U.K. Usually DSL modems keep the same IP unless the user resets the modem. Unless Opal's IP assignment scheme is different from other telecom's, I'd say this person may be deliberately swithcing IPs.
Perhaps you should just send an e-mail to the link on the psd-coatings site if you feel comfortable doing this. --A. B. (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that the PVD coatings link I added has been removed. I'm sorry if my edits have breached the wikipedia code. I ask that you rethink the PVD coatings theory link as I think the page needed a reference and the PVD coatings theory site does not actually sell a product unlike the other links on the page (although I admit it does have adverts).
As for changing my usernames, I actually simply forgot what they were and it was a simple process to create another one rather than try and work out what it was. I don't know why I've got lots of different IPs as I've only got the one modem and I've not reset it and haven't changed the settings.
Also is there any way to get the PVD coatings domain from being referred to as spam?
Thanks very much for your help and once again I'm sorry for infringing wikipedia's guidelines.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.200.98 (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding and for trying to conform with our guidelines. When you have a site you are connected to that you believe will be good for an article, please suggest it on the article's talk page rather than addign it to the article itself. I'll post the links I removed to the talk pages and ask other editors their to consider them. That way they'll be most likely to get attention from others who know something about the subject while avoiding any problems with a conflict of interest.
This project page gets archived regularly, so the urls will be off here in a couple of days - just gives others a chance to see and respond if they have anything to say. Search engines like Google are rumored to use our multi-project blacklist in their ranking criteria, but not this project page (all sorts of urls, from XXXX sites to National Geographic come up here) so they shouldn't do any damage to your site's reputation. I think (though I'm not certain) I tried to avoid using the word spam in messages I've posted about these sites. If there's somewhere in particular - please point me to it and I'll see what I can do to clean up. -- SiobhanHansa 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for adding the links to the talk pages. I'll remember that in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.141.242 (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam.eclipse-glasses.(com|net|eu) spam.venuscope.com

Sites spammed
Spammers
Cross-wiki spammers

Persistent dynamic IP spam, always readded if removed. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 09:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted. MER-C 11:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still spamming x-wiki, using eclipse-glasses.net. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 05:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Herby talk thyme 07:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still spamming: [1]/[2]. Gosh this spammer is persistent. I guess this will be the first real-world test of my new software. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 11:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No small wiki spam. MER-C 12:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still spamming - [3]. There's nothing like a cross-wiki edit war. No small wiki spam on this one, either. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 07:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie briankwest (aka 86.92.134.171) gone wild

Article FreeSWITCH and Talk:FreeSWITCH. This user started with a user id of User:briankwest, who is the website administrator for the open source project FreeSWITCH (Brian K West). He subsequently only uses an ip address and refuses to sign his comments. He is the major contributor to this article. I tagged this article as spam because it reads like a product brochure. User simply removes the tags and wrote highly inappropriate comments on the talk page. User recently removed the talk page to this article, ignored an admin revert, and removed it again. He has a definite conflict of interest in his edits and has been outright hostile to any suggestions to change this article about his project, suggesting that criticism means bias. He, on the other hand, does not acknowledge his association with the project. (Review the original talk that he removed as well as comments left on my talk page User talk:Calltech#FreeSWITCH advert tagging.) I stopped posting on this talk page after his abusive comments and feel he needs some form of administrative warning. I have posted spam warnings on this article in the past, which he simply removes. The article should also be tagged with a COI warning, because this individual is the major contributor to its content. Thanks! Calltech 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the page is tagged for G11 deletion. If that goes through, we are done. Otherwise I think AfD is called for. The COI creator is certainly behaving very badly (see his comments on the Talk:FreeSWITCH page to the editors who are trying to explain policy to him). He has also violated WP:TALK by removing others' comments from the Talk page. EdJohnston 02:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have NOT removed any comments nor have I GONE wild. I am involved in the FreeSWITCH project and Calltech seems to be very biased against any project that isn't asterisk. I have never been hostile to you I have tried to understand why you keep tagging FreeSWITCH as Spam. I want you to retract the comments made at my in relation to the person posting anonymously. Please do so ASAP. I told you I didn't write this article a user called "Trixter" on IRC did. I have forbidden any of the core developers of FreeSWITCH from posting anything on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briankwest (talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting quite old. BrianKWest is a person who is directly affiliated with the Core FreeSwitch Coding Group and is located in the US. The Anonymous Poster is NOT even located in the US but located in Europe. BrianKWest is also well known in the Asterisk and F/OSS VoIP Software community do you think he would attempt to trash his own reputation in such a way? --Silik0nJesus 18:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how can I prove that I am not brian? Let me know. What proof is acceptable, or is the word of calltech gospel and that is it?

Now lets review the pattern of malice on calltechs part. Yate - deleted (twice, once just for recreating a page on yate), OpenSER - deleted, Callweaver - deleted. OpenSER and Callweaver both on their mailing lists (easy to find with google searches) discuss the user calltech as the one that marked them for deletion. He is now trying as a last ditch effort after a prolonged attempt on the FreeSWITCH page to get removed to say that brian and me are the same person simply to aide his argument in getting it removed.

