Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:42, 10 April 2007 editBeetstra (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators172,031 edits →Nasty link trick: yes .. there are more← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:12, 10 April 2007 edit undoShadowbot3 (talk \| contribs)51,520 editsm Automated archival of 36 sections to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr Next edit →
Line 31:		Line 31:
	<!-- note if this is as busy as it was last month, I will be splitting the archives up. -->		<!-- note if this is as busy as it was last month, I will be splitting the archives up. -->
	\|}		\|}

	== www.famousamericans.net & related ==

	famousamericans.net is being spammed to articles about figures and events in American history and it appears that someone bought up domains with names of famous Americans.. and redirected them to this site.. http://www.jamesmonroe.net/ is one example.

	Spamming in the last 24hrs has been done by ], There are over 500 mainspace links to famousamericans.net alone, this doesn't include all of the other domains that redirect there. --] 04:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Just a note, ] beat me and has reverted all the links added by that IP. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


	More info: http://www.famousamericans.net is a subsection of http://virtualology.com, the individual name domains go to subpages of this site. This site is probably a useful resource as a reference in some cases, but there is really no need to add links to it and/or it's related domains to every article on Misplaced Pages that is related to American History (or other topics covered by the Virtualology project) - doing so is a clear-cut case of spamming, especially given that the site makes liberal use of googleAds.

	This is a list of > 60 domains related to the Virtualology.com site: <br />
	TheDeclarationofIndependence.org, AbigailAdams.net, JohnHancock.org , CharlesThomson.com , JosiahBartlett.com, MatthewThornton.net, WilliamWhipple.com , John-Adams.org, SamuelAdams.net, ElbridgeGerry.com, JohnHancock.org , RobertTreatPaine.com , SamuelHuntington.org, RogerSherman.net, WilliamWilliams.com, OliverWolcott.com , WilliamEllery.com , StephenHopkins.com , WilliamFloyd.net, FrancisLewis.com, PhilipLivingston.com , LewisMorris.com , AbrahamClark.com, JohnHart.net, FrancisHopkinson.com, RichardStockton.net, JohnWitherspoon.com , GeorgeClymer.com, BenjaminFranklin.org, Robert-Morris.com, JohnMorton.net, GeorgeRoss.net, BenjaminRush.com, James-Smith.net, GeorgeTaylor.net, JamesWilson.org , ThomasMcKean.com, GeorgeRead.org, CaesarRodney.net , CharlesCarrollofCarrollton.com, SamuelChase.com, WilliamPaca.com, ThomasStone.com , CarterBraxton.net, BenjaminHarrison.com, Thomas-Jefferson.net, FrancisLightfootLee.com, RichardHenryLee.com, ThomasNelsonJr.com, GeorgeWythe.net , JosephHewes.com, WilliamHooper.com, JohnPenn.com , ThomasHeywardJr.com, ThomasLynchJr.com, ArthurMiddleton.com, EdwardRutledge.com , Georgia - Signers, ButtonGwinnett.com, Lyman-Hall.com, GeorgeWalton.com , JohnDunlap. net, MaryKatherineGoddard.com, TimothyMatlack.com, JohnTrumbull.com, WilliamJStone.com, JohnQAdams.com, George-Washington.org.

	--] 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

	I have invited the IP who has been posting these links to participate in this discussion, some explaination may be found on his ]. --] 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	== and ==

	Both of these domains are owned by a "Ben Volkow." Over the past 2+ months about 25 external links have been added.

	* ]
	* ]


	socks
	* {{vandal\|3GPP_guru}}
	* {{IPvandal\|62.219.166.199}}
	* {{IPvandal\|80.178.177.61}}
	* {{IPvandal\|132.66.223.237}}

	The 4 spam warnings were issued and the final warning was violated. I recommend blacklisting. (] 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

	:I have filed an RFCU request at ]. Based on results there, hopefully all four of these accounts can be blocked as well. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

	:: Looks like the checkuser request was declined but that isn't much of a loss. A whois on the two domains reports an owner of "Benjamin Volkow" with either a physical address or a DNS nameserver in Israel. A whois on the three IP sock addresses also resolves to Israel. So that pretty much pinpoints the source. The only unknown is the User:3GPP_guru but spamming behavior looks identical. (] 22:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

	== Links to local sports clubs ==

	I'm a relative newbie, having edited only since Christmas, so would welcome some guidance on this matter. What is WP policy on mentioning local sports clubs by name in articles on towns or regions? One editor working on ] unlinked a (named) local gliding club, leaving a link to ] as a sport in the text & relegating the club to an External Link. Is this the generally approved method; or is it sometimes acceptable to mention a specific (non-profit members') club in the text of the article? --] \| ] 09:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Links within the body of the article should be wikilinks (or inter:wikilinks to other wikimedia projects like wiktionary) or citations backing up an assertion. If it was just an external link to the gliding club's home page, that does more properly sit in the external links section (if it's agreed it's an appropriate link for the article). This used to me quite explicitly stated in the ] though it's recently come up on the talk page that it dropped out during various changes. The nonprofit status of the club isn't really relevant to whether or not the link is appropriate. Sorry it took so long to respond. Sometimes the questions that aren't very action oriented towards stopping spam get a bit lost. -- ] 03:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	::Many thanks for your response. In the meantime I've had a reply very much along the same lines from the Help Desk. In the article on ] it certainly seemed relevant to mention the sport of ] in general, leaving an EL to the club's website for those interested in following it up. I've done the same with ]. Thanks again. --] \| ] 10:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	== tolkiengateway.net ==
	I've just come across an IP (]) systematically adding links to tolkiengateway.net, a Tolkien focused wiki. A bit of further investigation indicates that the wiki seems to have at least one proponent on Misplaced Pages who does nothing here other than promote this other wiki (]) and that the articles seem to have significant content taken from Misplaced Pages without attribution. For instance, found using their random page feature, , started on ] and from ], after the lead the articles are virtually identical. All the articles I found for which we have an article were similar. I could find no attribution to Misplaced Pages or link back to the original articles for the purposes of identifying the copyright holders). The wiki obviously does go into more depth than Misplaced Pages does (or should!). I think this link has been spammed, and that a site that violates Wikipedian copyrights shouldn't be linked to, but they seem to have been around for sometime without upsetting ]. I'd like other opinions before I do the standard strip out links. I'll leave a message at WikiProject_Middle-earth soliciting their input here. -- ] 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:I don't belong to the project but I've edited a number of Tolkien articles and would tend to agree that this is spam. Besides, its inclusion might tempt some editors to use it as a source, which is clearly improper. '']'' <small>] ]</small> 23:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
	:Not sure what to say here. I've been aware for some time that their articles appear to have been seeded by using our articles, but I assumed they had attributed Misplaced Pages as the source of the original material. They can indeed go into more depth, particularly on the fan side of things, but ultimately it would be good to see a ] form between that wiki (which does seem very popular) and the pages here. How is this sort of things handled with, say, the Star Trek and Star Wars wikis? ] 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Thanks for responding Carcharoth. If regular editors of the article think a relationship with this wiki can benefit Misplaced Pages we should probably tackle this in a different manner. Do you know any editors who are involved with both wikis? Would it be better to move this discussion to ]? Thanks -- ] 00:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Not sure. I've considered getting inolved over there, but there are only so many hours in a day! You've left messages in the right places. Hyarion might take a while to respond. I might drop a note over at that wiki if I have time. I think just wait and see for a bit. I think what would be useful is to lay down some ground rules and distinguish the different styles. Misplaced Pages is ''general'', the subject-specific wikis are, well, more ''detailed''. For what it is worth, Hyarion is also active at , a Tolkien news site. At the end of the day, if our articles are referenced properly (and sadly many aren't), then there is no need to link to other Tolkien wikis or sites like ''The Encyclopedia of Arda''. At the end of the day, places like the Tolkien Gateway will be able to do more with things like fan artwork, and content listings for fan magazines, and so forth, stuff that would never be suitable for Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages can take a more serious approach, and can concentrate on referencing the articles in a more encyclopedic manner. Also, the linking out to other articles works differently. ] (someone who taught Tolkien at university), for example, on the Tolkien Gateway would never be its own article, but here we can link to things like that. ] 01:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Hello everyone! I must say, I was rather shocked when I saw "Tolkien Gateway" and "spam "in the same sentence, but I suppose if I plan on adding external links I should focus more on improving the article by other means as well, though I still stand behind the links I added and do not believe they should be classified as spam. But by all means, if you feel they are not helpful, please remove them and you won't see anymore of them. I think the main issue here is not the spam but some of the articles on TG that are a bit too similar to Misplaced Pages's. I will be the first to admit that when I added them I did so without fully understanding the GNU FDL and did not realize a return link had to be added or I would have gladly done so. We were using them as placeholders but I had hoped we would have replaced them at a faster pace than present so we will be adding adding the Misplaced Pages notices to the articles until we can rewrite them, this is something which is being addressed at our next meeting. I agree with Carcharoth in that the best approach is making sure each wiki has their own benefits as well as downsides. For instance with Joseph Wright, we do have articles but have no need to include information not related to Tolkien, which is where Misplaced Pages comes in. I'll monitor this discussion and if I can be of anymore help please let me know, and thanks for your time. --] 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Thanks for responding. I appreciate your intention is to make good content freely available, and it would be great if that could improve Misplaced Pages as well as Tolkiengateway! Since there seems to be some respect for this external wiki by at least one editor who spends significant time on the related articles I don't think a spam label is appropriate. However I am concerned about the linking to articles that are mainly repeats of Misplaced Pages material and about the use of content from Misplaced Pages without attribution. I'll go through the links and remove the ones to articles that don't have significant new content, and I'll bring up the copyright issue at WikiProject Middle-earth (where they should be better placed to decide on appropriate monitoring or action since more editors whose copyright has technically been violated are likely to be there). Let me know if this doesn't seem reasonable. -- ] 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::That sounds about right. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	== healthadel.com ==

	*healthadel.com



	Several editors, apparently spas, have added links to healthadel.com over the last three months or so:

	* {{vandal\|Jayquan}}
	* {{vandal\|Danleyton}}
	* {{vandal\|Boardshwn}}
	* {{vandal\|Marleene1}}
	* {{vandal\|Jimjamns}}
	* {{vandal\|Harlequoon}}

	... and there are probably more. They add the links three or four at a time with edit summarys like "small change" or "update new information," then they add more later using a new user account. I caught the pattern today because I watch ] as a patient and as an RN, and that site's article on UC isn't a good article.

	The site doesn't have any ads, but it's written by only one person and isn't about science - it's mostly opinion. I've looked at most of their pages and a lot of their info is incorrect or incomplete. ELs to the site don't belong here. I've got it on my list and I'm working through deleting the ELs. - ]] 20:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

	::Back today with a new account:
	::**<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • • )</small></span>
	::I will request blacklisting. --] ] 18:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Blacklisting declined. --] ] 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	What is this?<br>
	--] ] 01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	::Ok, next question -- what's ]?<br>
	::--] ] 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	::: Check out ]. I don't completely understand it and this link will probably make "things" seem even more strange to you. (] 02:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC))
	:::: I wonder who can add stuff to ]? I notice that an IP in Belgium added a domain to it without comment -- seems sort of fishy. --] ] 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Im developing a method of tracking spam. Eagle 101, Beetstra and others use an IRC based interface to my bot to gather linksearch results and track spam. ] contains all of the sites that have been identified and have links on wikipedia still. if you dont have IRC you can just follow the same format that is on /List and add the site there as the bot reads from that page also. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 02:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	::::::Cool.