Calltech has also removed links to open source voip programs on other pages in an attempt to obscure that these other titles exist. His user page - comments section has such comments about that.

The pattern of behaviour, along with his persistance seems to indicate who actually went wild. Lets look at what others have to say about similar issues:

http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_7 - Yate removal (once just for creating it a 2nd time) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OpenSER - openser removal http://lists.callweaver.org/pipermail/callweaver-users/2007-July/001530.html - discussion on the callweaver mailing list about calltech removing that, and they noticed that he has sought to aggressively remove all references to it on other pages as well

As you can see I have demonstrated a pattern of behaviour and think that its improper for calltech to be involved since he has proven himself to be biased against non-asterisk software. I am not the only one that has raised this concern. His retort that he removed the corporate digium stuff to get that merged into the asterisk page doesnt seem to counter this bias claim, since digium is more than asterisk.

86.92.134.171 18:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)not bkw[reply]

I don't think you have demonstrated anything. AFD debates do not happen in a vacuum - they happen with the communities input. If Calltech felt that those articles failed to meet inclusion criteria and the community agreed then thats that. Calltech was only the nominator, he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger or made the choice.
In this case, lets focus on the article in hand. Trying to go after Calltech is a red-hearing and is distracting from the actual issue at hand: does the article pass our inclusion criteria? From what I saw in the article it does not. I'm willing to give it some time, but not forever. Eventually, it will get nominated for deletion at WP:AFD in it's current state. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calltech still needs to retract the comments he made that were false and directed at me. 70.143.59.63 22:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Briankwest 22:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Calltech is obviously upset at *someone*, but he got the identity wrong. The person with whom he is upset is in Europe, and as Brian mentioned, it's someone in Amsterdam, or at least using an ISP from there. If Calltech is willing to admit that he got the identity wrong then the rest of us would feel better about his ability to speak of NPOV's without being a hypocrite. Please encourage him to apologize to Brian K West and redirect his 'gone wild' comments to the European user in question. Mscollins1 23:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Also, the slew of single purpous accounts that have sprung up to over this issue is undiscerning. Sockpuppets? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the "single purpose accounts" have sprung up as a reaction from the F/OSS VoIP community coming to the aide of a well known person (namely BrianKWest) in his defense... We know who the other user is and have on multiple occations tried to convey this to the 'the powers that be' but no one wants to listen... don't believe us thats fine... Feel Free to contact me personally at any time via SwK on freenode...I will be happy to introduce you to anyone that is available to assist in sorting out this issue... --Silik0nJesus 08:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm sorry that I am a 'single purpose account.' Until the issue of FreeSWITCH, YATE, CallWeaver, etc. being removed or threatened with removal from Wikipedia came to my attention, I didn't feel like my input was needed. I had always trusted, for the most part, what I looked up on WP. However, after researching this particular issue it became obvious to me that the personal attacks and subsequent emotional responses were tainting the neutrality and objectivity of this part of Wikipedia, and quite obviously were taking the focus off of the real issues. I'm sure that I could sift through the history and figure out "who fired first" and all that, but I believe that would be a waste of time. In some cases I disagree with the comments of the editors, however I do agree that locking the page down for a cooling off period is a wise move. (I hadn't heard the expression "edit wars" until researching this - I don't want an edit war, I want a valid set of articles on various OSS telephony projects.) In any case, I would very much like to demonstrate to whomever I need to that I am a real human being, living in Central California, I have no bias against any particular OSS telephony project (I like them all), I am a competent professional working in the telephony and computer fields for 15+ years, I have reasonably good writing skills, and I am very happy to lend them to WP for any article for which I have knowledge and/or expertise, not just FreeSWITCH. Please let me know how you would recommend I proceed with helping out on WP. I am willing to provide my personal email address and/or cell phone number to whomever would need it. I'll even pay for the long-distance call if a live conversation is warranted. Michael S. Collins 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mscollins1, I will make no admission here. The very first comment which was initiated by briankwest on my talk page accuses me of bias. I responded directly to him (no one else). This was followed by a user using an anonymous IP address speaking directly in the first person to my response. This user parrots the very same theme as briankwest, only in a much more abusive manner. At no time did briankwest distance himself from these comments or from those on the article talk page by this anon user, including personal attacks against me, i.e. "You were beaten up as a child right? Now you have a mouse and a computer and can exact your revenge upon the world that shunned you." and being called an "idiot" (a comment which was later removed). That leads to only one conclusion. I find briankwest's indignation just a little disingenuous. The tactics here have been to attack my credibility to deflect the real issue at hand - does FreeSWITCH meet WP's criteria required to maintain an article. I also find these tactics and attacks consistent with other members of the FreeSWITCH community who have apparently been recruited (or are sockpuppets) and have entered this discussion as Single purpose accounts (i.e. their only contributions to WP is relative to FreeSWITCH). Calltech 14:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So user trixter from the FreeSWITCH development team authors has now admitted being the anon user (86.92.134.171) responding for briankwest on my talkpage Talk:FreeSWITCH#durova - why did you lock this page?. Brian very cleverly stated that no one from the "core" development would contribute to FreeSWITCH because he was aware of the conflict of interest. However he apparently had no problem with his documentation specialist doing so and also acting as a hatchet man with his abusive comments. This reaks of sockpuppetry and WP:COI at its worst. Calltech 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their are only three people on the core dev team. Mike, Anthony and Myself. The remainder of the people listed are listed either for their work on Documentation, testing and various other things related to testing code. Trixter has provided various bits of those things but surely isn't on the core team since it consists of only us three. I'm glad he has owned up to being the person from the 86.92.134.171 ip address. Hopefully you'll retract your comments directed at me. This should have never happend. Briankwest 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, accept my apology for my assumption that you were the anon user and for attributing the later abusive comments to you. FYI, I have absolutely no association with or interest in Asterisk (PBX). Calltech 12:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the proper place for this, Calltech. You have ignored the concept of assuming good faith at every step here, accusing User:Briankwest of being someone who it turns out he isn't, and then when you were wrong there, accusing him of sockpuppetry without any real evidence. This thread of attacking the editors and throwing accusations around must stop now. Please take up the *content* dispute in a more appropriate venue. Thank you. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct and my assumption here was wrong and subsequent comments were out of line. Thanks! Calltech 12:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dervish-yoga.com, sufidervish.org and whirlingdervishes.ca

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

Spammers

MER-C 10:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional socks

--Versageek 08:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Spamsock:
Sockpuppets, vandalism, continued spamming ... I'd say it about time to blacklist. --A. B. (talk)
Yep, indeed. MER-C 09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Content

I noticed there plenty of links to Associated Content, which "enables everyone to publish their content", meaning that most probably AC is not a reliable source for wikipedia.

Suggestion: Thim all "Associated content" mercilessly (replacing its refs with {{cn}}<!--Associated Content links from non-experts are disallowed--> ), unless the author has a wikipedia article which states the expertise of the cited author in the area in question.

Any comments? `'Míkka 17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just noticed that it was already doubted: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#associatedcontent.com. `'Míkka 17:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also discussed on this page last month. I tend to agree with you and Versgeek. It's not really spam most of the time so much as poor judgment by good faith editors. -- SiobhanHansa 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my experience with ezinearticles and with suite101.com spam, I'm guessing that if you look very deep you'll find the majority of these links were spammed. I haven't done this so I may be wrong, but that was certainly the case with those somewhat similar domains. --A. B. (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ontheinside.info

Spammed again, will ask for a site block next time.

ontheinside.info: 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 --CliffC 01:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dutchops.com

Maybe of interest, seems to contain quite some data and quite some text (maybe useful as references?), but gets spammed:

Accounts:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All wiki spamsearching (finally)

At last, a tool that searches all 725 wikimedia wikis. Information, download links and source code at available at User:MER-C/Spamsearch. MER-C 10:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.builderandengineer.co.uk http://spam.timberinconstruction.co.uk http://spam.entheweb.co.uk

Spammers

MER-C 11:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

infodriveindia.com

For the record, I just locally blacklisted:

It has been pushed by (at least) three accounts to the english wikipedia (some edits are pretty blatant: diff). Users have been repeatedly warned, but ignore warnings and discussions.

Accounts:

Mainspace has been cleaned. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Vikram and Jon007. Rakesh appears to be the primary account so I have left it unblocked. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

(Rakesh999999 is discussing the inclusion of his links. I copied the discussion from User talk:Beetstra) Hello , I am Rakesh Saraf , Director InfodriveIndia. InfodriveIndia is a free International Trade Resource with huge statistical and database driven content of around 200,000 pages. Our website has been reported as spam. [4]. I and my colleagues have added few links of main categories of our content in the most appropriate and related categories of wikipedia. I admit we may not be very familiar with wikipedia technical terms, but we have certainly added value to wikipedia in a ethical manner.

a) Links added meet the guidelines in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#What_should_be_linked.

b) links added don't have links on similar subject almost all the time.

c) The content we have on our website is the most comprehensive and upto date then even the Govt sources.

d) Any user with exposure in International trade is welcome to check the above.