	::::::Suggestion -- a commenting provision to document why something's on the list and who put it there. I see some links on there that don't seem spammy. The nice thing about both this page's archives and those for ] is that we have a record of users, etc to explain why we've previously ID'd something as spammy. --] ] 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	::::::: I agree. The two features that this system needs is accountability of why it is doing something and an audit list of what it did. Like I mentioned on Betacommand's talk page, I've had a couple problems of this system deleting spam that I was currently watching which sort of tossed a wrench into my investigation. I don't have any problems with the spam being deleted but I need a way know that it was deleted. An audit trail would work, so would simply adding the results of the LinkSearch so I can backtrack it myself. As it is now, spam gets found, it is deleted, and the entire process is invisible. (] 22:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

	::What i have been suggesting is use the talkpage of the linksearch result to track spammers. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 02:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Have you started doing this on any of the pages? I like the idea of us tracking links together, but could use a little more concrete info on how it would be implemented. -- ] 16:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Could someone take a look at ]? ==

	The external links section is loaded with sites not related to the books, I placed a "linkfarm" tag on there ago but non-specific links are still being added, mostly to promote "similar" games/projects. I'm not sure what to remove. ] 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	I forgot to mention, someone removed the linkfarm tag without removing any of the unrelated links. I'd try to fix the section myself but I'm not on Misplaced Pages often enough keep checking they don't get re-added. Thanks. ] 19:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	:The user who removed the tag actually reverted links back in that had been removed back into the article citing competition concerns . S/He doesn't seem like an unreasonable editor so I've put a ] more drastically on the talk page and asked him/her to comment. Hopefully we can get a good consensus that will be in line with having a good encyclopedia article. -- ] 00:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	== agloco.com spam ==

	agloco.com is the current "hot" affiliate marketing scheme:
	*mccallsnotes.live.spaces
	*agloco.com
	*aglocotest.com
	*johnchow.com
	*wegetpaidtosurf.com

	These links have been recently added by a number of unrelated editors. This is ''just'' the tip of the iceberg":
	*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • \|\| • • • • • )</small></span>
	**shared IP -- most of the edits are not by an agloco spammer
	*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • \|\| • • • • • )</small></span>
	*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • \|\| • • • • • )</small></span>
	*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • • )</small></span>
	*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • • )</small></span>
	*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • • )</small></span>
	*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • • )</small></span>
	*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • • )</small></span>
	In some cases, they were deleting others' referral codes and adding their own.

	Blacklisting requested. --] ] 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

	== Looking at the March archives ==

	I like to cruise our archives every so often, just following up with linksearches on old problems. Here are a few worth noting:
	#]
	#:Looks like we now have 200+ links, up from 35
	#]
	#:21 links -- is that an increase?
	#]
	#:New account: {{User5\|PalestraRyan}}
	#] -- still have about 120 blacklisted links in the article space
	#:These will be real aggravation for regular editors trying to save a page.

	I won't have time to work on any of these for several days. --] ] 00:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:I've converted all the pressarchive.net links to moviehole links per Eagle101's suggestion. -- ] 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:I just took a look at the naxos links. I went through the first hundred and only a few of the pages had had the linked added since February 28th (when the report with the 35 links was made). There must have been something wrong with the link search. Of the ones I checked, all the added links were good faith and appropriate. However the accounts that spammed the link back at the time of the report ({{IPVandal\|203.189.8.194}}; {{IPVandal\|124.107.8.196}}; {{Vandal\|ClassicMusic}}; {{Vandal\|Classiko}}) have added more links since then. I've stripped those links out. Looks like this one will be a hard one to monitor as the site is used as a reliable source for a lot of classical musicians' articles. -- ] 05:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Adult site spamming from a common provider ==

	Please look at contributions for . All sites appear to be hosted by a common provider {MONIKER ONLINE SERVICES, INC.)

	Sites spammed:

	{{linksearch\|.bunnyluv.net\|bunnyluv.net}}
	{{linksearch\|.chantarose.net\|chantarose.net}}
	{{linksearch\|.harleydavis.net\|harleydavis.net}}
	{{linksearch\|.joanneguest.net\|joanneguest.net}}
	{{linksearch\|.karinschubert.net\|karinschubert.net}}
	{{linksearch\|.kristarabarrington.net\|kristarabarrington.net}}
	{{linksearch\|.krystaldeboor.net\|krystaldeboor.net}}
	{{linksearch\|.leademae.net\|leademae.net}}
	{{linksearch\|.nadianyce.org\|nadianyce.org}}
	{{linksearch\|.tiffanymillion.net\|tiffanymillion.net}}
	{{linksearch\|.veronicabrazil.org\|veronicabrazil.org}}
	{{linksearch\|.victoriaparis.org\|victoriaparis.org}}
	{{linksearch\|.xxxena.org\|xxxena.org}}

	] ] 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	:Suggested to Shadowbot's blacklist (]). ] 11:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


	== TourEgypt.net ==

	Has this one been discussed before? Lots of links
	{{linksearch\|.touregypt.net\|touregypt.net}} and some aggressive link reverters like ]. Seems to have been in and out of blacklists and whitelists. What's the history?
	--] ] 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	**Using the tool mentioned below, discussion is at

	::1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/03#Touegypt.net
	::2. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#TourEgypt.net
	::3. http://meta.wikimedia.org/Spam_blacklist/Log#March_2007
	::Enjoy. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	== New archive searching tool!!! ==

	New reason to report spammers here. GeorgeMoney and I have made a tool that searches some 37 archives of WPSPAM and the meta blacklist. You just put a link like tinyurl.com and it will show you all sections that that link was discussed in. Hopefully this will make digging up past spammers easier. (You can also put in the adsense number, and it will tell you what section that adsense number is in). It also checks live copies of this page, as well as live copies of the most recent archive for the spam blacklist and this page. (as they are archived by bots, and are still active a month after being created). I'm thinking about adding the spam whitelist archives into the database, and any other ideas for locations to search are welcome. I hope this fixes our problems with archives. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 23:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Note... this is '''not''' an april fools prank. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 23:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Forgot this very important to the tool. Its on ]. :) —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 23:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Not bad :-) Although that "lightgreen" color is pretty obsolete ;-) -- ] 00:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::: Like it alot, especialy being able to search adsense numbers. Nice work! ;) --] 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Now updated to search the content of the blacklist, as well as the content of the english wikipedia whitelist, and the related talk page. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Someday it would be great if it could search Veinor's linkcount pages -- then we could find out who was adding links as of whenever Veinor put that tool into place. As it stands, I Google search on a link and I can pull up some of Veinor's pages, although I get the sense that Google doesn't thoroughly index all of those pages. Anyway, that's a wished-for feature, not a complaint; this is a handy tool as it is. The blacklist's talk page archives can be especially hard to search.
	::::::All these great tools some of you are developing combined with a better understanding of spammers' methods have brought us a long way since mid-2006. I don't think many of us even knew what an Adsense number was 6 or 7 months ago. Many thanks to all of you who have worked so hard to figure this stuff out for the rest of us to use. --] ] 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	:Just to be clear - does that mean it is best to link the urls here rather than nowiki them (or other wise present them as text)? (Also, it would be good to update the tools section of the main page with the many recent additions.) ] 05:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Multiple wiki "malfunctioning" spam bot ==

	You guys might want to have a look at this, and keep an eye out for it. Its not inserting links, but its intended to insert links. (it sometimes puts <a href=" and thats it). I'm seeing it very often on #wikimedia-swmt (small wiki monitoring team), and I don't know if it will come to the english wikipedia or not. A link about this bot can be found . Again, we really don't have much we can do, short of getting something like antivandalbot on it. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:I found out that a large number of times bots create articles that have titles with ''/w/'', ''/'', ''index.php'' or ending with / (slash). I have found them in most (if not all) the wikis I have cleaned (including big ones like this one). Some examples are at ]. -- ] 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	Yawn, ] again. Unfortunately my friendly and rouge anti-spam administrator has not edited for a month or so, therefore the following IPs need to be blocked indefinitely:

	*{{ipvandal\|84.9.139.145}} (see )
	*{{ipvandal\|71.119.254.211}} (see )
	*Whoever created {{ltt\|Reproductive physiology/search/}} each of seven times, which needs moving to ].
	This stuff has been prevalent on the English Misplaced Pages for a long time, see the huge list at ], though it's diminished somewhat as IPs posting such spam are blocked indefinitely on the suspicion of being open proxies. ] 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	==Consensus on adding civility section==

	In ] I and two other editors agreed that there should be a section on civility on the project page. Here are quotes from that discussion:

	:So what do we do moving forward? I think we are extremely good at the investigation, but while the community relations side is good in most regards there is some room for improvement. Lets build a new section on the project page about how to interact with "The Spammer" with some positive recommendations. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

	:Great idea. it's an idea that I think would help.Noroton 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

	:I strongly agree. Anchoress 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

	Although no other editors commented on this, others DID comment that the project page needed changes to remind project members about civility:

	:the project page could use some work. An emphasis that the editor needs to look out for those who just need some nudging vs the ones that leave a foul taste in your mouth. Kevin_b_er 07:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

	:the page is probably overdue for minor improvements and possible softening of some of the tone. Satori Son 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


	Dissagree with proposal. This suggesion is probably is better suited as a proposal over at ] and ], as this is a "project" and our efforts are in line with the those guidelines. Our project page is a general knowledge introduction on how to identify spamming, methods used by spammers and bits about the project. It is '''not''' a policy article nor is it a guideline. Edits made by ] are an attempt at ], and by ] with proposed project changes in order to disrupt Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam after being caught spamming. Please review . Is activly subverting the project with posts like the following at the Village pump against the WikiProject Spam ''see'' . AGF states that it does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary and that Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence. .

	::Evidence:
	::*trainweb.org citation additions:

	::*trainweb.org Link additions: <br>--] 05:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	===Proposed language of a section===
	In that discussion, I mentioned a how-to article on spam fighting being featured on the Community portal. I propose using it for a new section on the project page:

	]

	Under "Make sure it's spam before you remove it" Yusef writes:

	:When dealing with spammers, it is very important to assume good faith. Though remember, while you should assume that an edit was made in good faith in absense of evidence to the contrary, that does not mean that you should automatically assume an edit is good for Misplaced Pages. Remove inappropriate links on sight, regardless of the intentions of the editors who posted them.

	:Occasionally, an editor in good standing will add a spam link in good faith, believing it to be an appropriate external link. If it is linkspam, it should still be removed, but in these cases, rather than reporting the editor or using warning tags, discuss the matter with the editor on his or her talk page. If the editor disagrees that it is spam, do not overlook the possibility that you may be mistaken - seek to reach consensus by discussing the matter on the article's talk page.

	This sounds good as a short section on the project page.

	Consensus exists to make changes in the article. Although I'd prefer that members of the project team make the changes, none have done so until I started making the change myself.