I read in your talk about Wikipedia not being a linkfarm and I appreciate the idea, however our content cannot be added directly in Wikipedia as a article ..as it is database driven and voluminous and WP:EL point 3.1.3 mentions that such links "Should be added". Can you guide us ..? In case we have done any technical mistakes ...can you advise what we need to do ? Thanks. Rakesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakesh999991 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your question. I first link here a template with some links:
If you click on the COIBot link here, you see that there were three accounts, of which 2 have a certain conflict of interest (as you acknowledge above). The way these accounts were adding links (as I linked from the spam-report on WT:WPSPAM; see this diff of an edit by you) is blatant spam, and from that example edit it certainly looks that your main intentions were to link to your site, not to improve the wikipedia. The last account adding the links ignored a final warning and still was adding the link days after that warning! Also, it was the third account in row performing mainly link additions. There is no interaction with me, or other editors who showed concerns that the links as added now may not have been appropriate. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm!
If your database contains good data, it could have been used as a proper reference or (some of its contents) could have been used to enhance the wikipedia. But I am afraid you will first have to convince some people that you are going to follow the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia before the link will be removed from the blacklist. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dirk , I have asked my colleagues to first go thru the rules and regulations and get themselves familiarized with Wikipedia. The Content of InfodriveIndia.com is very good but needs custom programming and also professional knowledge, hence cannot be added directly in wikipedia. I request you to revert back our links and also remove "black listing". Tks RakeshRakesh999991 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it is impossible to link to relevant content on your site directly? In that case, the link would not be suitable as a reference (as it is not attributing the data stated in the wikipedia article), and also not be suitable as an external link (per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 14). And please don't try to tell me that the information you are providing is not suitable for inclusion as content in this encyclopedia, that might be true for picture sites, but not for sites which provide content themselves. The three accounts involved in this case did not discuss after being pointed to the policies and guidelines of this site, I think it is more than fair that you now first provide us with some good examples. I think the best place for that discussion will be with the people in an appropriate wikiproject (you can find a list here: Wikipedia:WikiProjects). For removing from the blacklist, you can make your case at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist where it can be reviewed by more people (but it would certainly help if there was support from an appropriate wikiproject first). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Related domain:
--A. B. (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was "Links point to database driven content and hence such content cannot be added in Wikipedia directly". I invite you to visit the links. Rakesh999991 07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to locate a relavent WikiProject but could not find one related. ?? Now what can I do ?Rakesh999991 07:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had a look on a link that was added to Balance of trade. The bottom link there, was to www dot infodriveindia dot com/India-Exports-Trade-Data.aspx. If I load that page, I get a list of "Indian Export Data from India Customs , Indian Exporters Directory." I do understand that that information can not be incorporated, but this link is certainly not in its proper place on this specific page. We are talking about Balance of trade, not about the trade of India. And then if it was place on the trade of India, it tells more about the specific companies than about the general trade of India. Moreover, this data is 3 years old. Why is that specific to this page? See WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, point 14.
This data may certainly be suitable to make a point, hence, should better be used as a reference (also see the intro of WP:EL). As this data in this example is specific 2004, on the company page it may be a good reference for the silk export for that company (though I expect this data to be too specific for an encyclopedia).
For now, all I see is that the link got added by three different accounts, and one of these accounts extensively exceeded the warning levels, the other two have a conflict of interest.
Re the wikiprojects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society#Business_and_economics. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu spam

Sites spammed
Spammers

MER-C 11:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam for an industry organization is being added to insurance-related articles. Is not germane to the articles, examples here and here. Also spamming irrelevant internal links pointing to America’s Health Insurance Plans, IMO a promotional article with no claims of notability.

http://spam.ahip.org/

http://spam.ahipresearch.org/

Spammers

CliffC 12:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.maximumfun.org

Account

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 17:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC) I write for the blog of the radio show and thought it might be useful to add additional info on those podcasts. I thought people might be interested in reviews of those podcasts, because there often aren't a lot of external links for them (especially the lesser known ones). If you really feel they aren't adding anything, feel free to remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.162.170 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

localhands.com coi spam

This site was spammed by a few IP's, then the user mentioned below. The site is owned by Wazup Media as shown here.

--Versageek 04:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

internet-searching.info

An advertisement ridden directory site, it's also got 1 hit on es.wp .

--Versageek 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion: Iconnnicholoson and social shopping/social retailing

This looks very spammy to me:

  • Changing name of article without discussion diff (with mention of making the term more "searchable"?)
  • Suggesting that this term was coined by a company (without citation)
  • Immediately adding an external link to the company's website

Not to say that the article was a bastion of encyclopedic integrity before, but these actions don't sit right. Nposs 22:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help cleaning up the redirects, if anyone can lend a hand. Thanks. Nposs 22:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's not promotion (which is what it looks like to me), it's not a good change. Nice clean up on the article too. - SiobhanHansa 02:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.surftofind.com

surftofind.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

A number of the links also look like copyvios.

All IPs are Canadian. By pure coincidence the website is registered to a Canadian address. Not that that's the clincher really.

-- SiobhanHansa 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back again

blacklisting requested.