	There are three editors who supported creating a special section on the project page. No one has bothered to add to the discussion and no one has made any changes at all to the project page concerning civility and ] until I started making changes on the page today. So I'm going to add these paragraphs in their own section on the page, acting with some consensus already agreed upon. If other editors object, please add to the discussion and give a clear opinion. ] 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:I have no opinion on this :) but I do want to point out that the last time I looked at the project page was about 2 months ago. The project page of this project is not the focal point of our efforts, this talk page is. I think the prior discussion about civility is enough. I'm sure all members saw it. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	::This suggesion is probably is better suited as a proposal over at ], as this is a "project" and our efforts are in line with the those guidelines. --] 03:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Thinking on this somemore, if a project member has problems with civility, then I would bring it up with them, but I know for myself at least, I try to respect everyone, but at some point we do have to say a firm "no". Most of the cases that we deal with here are serial spammers, linked in someway by IPs, similarity of links, simularity messages, similarity of IPs (on the same range), or having the same adsense number. We attempt to issue multiple warnings, try to engage them in dialog, and tell them why adding many links to wikipedia to sites that they own or control is a ]. I generally believe that members of this project ] ''until there is reason to do so otherwise''. There is only so many warnings that you can give, until you have to threaten a block after all. I think that what you are proposing is better suited to ] (the guideline) rather then the project. I don't know for anyone else in this project, but I hardly ever look at the project page, its watching feeds on irc, programming tools, using tools, and chasing down systematic spammers that make this project what it is. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 06:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::I'm going to clarify, it is very rare that editors in good standing ever come across as spammers. This project normally tracks '''patterns''' of spam, not so much individual spam link insertion. What you mention really needs to go to ], and that is where I recommend that you take that issue. :) —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 06:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::As the page is protected I will wait, but I don't mind changing the line about ''spammers love to abuse wikipedia's tendency to assume good faith...''. That should be repharsed or possibly removed, but after a certain point I feel like I'm getting bogged down in the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. When I read that that tells me to remember that after a certain amount of time, I need to tell the person adding links, ''stop'', and be ready to take further action if they don't stop. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::Eagle 101 I'm getting very little of what looks like a constructive response from members of this project, and I think I'm making a very reasonable, constructive point that really shouldn't be controversial. I would prefer not to be the one making edits to a project page of a project I don't belong to, but I've waited and waited and no one has done what I consider to be the responsible thing. My problem is with this project page much <s>less</s> (''I mean "more" -- self edit'') than with the ] page, although that too could use these same proposed paragraphs in its section on how to deal with cases of spam. It doesn't matter that you or most people in the project don't often refer to the main project page. Of course the actual work gets done on the talk page. That's all beside the point. The talk page, and my comments on it, properly get archived, and then people forget about them and newer members don't see them. New members do see the project page however, and can be influenced by it. And if it violates a Misplaced Pages guideline, it doesn't matter that people don't often see it. ] 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (self edit ] 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC) )

	(undent) Noroton, I think I understand what you may be trying to do here. The problem is that AGF is assumed until evidence to the contrary is present. You have been a part of some incidents which have caused this project's members to get involved. This tends to make people suspicious of your motives, I'm afraid. I am not saying that the things you are advocating are necessarily right or wrong, just how your actions may be perceived. I think that now you have some action from some editors who are willing to re-write some of the sections and in my opinion, the best course might be to give them enough time to do this. -- ] \| ] 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::::Its no more a violation than pushing a particular POV on this project is a violation of ]. I do however think you may have a bias relating to your history with this project, which has influenced you to a particular point of view or ideology. Possibly a clarifying revision more sutible might be; <br>
	:::::''Frequently Spam contributors commonly take advantage of Misplaced Pages's ] Policy, Typically engaging in ] arguments for their links inclusion under the guise that they have only the wealfare of Misplaced Pages at heart, usually in the presence of evidence to the contrary.'' <br>
	::::All of us involved in this project have seen or have had to engaging in some form of ] arguments from spammers. This is a factual interperatation not an "ideological statement". It certainly does not suggest to assume Bad faith, nor is it a policy statement nor is it a guideline. The project deals with the habitual, experienced and deliberate spammers, noting that fact in the correct context is appropriate. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and not all editor's link contributions are in bad faith. --] 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Norotan, can you please show me some evidence where there was a failure to assume good faith? Do remember that ] is not a suicide pact, we assume good faith until there is evidence to the contrary.
	:::::Example, new wikipedian adds 5 links to the same site, not all related to the page that they are added on, I drop a message by or use a {{t1\|uw-spam1}} template (subst'd of course). Said user continues to add this link, and does not engage in dialog, I drop a {{t1\|uw-spam2}} message, while reverting all contributions. If he/she/it (in the case of a spambot) keeps adding links, I'm forced to add a {{t1\|uw-spam3}} template which warns that the user may be blocked. At the point I add this third template, I'm no longer assuming good faith in the contributor, they have had two chances (probably more) to see the orange bar, and engage in discussion. (note this does not mean I forever hate the user, it just means that he/she/it has continued without talking or giving reasons for the links). If the user keeps adding the links, he/she/it will end up blocked. This simple process is ''exactly'' the same as how the counter vandalism effort works.
	:::::Now this project does deal with some more complex cases, where we are tracking spammers vie adsense numbers, or vie similarity of edits. Again we try to give them more then enough warnings, and try to engage them in dialog. This may occur over multiple user accounts, and therefor you may see on User:XXXX a {{t1\|uw-spam1}} and {{t1\|uw-spam2}}, on User:YYYY you may see a {{t1\|uw-spam1}} and {{t1\|uw-spam2}}, and then turn to User:ZZZZ and find that there is only a {{t1\|uw-test3}}. This is not a failure to assume good faith, rather it is simply the fact that by then I or someone else has noticed the pattern of edits. (this is also done in counter vandalism for career vandals). Each new user account does not mean that I have to give a fresh set of warnings if I have evidence that the account is a sock, but do realize that on the first two or so accounts, I do assume good faith. I believe that every member of this project follows roughly the same pattern in dealing with serial spammers.
	:::::Now if there is a different issue I would prefer that you lay it out and show me exactly where you have problems. But if it is with just one editor, then you need to take it up with him or her, or just assume good faith in him or her that they made an honest mistake... remember its a two way street :). —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 18:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	(undent)'''Response from Noroton''':
	To Eagle 101: If you want to understand my arguments better, you <s>couldn't</s> could (''self edit'') do worse than look at the archived discussion. I know it's long, but you're asking points that I think are made very clear in it. But here's a response to specific points you made:

	''can you please show me some evidence where there was a failure to assume good faith? we assume good faith until there is evidence to the contrary.''

	As I've said before, in my experience editors here have more often NOT assumed good faith. Here is a quote on exactly this point that I made in the archived discussion:

	''START OF QUOTE''

	There's a pattern of rudeness here, and for the purposes of an example, I'm going to cite some of my experiences with this crowd. Every time Requestion puts his fingers to his keyboard he makes my case (I swear, he's not a sock puppet of mine). And he does it perfectly in accordance with the project page. And none of you call him on it. To me, that indicates a problem, but you don't hve to believe that to simply believe the project page needs editing. You list Hu12 as one of your responsible parties. Well, not in my experience. I wasn't terribly courteous with him either (I think I was just barely civil) and that wasn't right on my part, but I had every reason to feel abused, given the treatment I was getting. From his talk page (under "Learn some mannters" (sic):

	::See ], learn some manners from her way of doing business, then revert your edits along the lines we've agreed to. You have made no attempt to reach consensus. Start.] 23:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	:::Not sure consensus is needed for ] and ]. '''I hope no one here is "doing business"''', if they are let me know and I'll be happy to take it to ]. Feel free to review ].--] 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

	(emphasis added in boldface)

	As a matter of right as a Wikipedian, I get to have an assumption of good faith (even if I make a mistake) unless there's some good reason to doubt it. Various people associated with this Web page have stated or implied that because I added a lot of links to some pages that (a) I'm something called a "convicted spammer"; (b) I'm "doing business"; or (c) that I even have some connection with the Web site I linked to (DirkBeetstra questioned that on my talk page, although overall I've been able to work with him). It's not worth addressing (a) here or Requestion's other insults, but look at Hu12's conduct: He reverts without giving me any chance to talk the matter over with him, and when I object to his behavior, and argue (on KyraVixen's talk page) that I have good Wikipedian reasons for my edits, his only (sneering) response is that I might be "doing business." As if adding links to a state ombudsman agency is in some way a moneymaking enterprise for me. As if I never showed any interest in Connecticut articles. As if I showed any pattern at all of doing anything improper other than wanting to help readers in my area by pointing people interested in the local train station to the state ombudsman agency with responsibility for it. And as if I didn't have reasons for doing that, damn good ones in my opinion. For that — for doing what I think is helpful and right, mind you — I'm insulted.

	''END OF QUOTE''

	For additional insulting behavior, just see Requestion's comments in that archived discussion. Over and over and over again. And I'll reply to Hu12's other comments later, but if you look at his attitude (identical to Requestion's) I'm just supposed to shut up because, as a "convicted spammer" anything I say is disruptive, ], etc., etc., etc. Hu12 has a comment just above the subsection title here, and he's more than happy for anyone to look over the record. But don't stop with his rendition of the record. Look at the insulting tone of the edit summaries both he and Requestion typed in over at the project page history. People might want to follow Hu12's contributions log and take a look at his talk page, too. He has no problem at all assuming bad faith on my part because ... because of what? That I am pursuing what I rightly believe is Misplaced Pages policy and this project's flouting of it. How else am I to interpret his and Requestion's comments?

	I haven't made a point of the conduct of specific editors until asked to do so and only to illustrate that there's a problem, and I don't need to dwell on it unless other editors here force the discussion that way. I'm also not the one who's been turning these discussions toward personalities. I'm trying to address a broader issue.

	As for Hu12's two comments above: How would he propose that someone who has the opinions I have about the language of the project page try to get them changed? I think the clear implication of everything he's said amounts to "just shut up" and "don't listen to him, people, he's a ''convicted spammer''". Sorry guys, you don't get to say "someone, somewhere has done something that we consider wrong at some point" then get a free pass on ] forever.

	I think all this makes the case that there is some problem with rudeness in these parts. ] 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (''self edit of a small typo'' ] 22:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	:I mentioned ] because you've taken your anger (including threats) out on everyone involved with the Trainweb.org addition, including this project.

	::*<small>Comments to ]</small> ''In the REAL WORLD which doesn't quite match in this case a particular BUREAUCRATIC RULE constructed by WIKIPEDIA BUREAUCRATS overly concerned with rules, the links have a quality that the "External links" rulebook doesn't actually address: THEY ARE O-B-V-I-O-U-S-L-Y USEFUL TO ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WRITING FOR....Or those rules need to be junked or ignored as per ].'' <small>] 04:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)</small>

	::*<small>Comments to ]</small> ''Don't you dare revert any of those edits to train station articles without discussing it with me first...Revert back any edits you have already made. If you do not discuss this with me first, I will start a formal complaint.'' <small>] 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)</small>

	::*<small>Comments on ]</small> ''Thanks so much for not informing me that you were discussing my edits. I appreciate the complete lack of consideration...It is Misplaced Pages policy that rules should not get in the way of common sense...If you ignore how Misplaced Pages articles could actually be '''improved''' in an obvious, commonsensical way, you would be violating ] (essentially, that's the only way you can violate that policy). And I remind you, it's a policy, making it more important than a mere guideline such as this External links guideline.'' <small>] 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)</small>

	::*<small>Comments to ]</small> ''NE2, you're violating the Misplaced Pages admonition against assuming bad motives and the Misplaced Pages adminition to look for consensus. My actions were at the suggestion of one of your cronies'' <small>] 22:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)</small>

	::*<small>Comments on ]</small> ''Hu12, and NE12, the two of you have shown yourselves to be more interested in conspiring and confronting rather than in coming to consensus'' <small>] 23:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)</small>

	::*<small>Comments on ]</small> ''You talk about my being angry. I've got reason to be angry. My work has been deleted'' <small>] 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)</small>

	::*<small>Comments on ]</small> ''I'm sorry for sometimes lapsing into anger, but my anger arose from both protecting work I'd done and defending what I think are important points...'' <small>] 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)</small>

	::*<small>Irony on ]</small> '' I looked at the WP:SPAM article you mentioned and I didn't see a single thing there that seemed to apply to what I wanted to do ... I think everything I did was perfectly conforming to Misplaced Pages rules, including rules for Spam, I agreed because I thought I would get essentially what I wanted — information pointing to the commuter council'' <small>] 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)</small>

	:A friendly suggestion might be to refocus away from other editors' behavior and improve your contributions. Since continuing makes a tense situation more tense it's probably best to leave things as they are. If you feel I was rude then I apologise, wasn't intended to be personal.--] 01:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Ah, "refocus away from other editors' behavior" after you've set such a good example by doing just that kind of "focusing" in the same post. Oh, well then, at least I have your word it wasn't ''personal''. Thanks for the '''friendly''' suggestion! And it only took from 17 March to 3 April for you to say that the behaviour I "feel" was rude is something worth apologizing over, although it "wasn't intended to be personal", and you made the apology right after a personal attack. Well, better late than never! It's not "continuing" that necessarily makes a tense situation more tense, it's continuing attacks. While you were acting the way you were acting, let's see how other I and other editors were trying to work together and succeeding. Somehow these quotes must have slipped past your peacemaking radar (all from ] except as noted):

	:::Hu12, and NE12, the two of you have shown yourselves to be more interested in conspiring and confronting rather than in coming to consensus. Instead, try to work with editors you have disagreements with.

	:::All of you: Review the discussion at User_talk:KyraVixen#Don.27t_you_dare, in which you'll see an example of two parties coming to a reasonable agreement through consensus. Noroton 23:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC) ]

	::'''''Me to Dirk Beestra:''''' (now in the March archive of this page at "Citation Spamming of http://www.trainweb.org")
	:::By removing those contributions, User:KyraVixen hurt the Misplaced Pages articles on those stations. I didn't think it was justified and still don't. But she was polite and reasonable about our difference of opinion and suggested a good, workable compromise: she offered to put them back in "See also" sections. I assume she liked that idea because it wouldn't have the links from the footnotes in each article. I don't think it's the best solution, but it's an acceptable solution to me.

	:::Thank you for doing your best to stay away from incivility and being open to other points of view even as you adamantly argued your points. I wish more editors followed your example. I'm sorry for sometimes lapsing into anger, but my anger arose from both protecting work I'd done and defending what I think are important points and important additions to Misplaced Pages. Noroton 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
	::::And thank you for this kind reply. I was indeed a bit angry as well yesterday, but I apperently got misinterpreted. I am indeed not a native in English, though I have been using it actively in communication for the last 10-12 years, and I am living in the UK at the moment. Thanks for the compliment.
	::::I did not know that of the see also section, in which case an entry in the see also section is indeed a good option. That or the full sentence without the external link is then equal to me then. I will leave it at this, most of the other is speculation, and that information will come in time. I hope others can agree with that too.
	::::I am sorry if I caused you anger, and I hope this is settled now. Have a nice Sunday, and hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

	::Although Dirk Beetstra got off to a rocky start, I recognized that he was willing to discuss the issues with an open mind and a sense of fairness, and my anger quickly turned to respect. And our debating turned to discussion and eventual consensus. It mattered that, unlike Hu12 or Requestion, he didn't treat me like dirt. It's a good example for people in this project to follow.

	::Another good example to follow would be Kyra Please note the way our discussions ended on her (she had, early-on, said that if a consensus could be reached she would restore her changes; Hu12 had also made similar changes which he did not restore):

	:::The see also section has been added to the articles that I have modified, and I have used your exact wording. I hope that this is satisfactory, and I wish you a most wonderful day, Noroton. Kyra~(talk) 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
	:::Thanks very much! Noroton 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

	::Clearly, some editors here know how to handle people with respect. As far as my own language goes: edits I think were important were being trashed wholesale by people, including Hu12, who avoided discussion or, when they turned to discussion, immediately started personal insults. Reader, you'd be mad too. A bunch of people from this page come down on someone like a tidal wave and many won't even discuss the issue. When I thought I had it solved with Beetstra, I again faced another tsunami. Can you possibly imagine how frustrating that can be? Even in an article deletion discussion you at least get to discuss the matter. And lo and behold, I look up what's been said about this kind of thing and, yes indeed, you '''are''' supposed to discuss the matter. Or at least treat people with respect. So why is it so difficult for so many at this project to acknowledge that on their project page?

	::Unless editors here don't think I've demonstrated that there's a problem, can we move on to whether the paragraphs I suggested should go in the project page?] 03:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	This exchange doesn't look like it's headed anyhere very good. At this rate, the debate will only end in tears. Why not everybody sleep on the issue for a week or two and/or get some form of outside mediation? --] ] 03:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:Maybe. But I've taken breaks and the issue has been ignored. I'll think about it.] 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	Each repeated instance of this discussion (], ] and ]), the nature of the problem has been explained to you by others, not myself. My involvement began when the discussion on ] turned to into a ] discussions for inclusion for Trainweb.org, similar as it had in the previous above conversations. This resulted in the move to . within that very same minute (23:15, 17 March 2007) of posting the move , you attacked me on my talk titled (spelling corrected). It the wasn't untill the the conversation here, you attempted to change the project page in order to ]. In addition, you've also made the claim that this project in some way violates a Misplaced Pages guideline, which is utterly untrue. Assuming good faith is also about intentions and based on your statements elsewhere your intention is made clear.
	:''I looked at the WP:SPAM article you mentioned and I didn't see a single thing there that seemed to apply to what I wanted to do ... I think everything I did was perfectly conforming to Misplaced Pages rules, including rules for Spam, I agreed because I thought I would get essentially what I wanted — information pointing to the commuter council'' <small>] 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)</small>

	Asside from the ] issue, I'll remind you that ] nor is a ] for your agenda. Your recent attempt at ] on the project page () for inclusion of you particular point of view or ideology withought consensus was uncalled for. One major addition was made to the project page then proposed 17 minutes After at . ]. This is considered editing in ]. My issue is with the disruption you've created on this project and the policies you've violated therein. I have chosen not to engaged your ] discussions as others have, I will however hold you accountable to the policies and guideline violations of Misplaced Pages. You continue to shift away from the initial issues which brought this discussion to WikiProject_Spam by placing blame on others. Since continuing makes a tense situation more tense it's probably best to leave things as they are.--] 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	::While every one ponders the debates about ] above and cools down, here's a quiz about WPSPAM's bitchiest and most misogynistic participant:
	::*]
	::--] ] 17:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	== webmaxsearch.com ==

	Keep an eye out for this one, it doesn't seem to hit a lot, but it makes a mess when , The only other instance that currently exists is on a talk page where a diff isn't available.. but it made a similar, but smaller mess there. I redlisted it on Linkwatcher --] 06:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Just to clarify by redlist, it is meant that the link insertion is highlighted amongst the other links coming in the feed. All it does is call more attention for human review to that particular link insertion. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 06:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Doing a little checking:
	::*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • \|\| • • • • • )</small></span>
	::**This is the vandal that added the links cited above; IP address traceroutes to a ] customer in the U.S.; the exact location is unclear.
	::***The account's sole edit was webmaxsearch gibberish.
	::A Google search on leads to 4 recent User:Veinor/Link count pages which in turn point to more webmaxsearch.com link additions by:
	::*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • \|\| • • • • • )</small></span>
	::**Traceroutes to a ] user in the ] USA area. 17 January's edits are webmaxsearch gibberish, 3 of the others look like schoolkid vandalism.
	::***webmaxsearch.com/?qq=education returns random numbers on the screen ... ''but the source code is full of links.''
	::*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • \|\| • • • • • )</small></span>
	::**traceoutes to a ]/] somewhere in the UK. The 9 February edit is webmaxsearch gibberish, the other is OK.
	::*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • \|\| • • • • • )</small></span>
	::**Traceroutes to a ] user in the greater Chicago area.
	::***This is very interesting -- look at the ] edits. They're a mixture of webmaxsearch gibberish ''and'' classic schoolkid vandalism. The same is true of the other edits except the one to ].
	::*<span class="plainlinks">] <small>(] • ] • ] • • • \|\| • • • • • )</small></span>
	::**Also traceroutes to a ] user in the greater Chicago area.
	::***Of the 8 closely spaced 23 November 2006 edits to ] and ], some are schoolkid vandalism and some are webmaxsearch gibberish. The ] edit contains webaxsearch junk as does the first ] edit; the second is just blanking.
	::The webmaxsearch gibberish looks like classic spambot stuff, yet much of these editors' other stuff looks like kiddie vandalism, even within the same edit as webmaxsearch spam. These IPs are served by cable TV systems and most likely residential customers (although cable systems do handle a few commercial accounts). Any ideas as to what this is?
	::I recommend blacklisting webmaxsearch.com in any event. --] ] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:::Slap something up on the blacklist. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	someone please check this fellow (]. i'd do more but im at work, sorry! ] <sup>]</sup> 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:The link addition is www.anthonytrollope.com, and I have dropped a warning by. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 18:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	== www.artfacts.net spammer - can some admin roll him back please? ==

	About 50 linkspams added today . Thanks. --] 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Reverted and dealt with. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	== www.insearchofheaven.com ==

	Added about 27 times by {{user\|208.30.83.3}}. This is a new link (it has not showed up before, see I have warned. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

	== {{user\|85.82.197.144}} ==

	socks
	* {{user\|85.82.197.144}}
	* {{user\|85.129.25.188}}
	* {{user\|62.135.253.73}}


	search links
	*
	*

	Are the added links. User has a history of adding links see . —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
	:User added a boosttown.com link after your final warning, he got a 24hr time out.--] 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:: The <i>webcast.</i> prefix made your tool miss an IP addr I link tagged. A ] can see it. No big deal but it might be useful if your archive search tool did some smart stripping of domain prefixes. I tend to add tags in the form of <nowiki></nowiki> so if a <i>www.</i> is specified then both the linksearch and your tool will miss it. It is interesting that all 3 IPs and challengeyoursoul.com all resolve to ] with a whois. (] 21:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

	== New tool, again :) ==

	See . The new tool allows searching across multiple wikis with one click. Hope this help you all! Think of it as an improved linksearch. :) —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 04:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Do note this ''is'' different then the prior tool. :) —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 05:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	== itsrugby ==
	Hi, The guys over at ] have spotted that a user ] has been adding links to itsrugby.com Could someone remove them with VandalProof or similar? I don't have the tool. Thanks ] 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	== {{userlinks\|Norcomm}} ==
	User account has been active since January. The first article created was ], and all creations and edits since seem to be for publications, people, and events connected with this particular company. I think I'll also post something at the COI noticeboard. ] ] 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	== ] related COI spammer ==		== ] related COI spammer ==
Line 568:		Line 151:

	:Please calm down. I know you're upset, but you're making demands and regarding people in a very accusatory tone which isn't very civil (]). I'd like to request that all others involved in this matter follow suit and remain civil as well please. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)		:Please calm down. I know you're upset, but you're making demands and regarding people in a very accusatory tone which isn't very civil (]). I'd like to request that all others involved in this matter follow suit and remain civil as well please. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Chat spam ==

	{{user\|81.214.122.124}} seems to be spamming . I've dropped a spam one warning, and he/she/it has continued to post. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 22:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:Gave 3rd and final warnings and continues to spam.--] 23:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:'''Additional Spam sock accounts'''<br>
	{{IPvandal\|85.108.35.87}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|85.107.8.228}}<br>
	{{IPvandal\|88.241.85.233}}<br>--] 23:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	Definatly cross wiki spammer, --] 23:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

	:Here are a few more, the urls that were spammed all seem to have had the string ''sohbet'' in them, and one I reverted today made an attempt to hide the links inside includeonly markup.