-- SiobhanHansa 15:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.learning2dance.com http://spam.markballas.com http://spam.teamsabrinaonline.com

Spam pages
Sites spammed

learning2dance.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
markballas.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

MER-C 10:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.thebeyond.info

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

Spammers

MER-C 10:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby spam

Sites spammed

http://spam.6nationsrugby.net

http://spam.rugby-world-cup.net

http://spam.uk-racing-results.com

http://spam.tote-betting.net

http://spam.cheltenham-festival.co.uk

http://spam.aintree-grand-national.net

http://spam.grand-national-guide.com

http://spam.betting-directory.com

Spammers

MER-C 10:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.teachers.tv

teachers.tv: 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

May have value, so not pushing that hard. MER-C 10:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cmsimple.com.br

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

Spammers

MER-C 10:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spammed cross-wiki. Output from my all-wiki spamsearch tool (after I removed the links from en): 

Results for en.wikipedia.org...
	Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam	URL: http://spam.cmsimple.com.br
Results for ja.wikipedia.org...
	Page: SITE PUBLIS			URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br/
	Page: ジョン・バロウマン				 URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
Results for sv.wikipedia.org...
	Page: Webbdesign			URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
	Page: PageRank				URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
Results for es.wikipedia.org...
	Page: PageRank				URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
Results for pt.wikipedia.org...
	Page: CMSimple				URL: http://www.cmsimple.com.br

Link on pt is probably a spam page. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 13:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.dazzlingindia.com

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

Spammers

MER-C 10:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to A. B.'s ipwhois for the COIBot user links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.recordstore.co.uk http://spam.digitalstores.co.uk

digitalstores.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
recordstore.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

MER-C 11:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Car racing spam

Previous incidents
Sites spammed

http://spam.stuntdevils.com

http://spam.automotiveoilchange.net

http://spam.carracinggame.net

http://spam.spywaretoolbox.com

http://spam.howtopickalock.blogspot.com

http://spam.dmozkiller.com

  • Already blacklisted.

http://spam.candlemakingshop.com

http://spam.pitoogle.com

Spammers

Gosh, they're working me hard today. MER-C 12:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, MER-C, spamming is a full-time occupation for a lot of people -- and they were all headed your way!
More Zemg Network stuff:
More Zemg Network spam IPs
  • from old Veinor link pages (found with the "Google search Veinor" and "Wikipedia en" links)
  • from old Veinor link pages
  • from old Veinor link pages
  • from old Veinor link pages
  • from old Veinor link pages


Ad commission IDs
  • Google Adsense: 3171671439017964
  • Yahoo ad ID: USYPN0028


Related Zemg Network domains
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • Google Adsense ID: 9057412347280264
    • domain may have been sold[5]
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
    • domain may have been sold[6]
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from www.dotcomwill.com/projects
  • from Aboutus.org "related pages"
  • from Aboutus.org "related pages"
--A. B. (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello. Can you tell me please why you put me on your list of spammers today (8 October) for a link to National Geographic from the article Lisa Gherardini? Please reply on my talk page if you possibly can. -Susanlesch 14:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is ignore it. It is just a robot generated page which lists all links of a particular type for someone to check. Anyone checking that link would see it is ok. --BozMo talk 14:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you can ignore it. It was caught by my bot due to an accidental overlap between username and link (an earlier report, not yours). In most of the cases this suggests a conflict of interest and such links are then automatically monitored, but in this case there is absolutely nothing. I have whitelisted the link and removed it from the monitor list. I will also delete the report shortly. Thanks for notifying us! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elsevier

Has the topic of Elsevier spam come up here in the past? I can't find it by searching, but would be surprised it hasn't been discussed. There are hundreds of links to it and a related site. I stumbled on a single purpose account spamming only to Elsevier-owned sites:

editor:

links:

Many of these are offers to sell a book, a journal or access to an online version. The problem is too large for me to clean up alone and what appreciate some other thoughts. See also a recent discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard.[9] Burlywood 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:KP Botany has done some fighting of this (and other) journal and citation spam. These are really difficult ones to work on because there are good faith and appropriate uses of the url put in by many editors.

Another spammer appears to be: *222.67.188.123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • noticeboards • LinkWatcher search || WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google) - but it seems KP Botany got all those at the time. Blocked, and checked for additional inserted spam DGG

-- SiobhanHansa 18:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general it appears clear to me we should not link to a site where it is necessary to pay in order to get ANY value from the link relevant to the article. Perhaps we should make WP:EL even more explicit on this. Let me know if there are a lot of these which need some help. --BozMo talk 18:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the external links guidelines are clear, but for citations such links are generally considered a service if it's the only place to get the citation online. Discussions at WP:RS (this, for instance) always seem to come down in favor of allowing urls to pay-for services in these circumstances. -- SiobhanHansa 18:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accesibility online is not the Holy Grail of references. If we have a legit cite to the original publication, I see no need to allow ads for pay-for services here. --Orange Mike 21:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would entirely get to the spam issue with citations and journals. I believe Elsevier is the journal publisher (it's not a third party service like pub-med). It's doubtful they are expecting to get significant new subscriptions from regular old Wikipedia readers through this, they're more likely to be looking to improve their reputation by pushing up the citation rate of their journals and the number of times they get asked for in libraries; that is, they're trying to make their journals the ones people find easily and requote. Because despite everything that gets published about Wikipedia, lots of people do start here for serious research, even some academics. So even without the link there could be good reason for them to spam. You are of-course welcome to start the conversation again at the reliable sources talk page, though I'd suggest reading through the previous ones first, I don't think you'll gain support. -- SiobhanHansa 21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor:

Note how sometimes these editors will move an existing Elsevier link to the top of the list. The above editor leads us to Xrefer (I assume there is a financial relationship) and

which is subscription-based. Burlywood 21:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been dealing with elsevier on this, at the level of the relevant senior executives, and will follow it up. they are properly horrified at this, and realize the potential harm to their reputation. There are some considerations: it is a very large decentralized company, with many product managers who can authorize this sort of thing spread over several countries. A good deal of this is not done by the company , but by independent contractors working only indirectly for the company, usually on behalf of a trade association--often one subject oriented, not publisher oriented. they arevery hard to track down, and the additional information here will help. Please post any addition instances here--I will monitor it. I will also immediately block and remove the spam as available, and protect as necessary. DGG (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but there is another matter. References to journals are appropriate in articles, if they are inserted properly and document the subject appropriately. elsevier publishes a great many journals, and many--by no means all-- of them are notable, and highly cited. There will therefore be many appropriate references. There is a clear policy at WP to use the best references available, freee or paid--free preferred,and free versions always to be indicated if available, but no prejudice at all against paid, or even those available only in print in libraries. such references are not spam. There are many sources for this material that do not involve personal payment, and any librarians should be able to help.
External links are something else. It is considered appropriate to link to the main site for a major project. It is not considered appropriate to multiply such links, and they will be removed.
Incidentally, xrefer is an apparently independent publisher now known as Credo-- they publish some dictionaries. There are free dictionaries to use instead--I'm leaving these alone for now. DGG (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I dont own the subject, but I can deal with this. DGG (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got all the present ones--found one that was actually appropriate out of the 50 or so & left it--and found a lead to the actual name of the spammer, which will be very useful. thanks, everyone. DGG (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.spam.melodyspin.com and http://www.spam.skanson.com

Links:

Editor:

Seems to be a single purpose account. One link appears to be a blog, the other, COI/advert. Not prolific, but recently started up again. Needs cleanup--I'll do it later if someone doesn't beat me to it. Please monitor, thanks! Katr67 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. I also found 67.176.6.86 was doing it to. Don't know if any other IPs are involved. IrishGuy talk 17:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.terminartors.com

Spammers

Please provide a list of editors who have added the link, as those with rollback tools (whether admin or script based) can easily go through the contribs page and revert the spamming. To demonstrate the benefits: it took the spammer 7 hours to add those links, but it took me 3 minutes to remove them. Thanks. MER-C 03:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.hydraulic-press-lienchieh.com

hydraulic-press-lienchieh.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 08:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon parrot spam

In particular, this book:

Spammers

Look out for the spam page Stefan Luft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MER-C 08:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.kanagawa-kankou.or.jp

kanagawa-kankou.or.jp: 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 08:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.yarzheit.com

yarzheit.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

Has some links interwiki. Is it worth having, or is meta fodder? MER-C 09:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.tutubipatrol.blogspot.com

tutubipatrol.blogspot.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 11:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the {{spamlink}} template to include a link to DomainsDB.net, a useful tool for searching to see what other domains are hosted on a particular server.

Usage notes
  • Don't use "subst"
  • Don't use any uppercase letters in the template. {{spamlink|example.com}} is OK, but{{spamlink|Example.com}} may cause problems.