	*{{IPvandal\|85.107.216.69}}
	*{{IPvandal\|85.100.65.245}}

	*{{linksearch\|xmekan.com}} xmekan.com
	*{{linksearch\|sohbetodalari.net}} sohbetodalari.net
	*{{linksearch\|cafeterya.com}} cafeterya.com
	--] 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	::The three domains I posted yesterday, were spammed overnight to at least 4 different wiki's, and they started spamming xmekan.com here, but were stopped fairly quickly. --] 11:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

	== endexploitation.org ==

	Seems like a great cause, but they spammed & were warned/reverted last week. Now they are at it again this week.. current count is 27 and climbing. current ID's are:
	*{{userlinks\|Endexploitation}}
	*{{IPvandal\|74.121.168.204}}
	--] 00:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	== all-taxquestions.com ==

	This was spammed across 4 wikis, just one entry on each: en (1), nl (1), pt (1), da (1).
	He registered users on all four wiki's.. on en the user was:

	* {{userlinks\|User:Merilici}}

	I'm not sure if his intent is to run up the hits on the domain, or actually provide tax advice - but with text like this, perhaps he should stick to domain-parking: ''When Time of Father goes in, the question of what to do with the home comes be a larger one concerns. At times, ruminating in the alternatives can dominate a thought. If a person is aware of the several options and he chooses a path that removes the major party the sense, the tranquility often can be the result.'' I reverted it on all 4 wiki's.. --] 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	== ratebeer.com and beeradvocate.com ==		== ratebeer.com and beeradvocate.com ==
Line 653:		Line 196:

	:The more I look at wiki and see the inconsistencies I'd rather not have my site (Beeradvocate.com) listed anywhere here. Jason Alstrom 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)		:The more I look at wiki and see the inconsistencies I'd rather not have my site (Beeradvocate.com) listed anywhere here. Jason Alstrom 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

	== focusdep.com ==

	This site contains quotes and google ads (not necessarily in that order).. there is a COI issue - the links were posted by:
	*{{userlinks\|Omnem}}
	It says right on the site: Powered by: Omnem, Talad, Bruce.
	The site also mentions these four other domains, which don't appear to have been spammed. (yet).
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	--] 08:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	== COIBot ==

	Since a couple of days I am running a bot on the link-addition feeds from en.wikipedia and from SWMT (small wikis) that matches the username against url added and reports when there is too much overlap ('average' 50% both ways; it does generate some false positives, but I guess it is about 80% accurate). The reports go to the spam-watch channels and to ].

	The bot is at the moment only online when I am online, but will be running continuously (bot failure prohibited) when a toolserv account becomes available.

	The bot has a blacklisting and whitelisting option, where one of its operators can add a link between e.g. an IP-number/username and a piece of text, so that these matches can be observed resp. ignored as well. From the database reports can be generated from users, which are stored in ].

	Hope this helps us in our effords to keep wikipedia clean. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 08:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	:Man i've been waiting for a bot like this for a long time. thank you thank you thank you! ] <sup>]</sup> 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Spam link removal from band "lists" ==		== Spam link removal from band "lists" ==
Line 684:		Line 203:

	::In general, I can always find a great deal of external link spam and non-notable entries to clean up in the entire category of ]. I'll go ahead and add this to the Project "To Do" list. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)		::In general, I can always find a great deal of external link spam and non-notable entries to clean up in the entire category of ]. I'll go ahead and add this to the Project "To Do" list. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

	== clusterpulse.org (COI) ==

	Promotional links posted by:
	*{{userlinks\|Clusterpulse}}

	Sites mentioned:
	clusterpulse.org {{linksearch\|clusterpulse.org}}
	globaljagat.com {{linksearch\|globaljagat.com}} --] 08:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	== www.the-planets.com ==

	Someone is stealthily inserting links to advert-rich, content-poor biographies at www.the-planets.com (). The method is similar in many cases; create an account (often with with a name ending in ''wikigirl'') add one link to the site, and move on. Examples: ], ], but see also ]. IMHO it has all the hallmarks of spam, but before I start clearing it I'd like a second opinion. ] 10:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	: it appears that this site at one point was using en.wp content in violation of GFDL (based on the Misplaced Pages namespace pages it's linked in).. It looks like that has been resolved, I compared a few of the bios and en.wp's are better. fwiw.. --] 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	good catch. Its a pure adsense spam site for pub-2076987682246460. Does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article alread contains ]--] 12:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	http://spam.the-planets.com<br>
	Adsense pub-2076987682246460<br>
	:'''Spam sock accounts'''<br>
	{{vandal\|Minkawikigirl}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Gareisman}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Annewikigirl}}<br>
	{{vandal\|WikiClark}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Sunywikiman}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Wikiferi}}<br>
	{{vandal\|WikiPeterMac}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Wikileslieman}}<br>
	{{vandal\|WikiLark}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Gareisman}}<br>
	{{vandal\|ZenSpencer}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Zenpromoman}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Britwikiman}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Huriwikigirl}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Everwikigirl}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Marcoswikigirl}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Goodewikigirl}}<br>
	{{vandal\|WikiMegyn}}<br>
	{{vandal\|WikiCeri}}<br>
	{{vandal\|WikiPardo}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Wikibuono}}<br>
	{{vandal\|WikiThorpe}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Karymeman}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Cheriperson}}<br>
	{{vandal\|Wagnerman}}<br>
	{{vandal\|WikiThorpe}}<br>

	Also a . Note the clever pattern in the names (related to the articles spammed). This is directl related to http://spam.myclassiclyrics.com Linksearch = ( Adsense pub-2076987682246460 ).--] 13:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Prime canidate for a blacklist.. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
	:Please rest assured that I will take action to ensure this does not happen again. -- Minkawikigirl

	==Poweroid==		==Poweroid==
Line 771:		Line 240:

	* See also ]. ] ] 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)		* See also ]. ] ] 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Blocking problem ==

	See this interesting issue raised by one of many users of a shared IP:
	*]
	In a nutshell, the user is complaining that he can't easily check the IP's contribution history while the account is blocked.

	A simple fix would be to include a link to the contribution history in the blocking templates.

	Potentially, a frustrated user might take the problem to his IT department who then might once in a blue moon check the contribution times, track down the offending computer and sanction the user at the time.

	So such a change could occasionally benefit everyone except the offender, especially us. --] ] 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	:Once you get to the talk page you ''can'' see the contribution history - by clicking on the "user contributions" link on the left just like any editor on a talk page can see that user's contributions. I think the problem is more that it needs a link to the user's talk page, where (hopefully) the blocking admin has left some details on the block, as well as giving access to things like the contribution history. -- ] 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

	== thesportsinterview.com ==

	{{linksearch\|*.thesportsinterview.com\|thesportsinterview.com}} got spammed by {{vandal\|SportsInt}} (see also: ). Account has been doing that for some days now, most (all?) edits reverted, user recieved some warnings, but no response. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 21:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	==Startcom revisited==

	An old issue from the archives is now up for deletion. ]

	;→ ''<u>See archive</u>: ] ''

	--] 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

	: I'm surprised no one added any spam tags for , so I did. Did you know that the following domains are all owned by Eddy Nigg?
	:* ]
	:* ]
	:* ]
	:* ]
	: The way that they are embedded in the Startcom articles up for deletion is very spammy. I'll deal with those later if the AfD is a keep. (] 01:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

	:: Just used the new search tools, WOW! It looks like ] has gone cross wiki with this link spam addition . Note that the 212.150.1.40 IP address resolves to Israel which happens to be where ] is headquartered. (] 02:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC))
	:::Go ahead and revert all, and report this to the ]. :) Good work! —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

	::::Some links were added in good faith -- I suggest not blacklisting and just deleting the links added by COI editors. I spent 1-2 hours researching all these links and who contributed them -- see ]. Also, note this strongly word comment at the AfD by the ] of the ]. --] ] 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

	== wedginator.com ==

	Perhaps not a serious case yet, but I could use some help. {{user5\|Wedginator}} has repeatedly added links to {{linksearch\|.wedginator.com\|.wedginator.com}} - a personal/blog/forum site about RC trucks. I removed the links and left a spam1 message on the user page. The links were readded, so I left about WP:EL and WP:COI on the user page. I went back and in violation of WP:EL. Wedginator immediately reverted the edits and I'd rather disengage at this point and if anyone could help out, it would be greatly apprecitated. (Certainly, the RC pages need some link cleaning.) ] 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

	Some more digging finds that {{user5\|Wedginator}} is probably a sock of {{user5\|Nmohan 101}} who added the wedginator.com link as well as similar vandalism to the ] page. Now, {{ipvandal\|69.156.150.226}} is adding the same material, as well. ] 01:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

	== metalfromfinland.com ==		== metalfromfinland.com ==
Line 820:		Line 245:

	:Removed last nine links; clear for now. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 13:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)		:Removed last nine links; clear for now. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 13:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

	== esiweb.org ==

	Link {{linksearch\|esiweb.org\|esiweb.org}}, added by user {{vandal\|Esiweb Berlin}}, . --] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

	==Rootsweb.com==		==Rootsweb.com==
Line 832:		Line 253:

	:::Actually, upon looking more closely, there are over 5,050 links to this website! Most are appropriate, but a great many clearly are not. If you dive in, please use discretion. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 14:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)		:::Actually, upon looking more closely, there are over 5,050 links to this website! Most are appropriate, but a great many clearly are not. If you dive in, please use discretion. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 14:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Political link additions... ==

	I'm not quite sure what to make of . Its an enormous number of link insertions... could someone else have a peak at it. Thank you. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 03:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
	:whoa... the Anti-christ of spam. Since 13 November 2006 only link additions. seems to be focusing on ontheissues.org opensecrets.org vote-smart.org sourcewatch.org recently. I'm thinking ]. His user b ox says ], but Not one entry on that project has been made by him. --] 04:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

	:{{linksearch\|.sourcewatch.org\|sourcewatch.org}} seems particularly interesting, its a mirror Adsense pub-0487681683882920, and same webmaster email as {{linksearch\|.prwatch.org\|prwatch.org}}. with a year of politics ahead, this adsense owner stands to make a mint with hits. --] 05:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
	::Well what should we think about doing something with this... I talked to the user, and he states it is for the U.S. Congress Project (wikiproject) but he states that he has not talked over the link insertions. Ideas are welcome. —— ] </font><sup>]</sup> 19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

	== www.dswarnerlibrary.com ==		== www.dswarnerlibrary.com ==
Line 857:		Line 270:

	:::I have added the {{tl\|dmoz}} template and suggested what I believe to be a reasonable solution at ]. Let's hope it sticks and be done with it. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)		:::I have added the {{tl\|dmoz}} template and suggested what I believe to be a reasonable solution at ]. Let's hope it sticks and be done with it. -- <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

	== saveousports.org ==

	Clear POV edits:
	* {{Spamlink\|saveousports.org}}
	* User {{vandal\|Save OU Sports}}
	Apparently there is a team of people adding the link (according to the site they link () to "Save OU Sports and others have made entries in Misplaced Pages's sites on the Ohio University page, OU Athletic Director Kirby Hocutt's page, and the Ohio Board of Regents page."). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

	=== Save OU Sports A Legitimate Issue Involving U.S. Law ===
	Our site contains our POV but it also contains a great deal about U.S. Law, specifically the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, a law that requires equity in services, course offerings, and athletic opportunities in proportion to race, gender, and other criteria.