Sample


Interpretation (purely my own opinions)
Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr:
  • Searches for links on some of the largest projects
    • en: English Wikipedia
    • meta: Meta-Wiki
    • de: German Wikipedia
    • fr : French Wikipedia
    • simple: Simple English Wikipedia (included since many en spammers also hit it )
    • wikt:en: English Wiktionary
    • wikt:fr: French Wiktionary
  • Personally, I just use the en.wikipedia and simple search links, then rely on the Interwiki search (see below) for the rest (and I don't worry about Wiktionary -- perhaps I should).
Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Eagle's spam report search:
Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57:
  • Uses Eagle101's search of the 20 or 57 largest Wikipedias. The 57-country search is sloowww, so I'll use the 20-language search "just to be sure" if I have no reason to believe the spammer is spamming beyond en.wikipedia. I'll also hit the Simple English link described above. I've found most British, North American, Australian and South Asian spammers usually stick to English. I've found spammers from Israel and most other European countries are much more likely to spam x-wiki, perhaps because they're more comfortable working in multiple languages; I always run the 57-wiki search on them. (Spammers from other regions don't seem to fit an established pattern.)
  • If the same article is spammed on many of the 57 biggest wikis, check to see if versions on smaller wikis have been hit, too. Sometimes a spammer hits an article, then just works his way down the left column of article versions in other languages. I'll do the same thing to find his links on wikis besides the top 57.
    • Existence of a link on another Wikipedia does not automatically mean it was spammed x-wiki. Many smaller Wikipedias will import and translate sections of bigger articles on large Wikipedias link en, fr or de.
Linkwatcher: search:
  • A powerful tool, but temporarily disabled for now. Starting with links added in June 2007, you could enter a user name and pull up all the links they added on all 700+ Wikimedia projects. Alternately, you could enter a domain and find out which editors added it on which projects.
Wikipedia: en - fr - de:
  • Performs a search for the link name on the 3 largest Wikipedias, using our built-in mediocre MediaWiki search function. I use it to find to find the link in old Veinor pages on en.wikipedia (more on that below)
Google: search • Veinor pages • meta
  • Google searching the domain name often pulls up interesting results such as related domains. If the search pulls up too many results, I'll narrow it by adding "SEO" to the search. If that still gives >100 results (my Google preferences are set to display 100 results/page), I'll further add "forum OR sale" to narrow down to searching for the site owner talking about or selling domains on one of the SEO forums.
  • Veinor developed a tool to create a daily page listing links added each day and who had added them (example: User:Veinor/Link count/January 17, 2007). The user page lists any link added more than once; the user talk page lists all links added, even if only once that day. These pages span the first 5 months of 2007 before the tool went off-line.
  • The MediaWiki search and a Google search of the Veinor pages will each miss some pages, so I run both.
  • Meta: I Google search meta if I'm looking for archives missed by the spam discussion archive seach tool (above).
Yahoo: backlinks:
  • Sometimes I want to know what other domains link to my targetted spam domain in hopes of finding more domains owned by the same spammer. This tool lists backlinks.
Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net:
  • Domaintools.com gives useful information about a domain:
    • Ownership.
      • Caveat -- this has to be interpreted judiciously
        • Some domain owners use privacy services such as Whois Guard, Privacyprotect.org Domains by Proxy, etc.
        • Others just lie/obfuscate. Compare the e-mail addresses in this example of two domains owned by the same spammer:[10],[11]. Furthermore, the NYC address is bogus as is the phone number. Common ownership in this case was confirmed by Google Adsense ID, common spammer IPs and that e-mail address.
        • Usually only the first name and address is relevant; other entries such as technical contacts refer to the hosting service, not the spammer (unless the spammer is operating his own server).
        • If a domain is sold, Domaintools' ownership records may lag by a few days or weeks. (Since $$$'s involved, Google Adsense IDs usually change immediately).
      • Uses:
        • If not hidden, this can confirm ownership
        • I often search on a phone number, an address, a company name, an e-mail address or a contact's name to try to find additional domains.
    • "Whois history": if the date registered is 7 July 2006, you know you don't have to search edit histories earlier than that data
    • "Reverse IP": Links to a list of other domains using that server IP. Unless you pay $, you only get 3 free domains, but sometimes that's helpful. If you see only 10 domains hosted at that IP, then they may all be the spammer's (example:[12][13]); if there are 2,722 domains, they're probably not ([14][15])
    • A convenience link to the domain's AboutUs.org article (see below)
  • AboutUs.org links to an SEO directory page about the domain. Initially these are compiled by the directory's bot but can be subsequently edited, wiki-style, by others using a slightly modified MediaWiki interface.
    • Caveats:
      • The "Related Domains" section gives the bot's best guess as to domains that are related. Accuracy ranges from 5% to 100%. A major factor appears to be the pattern of inbound and outbound links a site has, but there seem to be other factors as well. You'll often see sites like Yahoo, Google and Wikipedia in the list.
      • The site ownership information is not as up-to-date as DomainTools' (you can look at the AboutUs page's edit history to see when it was last updated).
    • Uses:
      • Despite its imperfect accuracy, the "Related Domains" section is a powerful tool for finding additional commonly-owned domains even if it doesn't prove ownership.
      • Page edit history: occasionally, a site-owner may edit his entry, in which case you can check his contributions to see what other pages he's editing. Also, it's also worth checking that IP or user name on Wikipedia -- often they're used there too. Interestingly, you'll also note edits where spammers added links to their competitors AboutUs.org pages (some things are universal I suppose).
      • "What links here" (sometimes hidden in a column on the right and accessed by clicking on "useful links"): This may give additional names besides those listed in "Related Domains". The same caveats apply.
  • DomainsDB.net is a new feature for this template. Clicking this link takes you to a page for the IP where the domain is hosted (Example). There you'll see an entry labelled "Reverse IP:" saying something like "there are -1 domains on this IP, click here to get them all". Even if it just says "1 domain", click it anyway to pull up a list (Example). (Don't ask me why it says "1 domain" even when there are more).
    • Caveat: these other domains may not be spam domains -- they may just be hosted by the same big hosting company (Example)

--A. B. (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth to have also your User:A. B./UserSummary and User:A. B./IPwhois as regular templates for this project (and maybe for WP:COIN): {{UserSummary}} and {{IPSummary}}, for example? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ifood.tv

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

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

How to get AdSense info?

I've been wanting to learn how to gather AdSense information. From what I've read here, there's an id #. I'm guessing once you know how to get the #, you then look for the same number at other suspect sites. --Ronz 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "google_ad_client =" give the id #? --Ronz 02:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's it - it's always of the form pub- followed by 16 digits. -- SiobhanHansa 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Ronz 03:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.bd5.com

bd5.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

AdSense id: 1678146462310406

See also: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Flybd5

Flybd5 has been edit-warring to keep his links. He's also made similar edits to the Spanish Wikipedia. (Is there any way to search it for links?)

Looks like there are some good-faith edits by others adding this link, but haven't tracked down who made them. --Ronz 03:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how many wikis you want to search. es:Special:Linksearch/*.bd5.com (1 wiki), 20 wikis, 57 wikis, 725 wikis. MER-C 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Only one link in the Spanish wiki and one in the German, both made at article creation. Flybd5 created the Spanish link. --Ronz 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of an ongoing harassment and stalking complaint on my part against User:Ronz, See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Flybd5. There is a community of 400+ BD-5 owners, builders and other parties who are associated with the BD-5 Network and who do not appreciate the actions of User:Ronz. They are reacting to his edits and his harassment and stalking of me. The only places where you will find mention of bd5.com, a free information resource about the BD-5, is on the Jim Bede and Bede BD-5 pages. They are valid references. There is ZERO policy about deletion of links because the link may be using AdSense. That's a pathetic argument. Flybd5 12:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam.sudpontino.net

sudpontino.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

Spammers

Cross-posted from m:Talk:Spam blacklist#sudpontino.net. All wiki spamsearch results (after 4 links removed on en): 

Results for en.wikipedia.org...
	Page: Campodimele		URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
	Page: Fondi			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
Results for de.wikipedia.org...
	Page: Fondi			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
	Page: Formia			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia
	Page: Minturno			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for ja.wikipedia.org...
	Page: カンポディメーレ			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
	Page: フォンディ			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
	Page: イトリ			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
	Page: レーノラ			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
	Page: ミントゥルノ			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for it.wikipedia.org...
	Page: Campodimele		URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
	Page: Fondi			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
	Page: Gaeta			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/gaeta
	Page: Itri			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
	Page: Lenola			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
	Page: Minturno			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for nl.wikipedia.org...
	Page: Campodimele		URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
	Page: Fondi			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
	Page: Minturno			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for pt.wikipedia.org...
	Page: Campodimele		URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
	Page: Fondi			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
	Page: Formia			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia
	Page: Itri			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
	Page: Lenola			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
	Page: Minturno			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for pl.wikipedia.org...
	Page: Campodimele		URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
Results for ca.wikipedia.org...
	Page: Fondi			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
Results for vo.wikipedia.org...
	Page: Campodimele		URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
	Page: Fondi			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
	Page: Formia			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia
	Page: Itri			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
	Page: Lenola			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
	Page: Minturno			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for br.wikipedia.org...
	Page: Formia			URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia

Test wiki is down, so there could be more spam. MER-C 06:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

netteyiz.biz

Accounts

Reported by Videmus Omnia Talk 15:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

x-wiki:
Turkish account (no edits yet)
Still spamming.[16] I left him/her a note.
--A. B. (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benchmark capital

Is this kosher? Special:Contributions/LeslieBD - no external links added, but nevertheless it looks like a kind of advertisement. Han-Kwang (t) 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would describe the information as non-encyclopedic, and probably spam. I'll revert. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

babecollector.com and fcnudes.com

Account

Copyvio porn site. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki spam:
Also adds links to
I suggest you list all 3 at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist
--A. B. (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. -- I disabled the links in anticipation of blacklisting.
I pulled up other domains on the same server (using DomainsDB.net), then checking whois data for each domain; these sites are associated with "Kteams", fcnudes.com's owner:
These sites are associated with an individual in Vienna who owns babecollector.com
I suggest blacklisting all at Meta. --A. B. (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional IPs:
X-wiki:
--A. B. (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam protection filter

Hello. This filter blocked Undo to revert vandalism on Green turtle. The vandalism is a greater concern than a blacklisted link. Can you possibly fix this? -Susanlesch 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AngelOfSadness for fixing Green turtle. I wonder if blocking saves is questionable. Hope this helps. -Susanlesch 17:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should only be an issue on the rare occasions when a link is added to the blacklist in between the time a vandal makes an edit and an editor reverts. Also the information required to fix the issue is included in the message that the saving editor receives - s/he only has to go back and remove the link as well - it could be displayed a little better (to say the least), but I believe that would require a developer to fix! -- SiobhanHansa 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One does not need a developer for that, those texts are stored in the MediaWiki namespace, in this case I believe it is: MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext. Every admin can change the wording there. Would it be up to this project to find a better text for that? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.simpletoremember.com http://spam.heartoftn.net/users/gary27 http://spam.sagavyah.tripod.com

Spammers

There's probably editors who've added these links in good faith, but the last two should go. MER-C 09:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=163772280"