	It appears that people who do not want anyone to know that this major issue is one currently involving Ohio University have convinced you that we are spammers. We are not. We are also current students, alumni, and parents of students of Ohio University and we are being shut out from providing this information by your determination that we are spammers.

	Those who may have complained simply do not like our information because it tells the other side of a major story about Ohio University and the general condition of U.S. university athletics. If you Google Title IX, you will find thousands of links to investigate.

	If you visit our site, you will find much about Title IX, the NCAA's positions on Title IX, and links to many other sites dealing with Title IX.

	We are not a commercial site either. Our site is paid for out of our own pockets with no contributions other than from those also associated with Ohio University.

	A great deal of work has gone into producing our site and making important information available to people currently involved in Ohio state higher education, those attending Ohio University, and those contemplating attending.

	We respectfully request that you remove us from "spammer status." We will try to respect your rules in the future.

	Please respond to our request.

	Thank you,
	Save OU Sports{{unsigned\|Save OU Sports}}

	===Save OU Sports is NOT legitimate for Misplaced Pages===
	These people have been "polluting" the OU pages for days with clearly biased POV propaganda. They are trying to accumulate hits for their website and get people to sign a petition (advertising, anyone??). This type of stuff does NOT belong on Misplaced Pages and I hope Save OU Sports and his other "partners in crime" realize that. As a proud OU alum, I hope that thier opinions stay off of my alma mater's page.--] 8:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

	== Link spam - thebabybistro.com - anon SPAs ==		== Link spam - thebabybistro.com - anon SPAs ==

Revision as of 13:12, 10 April 2007

Shortcut

]

Archives
List of archives (with sections)
2005 Archive 2006 Archive Jan & Feb 2006 Archive Mar & Apr 2006 Archive May & Jun 2006 Archive Jul 2006 Archive Aug 2006 Archive Sep 2006 Archive Oct 2006 Archive Nov 2006 Archive Dec 2007 Archive Jan 2007 Archive Feb 2007 Archive Mar 2007 Archive Apr

Milos related COI spammer

Search milos-island.com

hxxp://spam.milos-island.com

Search milos-hotels.org

hxxp://spam.milos-hotels.org

Search milosisforlovers.com

hxxp://spam.milosisforlovers.com

Search iMilos.com

hxxp://spam.iMilos.com

Spam sock accounts

Sites have been added to the spam blacklist. —— Eagle101 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been a contributor to wikipedia, specifically on the listing of my native island of Milos: http://en.wikipedia.org/Milos . On several occasions, I corrected some existing information (corrected spelling of names of some villages) added missing information (such as additional villages of the island), contributed book references (Prof. Colin Renfrew's notable books) and even removed vandalism, i.e., after someone wrote: "Ellgal imgrant from Kroatia" under "Description".

I have even contributed on external links, by editing errors and removing irrelevant links that would have been considered link spam by most logical people. Lately, however, I have been a victim of persecution by a couple of your editors, namely VSmith and Hu12.

I admit I have not read ALL wikipedia rules and I have no idea how absurd, nonsensical, or self-conflicting they might be (and it sounds as if some of them are) simply because I have a life and no time to read every web site's rules. I try to make decisions in life based on common sense. Invariably, however, I find that common sense isn't very common.

I'd like to submit that you ought to know your enemies, and recognize, as opposed to persecute, your friends. What Hu12 and VSmith have done, is to alienate a contributor and a wikipedia friend through hypocrisy and unjustified power trips. It seems that you were rather quick to respond to Hu12's and VSmith's outrageous accusations:

1) My links are not spam. They are relevant, informative, non-commercial, popular websites about the island of Milos, and therefore appropriate as external links on the wikipedia listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/Milos . To equate my websites with the garbage spammers and vandals inflict on wikipedia is gravely insulting to me, and hurts wikipedia's credibility.

Some of your editors obviously do not know, or have an extremely loose definition of, what spam is. I'd be happy to forward to your editors a few hundreds of the garbage I receive in my personal mailbox daily, in order to educate them as to what spam really is.

2) I was informed that I posted "link spam", and my contributions were summarily deleted. I countered that my websites were not commercial. After seeing my contributions disappear a couple of times, I was informed that I should not be "touting my own stuff" so I stopped. Others, totally unrelated to me on either a personal or business level, on their own free will, have added references to the aforementioned websites, but their contributions were summarily deleted as well. It seems that reason is not the criteria here but rather, some editors' egomaniac agenda.

3) I was notified not to post in external links again, but to discuss the matter on the editor's talk page. What a joke! My concerns were not addressed, I only received laconic responses, my last post there was deleted as well, and I was asked to discuss the matter on some other, different, wikipedia forums. A classic case of passing the buck, in other words.

4) Hu12 posted an outrageous comment on your talk page: "...the spammer (who owns all these sites) essentialy states he will not stop". That's an outright lie. I've kept records of all posts of mine on wikipedia, even posts unscrupulously deleted by your editors, and I challenge anyone to point out where I've claimed any such thing.

With all the time he expended removing my contributions, Hu12 obviously should know better. Calling me a "spammer" is yet another grave insult against my person. Hu12 should be ashamed of himself. So offended I am over this unjustifiable accusation and defamation of character, that I seriously consider this as grounds for a lawsuit.

A comment regarding myself on VSmith's talk page was the I have not made any other contributions. This is of course, not true. I simply have changed ISPs in the past, inheriting different IPs as a result. How short-sighted can a person be, to assume that because I have not signed up with a wikipedia handle, I must have made no contributions in the past, whatsoever?

5) Another outrageous comment by Hu12: "...who is also posting under all the above IP's". This is also a lie, which is as outrageous as it is absurd. Take a look at the IPs in question: In order for me to post from these different IPs, I'd have to travel to multiple locations half across the globe in a matter of a few hours! Again, Hu12 should be ashamed of himself, that is, if he had a shred of decency in him.

It has been other people, on their own free will, adding these same websites under external links, obviously because they feel these websites are worthwhile contributions. I have no relationship to those people. In the meantime, discussion is stifled, and rampant accusations fly. So now, since the supposedly "commercial" character of my websites and "conflict of interest" claims of your editors have been totally obliterated, I'd be curious to find out what VSmith's and Hu12's *new* excuse for deleting the relevant and informative Milos external links is or will be.

In any case, I hereby demand that you, unconditionally:

a) remove any and ALL references on wikipedia to my websites as associated with spam or black/brown/block lists, b) retract any of your submissions to 3rd parties including but not limited to websites, where my websites are portrayed as link spam, c) remove ALL accusations on wikipedia against my person as a "spammer", and d) have an official apology issued to me from wikipedia, regarding the lies of your editors, defamation of my character, and misrepresentation of my contributions. - Andreas Belivanakis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.130.26 (talk • contribs)

The links fail WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK. Repeatedly adding the links is WP:SPAM and vandalism. Using multiple accounts or editors to repeatedly add them is sock puppetry. There also appears to be a conflict of interest in Andreas adding them directly to articles. --Ronz 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, you are utterly wrong! My links do NOT fail the wiki guidelines referenced above. Instead of merely mentioning wiki rules, I challenge you to quote specifically where my links violate any wiki guidelines, and watch me rip your weak claim to shreds.

I have NOT used multiple accounts or editors! Your unsubstantiated accusation of "sock puppertry" is outrageous!

And you are also lying outright: I have NEVER added any links (COI or no COI) directly to ANY articles! How dare you!87.202.130.26 00:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Note, this issue has also been brought to my talk page here. —— Eagle101 20:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not make legal threats on Misplaced Pages (WP:LEGAL). Its clear from both discusions (this and on User_talk:Vsmith#Milos) there is contempt for Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies.

...it is a no-brainer that the contribution(s) should be accepted. After all, that's what "external links" is for. Or should I add the URLs one at a time, over a course of 4-5 days, as opposed to all 4 at the same time? 85.74.254.176 05:18, 31 March 2007

By definition, every single website is used for advertising or promotion in one way or another, be it for a product, service, place, concept or idea, person, project, cause, or whatever, so this statement is both contradictory and renders the "rule" unenforceable. 85.74.254.176 06:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Which Harvard MBA, Phi-Betta-Kappa, MENSA honorary member thought of that all-encompassing, self-contradictory, unenforceable and utterly nonsensical rule? 85.74.254.176 06:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

non-commercial, cannot be considered SPAM... 85.74.254.176 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not get drawn into pointless discussions on wikipedia policy... 85.74.254.176 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing inappropriate with the -relevant, non-commercial- external links I provided, plain and simple. 85.74.254.176 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I could have my girlfriend or a friend from across the ocean post external links instead. 85.74.254.176 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The above statements made by this individual, its not difficult to reason that he feels the rules do not apply, and had no intention of discontinuing his behavior. proof of this is the continuing addition of these links after sufficient warnings were given .

This individual has in fact read in length the policies on WP:EL, based on this "interperative" post outlining them.

In summary; Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. The contributions to wikipedia under various sock IP accounts, consist mainly of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not always about commercial sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Misplaced Pages to promote your site are not.--Hu12 22:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

From the wiki guidelines: "A polite, coherent complaint... is not a "legal threat"." I may have been justifiably upset at the treatment and my defamation of character suffered by you, and my complaint may be characterized sarcastic at times, but it was coherent and not a legal threat. I simply made a statement. Having used the word "lawsuit" is not in itself a legal threat, even though I continue to reserve my rights, legal or otherwise.

Hu12, you seem to be a master of selectively taking quotes out of context from my postings in order to bolster your weak argument and unsubstantiated claims.

Yes, ignoring my initial indignant response re: wikipedia rules, I have actually read the rules and as it turns out, they are well-written and in a scholarly fashion. It is the selective interpretation in bad faith of the wiki guidelines by VSmith and Hu12 that is causing all the problems here, not the wiki rules themselves.87.202.130.26 00:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Where do I begin to show you the error of your ways?

Your first quote of the COI guidelines is immediately followed (but conveniently skipped by you) with this:

"If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Misplaced Pages editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines."

Of course, you in particular, have proven to be neither neutral nor independent as you have exhibited bad faith and selective interpretation of the guidelines, so you are NOT to be the one to decide!

I am not sure what you mean by "Sock accounts", but here is what wikipedia's rule is on the subject:

"A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases."

None of the above is what I've done, so put a sock in it. Other, third parties have added the same links as I did, acting independently under their own free will. Anyone can look up the "offending" IPs for heaven's sake and determine they originate from across the globe. It is physically impossible for me to have been the one posting under those IPs, and it would have been too low an act on my part. To accuse me of using "sock" accounts is unfounded at best, an outright absurdity at worst, and I resent the accusation!

"Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love..." No! You do not know what spamming is! Spamming is using unsolicited, illicit methods (such as indiscriminate mass-posting or emailing) to promote something. I did no such thing and strongly and emphatically resent the outrageous accusation! I only posted relevant, informative external links on the appropriate section of the appropriate page!

I have read carefully "Advertising and conflicts of interest", "What to link", "What should be linked", "Links to be considered", "Links normally to be avoided" and I find that my submissions violate NONE of these guidelines. I challenge you, or anyone for that matter, to prove me wrong. However, it is stated that: "There is no tidy list of criteria to help editors determine what counts as a conflict of interest.", and that's where your own personal bias comes into play. Do not confuse my refusal to let you ram down my throat your personal, subjective opinion with my alleged intent to keep "spamming" or "violating the rules".

Moreover: "When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference." And my submissions are exactly the opposite. They are links to relevant, informative websites, posted on the appropriate section, on the appropriate topic, and clearly not intended to promote my own self-interests!

The final blow to your weak, unsubstantiated argument comes with the last line in COI: "Conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is."

Hu12, you need to immediately remove yourself from this conflict resolution as a biased individual with limited understanding of wiki's rules, selective interpretation of same, and marked personal bias against my person, not to mention outright lying. Let's get some reasonable, competent person to mediate this. Please do us all a favor and walk away. 87.202.130.26 00:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The editors who've added the links have been unable to demonstrate how the links are appropriate. --Ronz 00:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because the burden is not on any contributors to do so? There is no template or any indication whatsoever that while contributing to wikipedia, one must also demostrate how a link is appropriate. On the contrary, according to wikipedia itself regarding removal of links: "Err on the side of caution..." 87.202.130.26 01:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The situation has been explained politely, at this point Please do not feed the troll--Hu12 00:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The situation has not been explained adequately, and there has been no resolution. In fact, you keep piling up the insults against me, and I won't tolerate that! How dare you call me a spammer? How dare you call me a troll, while you hide behind a 4-character handle and do not even provide a way (such as a talk page) to be contacted? How dare you? 87.202.130.26 01:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. I know you're upset, but you're making demands and regarding people in a very accusatory tone which isn't very civil (WP:CIVIL). I'd like to request that all others involved in this matter follow suit and remain civil as well please. JoeSmack 02:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ratebeer.com and beeradvocate.com

These two are similar sites, both having a commercial background, giving information on beers. Partially professional reviews, but also in part personal reviews ('bloggy'?) .

I have been removing a whole set of beeradvocate.com links but stopped when I was contacted by the Beer wikiproject (they disagreed with my cleaning). There now is a discussion there about these links, one of the contributors to the discussion is involved in beeradvocate.com. --Dirk Beetstra 07:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, User:Beetstra claimed that those links were blacklisted, and when asked to show where or by whom didn't do so...meanwhile, the user in question from BeerAdvocate, User:Jalstromb, has not been adding the links at all. The links to RateBeer, BeerAdvocate, and QuaffAle satisfy every one of WP:EL's criteria, and nobody is trying to promote any of the sites for commercial reasons; they're simply the best online resources out there in terms of completeness for contact information and pictures of the breweries. As for the reviews, yes, they're a mix of professional and amateur, but it's not the reviews we're linking to, it's the extended beer and brewery info beyond what can reasonably be put on the page. --Stlemur 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

When seeing "What should be linked", it could satisfy point 4, when linked to the professional reviews (though that is not what is being linked, most, if not all, links are to brewery profiles. Information that is also available from the official website, no need to link to beeradvocate.com/ratebeer.com. Same goes for contact details, that is also available from the official homepage of the brewery (and we are not the yellow pages). When looking at "Links normally to be avoided":

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article - I do not see where this gets satisfied, the information is available from the official homepage, no need to link to any of these three.
4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. - The sites exist to sell the magazines, see the banners.
5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. - OK, this one is not very strong, but it does contain a couple of banners. We can argue if it is 'objectable'
11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. - a part of the site is written by people not connected to the site, volunteers.

In conclusion, only the professional reviews would be usable as external links. But it does lead also to linkfarms, as e.g. on Independence_Brewing_Company (see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY.

Regarding the blacklisting, the blacklisting has been performed after 66.31.138.220 added a long list of links in a short time. Blacklisting was performed while the additions occurred, see User talk:66.31.138.220, where shadowbot clearly states "However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Misplaced Pages. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule beeradvocate\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages.".

When seeing the discussion on the homepage, the owners of the website apparently have enough interest in the links (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article - I do not see where this gets satisfied, the information is available from the official homepage, no need to link to any of these three.

This is, unfortunately, not true. Many breweries' official homepages are outdated, incomplete, or nonexistent; this is particularly so in the case of produc lists. The BeerAdvocate and RateBeer links are often much more up-to-date. As an example, Marble Beers' site has been like this for over a year, while the equivalent BeerAdvocate page is clearly much more useful.

4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. - The sites exist to sell the magazines, see the banners.

This is an incorrect assessment. The website's been around since 2000, but the magazine only started in January 2007. While the magazine is currently the New Thing, the website has never been a commercial venture for commerce's sake.

5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. - OK, this one is not very strong, but it does contain a couple of banners. We can argue if it is 'objectable'

No, it's not very strong indeed. There's a banner ad at the top, one at the bottom, and maybe one on the side; there are some Wikia pages with more advertising.

11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. - a part of the site is written by people not connected to the site, volunteers.

There are user submissions, yes. That doesn't make it a blog or a personal page; the portions of the site that we're making use of, contact information and product lists, are maintained and verified by designated regional moderators. --Stlemur 05:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That the information on the homepage of a brewery is not complete or outdated says something about the notability of a brewery. Moreover, we are not the yellow pages, so linking to an address information is questionable anyway. Seen the link that is provided on the brewery sites, these pages hardly contain necessary information. The address cannot be included and it is not necessary to link to it, and the list of beers can be incorporated.

I am following the discussion on the wikiproject beer, and I see there that also its reliability is questioned. Indeed, the people keeping the beeradvocate site running are not specialists (see the about page, one of the maintainers dropped his daytime job last August to work full-time on the site). So I think also WP:EL point 2 applies. As a response to 4: they are now commercial, before that they were 'a personal website', that does not make them reliable, and 11: there are 100,000 users submitting their reviews. I see on the wikiproject beer the point from Jalstrom "Be Consistent Or Remove All Links" .. I would say, remove all links to these personal or bloggy sites, except where they are used as a reference to attribute something. --Dirk Beetstra 08:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at wiki and see the inconsistencies I'd rather not have my site (Beeradvocate.com) listed anywhere here. Jason Alstrom 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam link removal from band "lists"

On my rounds doing work for WP:ALBUM, I obviously come across a lot of spam articles and links – which I delete with mucho gusto! The latest article I came across was List of post-rock bands which consisted of a lot of entries with an external link rather than a link to a Misplaced Pages article. Here's what I cleared on the first sweep. Just a heads up for this project, really, that this sort of list article (although mainly used correctly) is a breeding ground for spam, which, as I say, I will continue to clean up as soon as I see it. Bubba hotep 08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work on clearing this up Bubba. A lot of these lists become directories, and I imagine some of the band lists could be worse than average. If you ever need assistance, let us know. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, I can always find a great deal of external link spam and non-notable entries to clean up in the entire category of Category:Lists of musicians by genre. I'll go ahead and add this to the Project "To Do" list. -- Satori Son 01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Poweroid

I'd like some suggestions of what, if anything, should be done about Poweroid (talk · contribs)'s inclusion of external links. See COI/N for some details and background (that's not very well organized).

Poweroid has been editing with this account since 15 October 2004. He appears to have edited earlier as 213.235.36.175 (talk · contribs). He admits to adding external links to his clients' websites to many articles. These client sites include bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk, bestpricecomputers.co.uk, experienced-people.co.uk. There also many others that he's not yet confirmed as clients such as techbooksforfree.com, dogtraininghq.com, pregnancyetc.com, and bringingupbaby.com.

I've estimated he's added these links to over 80 articles, mostly around December 2006. At this point, I think almost all of his external link additions have been removed.

He often doesn't log in, instead appearing at what I assume is a dynamic ip:

80.247.87.235 (talk · contribs) May-Sep'06 rstrd experienced-people to Creative accounting, etc
80.247.88.109 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestpricecomputers to Market risk etc
80.247.88.200 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestpricecomputers to Customer service and Cartography and Map
80.247.89.111 (talk · contribs) Nov '06 added dogtraininghq.com to Crate (pet), Housebreaking, etc
80.247.89.250 (talk · contribs) Mar '06 appears to be Poweroid - didnt add any ELs
80.247.90.6 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestpricecomputers to Disk array and Business continuity planning
80.247.90.129 (talk · contribs) Jan '07 added bestpricecomputers to Supply chain
80.247.91.198 (talk · contribs) Nov-Dec'06 ? dogtraininghq.com
80.247.92.112 (talk · contribs) Nov '06 added bestpricecomputers to Product Manager, etc
80.247.92.227 (talk · contribs) Jan '07 added bestpricecomputers to Process management
80.247.92.229 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestprice...ltd.uk to Ultra-Mobile PC, LG XNOTE, Toughbook, etc; added bestpricecomputers to Overclocking
80.247.93.129 (talk · contribs) Aug '06 added techbooksforfree to Computer networking
80.247.93.186 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestpricecomputers to Systemic risk, Depreciation, etc
80.247.94.110 (talk · contribs) Dec '06 added bestpricecomputers to Relationship marketing and Asset
80.247.94.180 (talk · contribs) Nov '06 added bestpricecomputers to Fixed assets management and Acadian Asset Management
80.247.94.172 (talk · contribs) Jan '07 added bestpricecomputers to Voice over IP; added bestprice...ltd.uk to Multiprocessing
80.247.94.208 (talk · contribs) Dec-Jan'07 added bestpricecomputers to OpenDocument and Decision support system
80.247.95.21 (talk · contribs) Dec '07 added bestpricecomputers to Intranet strategies
80.247.95.57 (talk · contribs) Oct-Nov'06 added experienced-people to Business broker and Emergency management (added allaboutiq to Inventive step and non-obviousness), added bestpricecomputers to Dashboard (interface)

I've a list of articles too.

If nothing else, this is an interesting case of an editor adding a large amount of spam for an extended period of time without notice. --Ronz 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the extensive discussion over at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Poweroid resulted in removal of the links by that noticeboard's editors based on COI concerns. Seems like a good call to me. -- Satori Son 13:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Refusal to cooperate. — Athænara ✉ 01:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

metalfromfinland.com

Link metalfromfinland.com, added by MetalGod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), cross wiki (COIBot report). English additions reverted. --Dirk Beetstra 18:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed last nine links; clear for now. -- Satori Son 13:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rootsweb.com

Rito Revolto is adding a bunch of links to genealogies on rootsweb.com. It may be a legit website and a good reference but the volume and timing makes me suspicious; I defer to those more knowledgeable and experienced. --ElKevbo 22:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He's adding the link where it's unnecessary (eg the information is already verified from existing sources). --Ronz 23:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And most of the added links are to the site's forum, which is obviously not appropriate even if it is an otherwise acceptable website resource. Still over 200 links, so assistance with evaluation and, where justified, removal would be greatly appreciated. See linksearch results at rootsweb.com. -- Satori Son 14:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, upon looking more closely, there are over 5,050 links to this website! Most are appropriate, but a great many clearly are not. If you dive in, please use discretion. Thanks, Satori Son 14:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

www.dswarnerlibrary.com

Any thoughts on these? Many of them seem to have been added by this new user yesterday. I am reluctant to act purely on instinct in the religious area, but I did leave some related questions at Talk:List of Protestant authors. --CliffC 14:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Question withdrawn. User has removed his non-notable additions from Talk:List of Protestant authors and on closer review I have no problem with the other edits. Perhaps I was too hasty. --CliffC 13:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible link problem at Rule of Rose

This link ] has led to huge edit wars on Rule of the Rose, ridiculous, I know. I am just an observer, I noticed the first problems at GAC. Can't we just ban this link from ever being added again or something. It has resulted in off wiki canvassing, vote stacking and relentless edit wars, all over the fact that someones stupid Geocities site keeps getting added back. The article even has some kind of protection on it, absolutely out of control for a "low" importance, start class video game article. Any help in this area would be appreciated. IvoShandor 01:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dystopos seems to be intent on letting the link stand, which is a very bad idea if we ever want to see peaceful collaboration on this article again. The link is certainly spam, but whether editors will let it die is another question entirely. Shadow1 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

More input on this is warrented, seems to have gone over the edge. --Hu12 05:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link as the usual method is to discuss contentious material and then add it not the other way around. This is completely out of hand over there though. IvoShandor 12:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added the {{dmoz}} template and suggested what I believe to be a reasonable solution at Talk:Rule of Rose#Possible compromise on external links. Let's hope it sticks and be done with it. -- Satori Son 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Link spam - thebabybistro.com - anon SPAs

Link spam (Special:External links) for The Baby Bistro added to cuisine articles by the following SPA userIPs in the past week:

190.30.8.229 (talk · contribs)
190.30.15.138 (talk · contribs)
201.252.9.121 (talk · contribs) +
201.252.11.62 (talk · contribs)
201.252.22.207 (talk · contribs)
201.252.23.204 (talk · contribs)
201.252.48.36 (talk · contribs)
201.252.50.225 (talk · contribs)
201.253.128.39 (talk · contribs) +
201.253.208.107 (talk · contribs) +
201.253.238.229 (talk · contribs) + (11th found after AIV report & blocks)

Thirty articles hit so far—I'm not sure I found all the userIPs. — Athænara ✉ 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

All gone. Also 201.253.208.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). MER-C 04:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yowza, that's great - you reverted the ~~last one~~ (201.252.9.121) while I was warning the talk page and adding it here. — Æ. ✉ 05:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC) (and you found a ninth one too, WTG!)

An AIV report got ten blocked for two days each. — Athænara ✉ 06:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

nearthworth.com - marcfiszman.com

User Marcfiszman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) first added nearthwood over a period of time:

neartworth.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

And today the links were all renamed to marcfiszman

marcfiszman.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I have cleaned them all (all mp3-files). --Dirk Beetstra 07:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Socceraust.co.uk

Forgot to report this one. User Socceraust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adds continuously:

socceraust.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

All to the domain, not to specific documents. No reactions of user to explain his actions after several warnings. --Dirk Beetstra 08:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

user:90.240.106.1‎ has now two times removed all links and images from pages where user:socceraust has added the links to. Seems like a WP:POINT. --Dirk Beetstra 23:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

fundistraction.com

User fundistraction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added this link to several articles over the last couple of days:

fundistraction.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

User notified of spamming and coi. --Dirk Beetstra 08:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

flomotions.com

User Flomo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is inserting:

flomotions.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Looks like a COI, I have reverted and left the user a message. --Dirk Beetstra 11:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

parallelperception.com / geert-hofstede.com / nourishingperspectives.com

202.169.242.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is now adding numerous links of parallelperception.com, earlier also other links:

parallelperception.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
geert-hofstede.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
nourishingperspectives.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I have cleaned his latest additions. --Dirk Beetstra 11:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

carandbikeforum.com

Adsense pub-0574651796382489
carandbikeforum.com/ is a scrapper site that violates the copyright of other automotive news sites. There has been an ongoing spam campaign for several months that is only beginning to come to light.

Today: 122.164.147.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Example diff: carandbikeforum.com/cnbforum/2006/11/new-fiat-palio-in-india-by-jan-2007/ vs. http://www.autocarindia.com/new/Information.asp?id=1559

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

Example diff: carandbikeforum.com/cnbforum/2007/03/863 vs. http://www.vicky.in/straightfrmtheheart/fiat%E2%80%99s-indian-punto/

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

diff - www.carandbikeforum.com/cnbforum/2006/10/indica-silhouette/ vs. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zjIRcr4YR_wJ:www.autocarindia.com/new/Information.asp%3Fid%3D1433+Want+to+drive+Porsche+911+owners+round+the+bend&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Can't find who added it to Audi TT, but another example of copyvio:

www.carandbikeforum.com/cnbforum/2006/11/audi-tt/ vs. http://www.topgear.com/drives/A2/C2/roadtests/21/01.html

This suggests to me that there is no reason to ever link to this site. If others agree, I'll propose it for the blacklist.

P.S. 72.70.176.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is unrelated, but their links to http://www.fourtitude.com should be investigated, too. Nposs 17:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

New anonymous IP spam today (looks like its cleaned-up at the moment: 122.164.144.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Nposs 14:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

dennisking.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

According to his userpage, the user operates the above website. Over a period of time, the user has apparently added numerous links to his own website in citations and links for several articles.

I could add many more examples, but I think the above is enough to make my point, along with the fact that this is still continuing today - diff.

I'll also file a report at WP:COIN but cleanup will be difficult as many of the link additions are embedded in material citations. I'm not even going to get into the WP:SPS problems here. RJASE1 19:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional info at WP:COIN, including an apparent IP address. For anyone who hasn't already made the connection, this Wikipedian is apparently Dennis King. RJASE1 20:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing spam

, and point to some complicated spam going on, which I don't have time to look at. Notinasnaid 22:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is odd. I've removed all the links and warned the users. As far as I can tell there are 5 sites involved and 4 IP addresses that I've found so far:

Sites:

afifpoem.com linksearch
afif.ws linksearch
afif2.com linksearch
afifup.com linksearch
afifchat.com linksearch

IP addresses:

212.93.223.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
87.101.244.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
72.3.137.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.60.85.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

All the sites are in an Arabic script, so I can't tell exactly what they do, but they are clearly incompatible with WP:EL. They're also all registered to AFIF GATE ENTERPRISE (except afif.ws which is anonymous - but the others all use the afif.ws name servers...) which says it's based in New York. 3 of the 4 IP addresses are based in Saudi Arabia but one is UK.

Is there a way to add afif* to the spam bot's pattern search?

Also there are some on other wikis (see the results from Eagle's fabulous tool:afif.ws on the top 20 wikis but I don't know how to get help checking and removing these. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add to the list 87.101.244.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who added www.afif.ws/sahat to Rochester, New York -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.carscoop.blogspot.com

Adsense pub-1597089000639545
carscoop.blogspot.com

Spam sock accounts

Kaka34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jj26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
87.202.29.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 00:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

anti-slaverysociety.addr.com

Here is yet another good cause, spamming links to articles, with 14 added as external links in the last 24hrs. This site is clearly non-commercial, has worthwhile information and could be a good reference if used appropriately.

anti-slaverysociety.addr.com
PBC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Versageek 07:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It also seems to be completely copied content from anti-slaverysociety.org (which does not appear to have been spammed). -- Siobhan Hansa 19:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Up-selling

I'm posting here, but probably just to get direction on a more appropriate venue for discussion.

88.152.22.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user started spamming mekashron.com, but now has changed to just promoting the company, Mekashron Business, directly by mentioning it as part of an edit . I'd like recommendations on how to handle such situations, as well as techniques for finding similar edits. I'm classifying it as a NPOV violation, and have warned the editor.

This same article had a more sophisticated version of what I consider this type of promotional editing, internal link spamming of GoDaddy . These problesm are a bit easier to find, but I figured I'd ask for help since it's the same article and a similar problem. --Ronz 18:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

foodwishes.blogspot.com

Editor foodwishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been spamming external links to video-recipes of several dishes.

foodwishes.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com .

All his edits are reverted. --Dirk Beetstra 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

learningtorah.org

Many link additions over time by torahorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Link:

learningtorah.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hardly any hits in mainspace is almost clean, apparently all have been cleaned already. --Dirk Beetstra 20:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(always)alwaysmaiarawalsh.net.ms

User alwaysmaiarawalsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and IP 71.178.0.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) were continuously adding:

alwaysmaiarawalsh.net.ms: 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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Clear case of WP:COI, followed by vandal edits. --Dirk Beetstra 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User and sock are already blocked for 1 week and 48 hours, respectively. -- Satori Son 00:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

wpe-pro.net and wpepro.net

On Winsock_packet_editor

This is an odd situation, either some sort of content dispute or spam on the part of 24.182.107.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posting wpe-pro.net.

The page was created by: Bradyok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who claims authorship of the application, and states the official site is wpepro.net. Most of the mainstream information I could find via Google, suggests this to be a valid claim - however, this application is popular with the warez crowd - and the number of Warez site hits far outnumber mainstream hits..

An issue of concern, is that this application is also recognized my most antivirus/anti-spyware groups to be spyware and/or a trojan (because it can be used that way) so, it is in the interest of Misplaced Pages users that the page display the correct information - and not some alternate site.

I have no idea what to do with this, so I'm tossing it up here.. maybe you can help :) --Versageek 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

medicalcomputing.net

Adsense pub-3271807191893451
medicalcomputing.net

Looks very spammy and don't have time to investigate right now. The one I removed from Usability had only a couple more links in it that weren't already in the article. The next article I looked at with it was Web Ontology Language, to which I decided I didn't have the time for. --Ronz 02:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

bellevuelinux.org

Another one I found that was recently added to Usability that looked questionable. I left it in, but the linksearch looks a bit questionable. Putting it here in case someone wants to investigate before I get the time. --Ronz 03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nasty link trick

Observe the technique used to add the link removed in this diff . This is not innocuous apart from the link. It adds vast quantities of white space to the end of the article (). Not sure if anything can be done. Notinasnaid 10:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thats a new one to me. Good catch. Anyone seen this in the wild used to promote? JoeSmack 12:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted another one, but I can't find it back anymore. Did not realise it was a trick at that point (it was just annoying, thought it was a render-error). --Dirk Beetstra 12:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories: