Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:51, 19 March 2007

• ]

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

The European Library

Note: Lately there are link-additions to The European Library from people (e.g. User:Fleurstigter; sent me an email from an address at kb.nl) and IP addresses (e.g. User:194.171.184.4) of the "Koninklijke Bibliotheek" (Dutch Royal Library). The Koninklijke Bibliotheek is one of the participants in the project. I have notified the acconts that they have a conflict of interest, and have removed links to this site added by people in this range. --Dirk Beetstra 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why can't I refer to resources that are stored in Europe's national libraries? How can you call that spam?Fleurstigter 11:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What better place than a library (most def. a gateway to many national libraries!!!) to find quality resources. If this is not allowed you should also ban comparable (public + commercial) sites.

Why does it matter who points users of wikipedia to these high-quality library resources? We are talking here about LIBRARIES: isn't great that libraries and wikipedia finally find each other?

Furthermore, I think it's unacceptable that one person logs my doings by the second, and delete my contributions in the 2nd second - not even give others a moment to take a look at it, place a comment, etc.. Fleurstigter 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't approve of most of Fleurstiger's diffs I have looked at all, but this is an important site. It would make much more sense to block her, and even her colleagues if necessary, than the site. Her attempts at new articles are hopeless, in at least one case duplicating an existing article, and it is odd that a Library employee of all people can't tell the difference between an illuminated manuscript and a printed book. Johnbod 04:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fleur Stigter is adding the links and indeed, in her early edits, was quite disruptive in her writing style. Fleur has been notified of that, and Fleur is discussing the edits on different talkpages (but was until lately also still adding the links to documents). That would not warrant a block IMHO, but I am in no way impartial and could not decide anyway. Moreover, the link gets added by some IP's as well (I know of 2, both of which relate to Dutch libraries). IP's only get blocked for a relatively short time, and I am sure we don't know all IP's that are involved. When multiple accounts and IP's get involved, indeed maybe other measures should be considered.

The link can still be added to wikipedia articles. The site is blacklisted in shadowbot, which means that plain additions of the link will be reverted once (as in e.g. external link sections); if the link gets readded to the same document it will not be re-reverted (but the bot-operators will be notified of the readdition, and the readdition will likely be evaluated; small warning: shadowbot has an angry mode, which is activated in severe cases and for a short time, in that case link-additions get re-reverted. It is then better to wait or contact one of the operators; warning levels do increase on every addition). Another way of adding the link which should not get reverted is by using the link inside a citation template or within reference tags. Shadowbots heuristics should recognise the template or the reference tags, and not revert (again, the bot operators are warned of this addition and the addition will likely be evaluated).

Of course if you would add the plain links to many different documents, shadowbot would revert all first additions, increasing his warning level on every addition (but even for a relatively fast user: the user should see the orange 'you have new messages' banner before the third addition is made, if the user is faster s/he would not have time to evaluate the appropriateness of the additions anyway). If the additions occur in a relatively short time that may result in the user being reported to WP:AIV (warning level 5). Hope this explains a bit more of shadowbots working. --Dirk Beetstra 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Most of the links I am concerned with are for pictures. As one of the editors active in illuminated MS & to some extent printed books, it still seems to me her recent edits need so much clearing up they are on the whole of negative benefit to the project. Johnbod 14:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures should, where possible, be uploaded, and they can of course always be references ('The picture clearly shows a something.<ref> retrieved from The European Library</ref>'). I would not see any problem whatsoever with this way of linking. And if one adds the link with a good, extensive edit summary (or first a remark on the talkpage and pointing there in the edit summary), allows one shadowbot revert, and re-adds it, I doubt if shadowbots operators would then not leave it there. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes - their pictures are, in the "Treasures" (highlights) section anyway, pretty low resolution, which makes me reluctant to put them on Commons, but they are often the only ones available. References are, as you say, the way to go I think. Johnbod 02:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

spilsbycycles.co.uk

The small town of Spilsby has a bicycle shop.

1. This set of edits (11 May 2006) told us: Visit Spilsby Cycles . For A Great Range Of Bicycles At Great Prices. Serivicing & Repairs Also Available. 44 High Street, Spilsby, Lincolnshire. PE23 5JH. Tel:07789 308553 Email: info@spilsbycycles.co.uk New Bikes With 12 Months Warranty, Adult & Kids Models Too. (I deliberately screwed up the URL here.) Quickly zapped, of course.
2. A simpler version of the spam was reinserted in this set of edits (12 June 2006)
3. And again on 15 June.
4. And again on 18 August.
5. And again on 16 September.
6. And again on 21 October.
7. And again later on the same day.
8. And again on 1 March 2007.
9. And again on 14 March.

I started by AGF and being polite with this spammer, but it's clear that he (I always think of spammers as male) is uninterested in WP and is merely keen to spam his shop, making crude attempts to hide this by altering existing, legitimate links. I no longer bother to be polite with him. I know that there's a mechanism for automangling particular URLs, and ask that it is invoked for spilsbycycles.co.uk. If this isn't the place for such a request, please tell me where I should go. Thanks. -- Hoary 02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically it needs to be blacklisted although repeating for just a single page makes it a bit of an overkill. Someone here might propose it for the blacklist --BozMo talk 09:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. It needs to be blacklisted. You say: Someone here might propose it for the blacklist. Huh? I just did propose it for the blacklist, on 15 March 2007. Apparent effect of my proposal: Zero. If I could have made my proposal this in a more effective way/place, I'd like to know how/where. "A bit of an overkill"? Well, I think this Spilsby Cycles twit is "overkilling" by attempting nine times to spam his silly shop. No, actually ten times; because, predictably, he did it again:

• Right here

How many more times may he attempt to spam before blocking his domain is no longer "overkill"? Another ten times? Twenty?

Or should I "assume good faith", thinking that the use of yet another IP to simultaneously insert a link to a bicycle store and delete a worthwhile link was just the ignorant mistake of some well-intentioned person who honestly believes that a bicycle shop is of encyclopedic significance? -- Hoary 03:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the tip in a section below: this request is now listed where it matters. -- Hoary 06:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

     SORRY

hi, i just want to let you know that i am sorry for the edits i have made to the "spilsby" town page on wikipedia. i kept putting the link to that cycles shop on there, then when i checked back a few days later etc it had vanished. i only kept putting it back on because i thought i must have entered it wrongly. i did'nt know that there were messages for me about it, i have only just clicked on this 'discussions page' and did not know you could talk to other users.

from now on all of my edits will be for the greater good, i have turned over a new leaf, and don't want to upset anyone. i have added a picture i took of the bus stop being built in the town, and a few other links (non-commercial) about the town etc.

i am not up on all this technical stuff, and did'nt mean to make you mad.

many thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/User:C.thompson

I'm glad to hear that Thompson. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom Anderson is a busy boy

I trust that the article on Anderson Analytics should be deleted, based on its creator's edit history and the topics of interest of its most recent anonymous editor? Link spam, too! Another obvious violation brought to you by The SpamWatcher 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That one is an obvious speedy delete for no claim to notability, and I've deleted it. --BozMo talk 16:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is this man Jon Marchant?

Wondering who Jon Marchant is, one might turn to Google. Looks like he works for a firm called BRMB. I wonder if that company has a Misplaced Pages article about itself? I wonder who is writing that article today? Take action, spam fighters. I am off to find more perpetrators. This is The SpamWatcher 16:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The L J Marchant you refer to was publishing papers from the BMRB in 1971. Seems a fair bet he has retired by now. --BozMo talk 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably his son, then. Certainly not a "neutral" contributor to the article. Don't you agree? --SpamWatcher 16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks a pretty neutral article to me. A little untidy. I wonder if you are really looking for conflicts of interest (which has its own noticeboard) rather than spam. And why not ask the author if he has a conflict of interest? Notinasnaid 16:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They can't "Compete" with The SpamWatcher

It's always interesting to see an anonymous user take such an active interest in 57% of the edits on an article. Even more interesting when they point out that their company is a competitor of larger, more reputable firms. Time to delete Compete, Inc, WikiProject Spam, and don't forget all those spammy "competitor" references, too. This has been another noble service of The SpamWatcher 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, is this a notable company?

Seems that we have a single-purpose account junking up Misplaced Pages. This offends The SpamWatcher 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please could you post speedy delete tags on these articles and not bring them here? Thanks. See WP:CSD if you want help on doing this --BozMo talk 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that brings a sort of conflict of interest into play. Since I am feeling personally fulfilled at the expense of these violators, it would be inappropriate for me to actually bring action against them myself. I would much prefer if independent analysts would look at the evidence I present, then take the action they themselves feel is appropriate. Plus, I don't want to be drawn into the inevitable ensuing "discussions and debates" with the said violators of Misplaced Pages's spam policies. You know, Batman doesn't actually prosecute the Penguin in the courtroom. So, you either take The SpamWatcher as he is, or I abandon my effort altogether. As always, I am your SpamWatcher 17:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, then ignore my question latter on. I didn't read your reply here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it okay for SEO experts to build Misplaced Pages ads for their employers?

Wow. This one takes the cake. Check out the edit history of the article for Global Market Insite. It's dominated by single-purpose anon IP edits, plus a ton of edits from User:Irishlaw. About half of all of Irishlaw's edits relate to the GMI article that he created. His own User page states: "I work at GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.) in the Internet marketing and web development department. I perform in-house SEO - SEM." Looks like he's expanding that "in-house" search engine marketing to "our house". Please take care of this, WikiProject Spam. Until next time, I am The SpamWatcher 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is GMI even notable ? -- Nick 17:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added prod to it. --BozMo talk 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Serving notice on Infosurv

The article about Infosurv was created last year by a user named Infosurv. The article's references are nothing but press releases. I thought WP:CORP says a company needs to have multiple, independent sources to qualify for inclusion in Misplaced Pages? Don't forget the helpful edits of this anon IP and this one. You have been "surved" by The SpamWatcher 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone concerned that the creator of this article has the same name as the topic of the article? Your SpamWatcher 01:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it was created a year ago, I don't think this is the kind of urgent situation we normally would deal with here. However, it does look like a good candidate for AfD for failing the notability criteria of WP:CORP (but I don't think its Speediable). I slapped a PROD on it and we'll see what happens. -- Satori Son 01:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack Myers, say it ain't so!

You've got to be kidding me on this one. Reads like an advertising brochure. Created by a single-purpose account who likes uploading pictures of Jack Myers. Then, the article is nurtured by a user called MediaVillage who has been busily adding spam links to mediavillage.com all over popular Misplaced Pages articles. Oh, guess who owns MediaVillage? I'll give you a hint. His initials are J.M. and the surname rhymes with Spamyers. Chalk up another one for The SpamWatcher 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. -Marcusmax 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it. Just very blatant (but CSD is better than here for these) --BozMo talk 21:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Maritz -- created by whom, verified by none?

I have some real problems with the way Maritz Inc. was created (by a single-purpose account), and has for the most part remained completely unsourced, unverified, and unchanged since that original creation. All kinds of fantastic, spammy claims are made ("known as one of the largest providers in the world of market research to the automotive industry", "an industry leader by taking advantage of the huge growth of rewards programs", and "well-known within the industry as a leader"). The article also claims that the company once boasted "nearly 7,000 employees", but says nothing of the current number. All of these claims need to be cited, and this doesn't count as an independent source. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a business brochure, and I am The SpamWatcher 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nincompoop Business Revealing Its Identity (NBRII)

Why am I not the least bit surprised that the article NBRII was created by a User named NBRII? Come on, Wikipedians. We're being overrun with companies writing their own Misplaced Pages articles. Isn't that against the rules? Still undeterred, I am The SpamWatcher 02:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, did you just jump into Misplaced Pages the day before yesterday to go through the Category:Marketing research companies looking for WP:COI issues? Are you planning on branching out at some point? And it would actually be really helpful if you could learn the CSD - PROD - AfD deletion process yourself. I know you've got the whole "Batman doesn't prosecute" thing going on, but this talk page here is mostly used to fight hard core commercial link spamming and the like. Not that I don't appreciate your enthusiasm... -- Satori Son 02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Marketing research was just the easiest jumping off point, because they are pure business-to-business models, and therefore (I figured) the most immune to "everyday consumer" verification on Misplaced Pages. Joe Blow Wikipedian is more likely to catch Sony or Panera Bread or Pontiac creating or editing their own articles for promotional purposes. I figured WikiProject Spam could use more help in this less-obvious B2B category. Once I am done with marketing research, I think I'll move on to management consulting firms -- they're full of bullshit artists. After that, the information technology biz. As for going through the "process" of CSD, PROD, and AfD myself; again, no thank you. I am enjoying the investigatory process much more, and if you WikiProject Spammers SpamFighters are not satisfied having these offending spammers served up to you on a silver platter like this, then frankly, you don't deserve the voluntary aid of The SpamWatcher 02:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice accidental strike-out of the word spammers above. A bit of repressed anger perhaps? I wonder if you are Batman or maybe you are really The Penguin? Nice trick in getting us to do the dirty work of eliminating your competition for you. Does anyone remember any companies in the Category:Marketing research companies that were AfD'd or black listed recently? The Spam Watcher doesn't seem to understand that pointing out wiki-spam is the easy part. (Requestion 03:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Are you failing on both WP:AGF and WP:NPA, Requestion? If you think the careful research that I have been doing, which has been independently vetted by upstanding WikiProject Spam members (and in several cases found to be delete-worthy spam), is somehow "the easy part", then I think you owe me an apology. Being that my intentions are being questioned here, I'll point out that I have left completely alone about a dozen marketing research company articles so far, because I found that they were created by respected contributors to Misplaced Pages and have appropriate documentation of their claims. I think you've forgotten the principles by which we are fighting spam. If you're not comfortable with what I am doing, then ask all those who have taken action on my leads why they did so. Surely, you aren't saying they are all merely meatpuppets of The SpamWatcher 04:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I agree with (Requestion). We are only required to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and you calling us "spammers" is an odd play for one of the good guys.

So I'm going to go ahead and ask outright: What other Misplaced Pages accounts have you used to edit? If you cannot openly and honestly answer, then I, for one, would prefer that you not post here. Thank you, Satori Son 12:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be so quick to judge. I called the "WikiProject Spam" team "spammers" because I didn't know how else to personify one who works on "WikiProject Spam". I suppose I could have said "WikiProject Spammites" or "WikiProject Spamophiles" or perhaps "WikiProject Spammians", but I typed "WikiProject Spammers". Of course I realize that folks like Satori Son, Spartaz, and BozMo are most certainly not "spammers". They are fighting spam, and that's why I corrected my label to read "SpamFighters" (although one could still interpret that this means you are fighting the "WikiProject", not "spam", but we'll leave it at this). As for this demand of knowing "other Misplaced Pages accounts", I was under the impression that what's important on Misplaced Pages are "the edits, not the editor". You should assume that I am a long-time reader, new contributor to Misplaced Pages. If you are dissatisfied with the way I am bringing clear cases of spam to the attention of the WikiProject Spam, then I will merely cease my efforts and apply my time to organizations other than Misplaced Pages. You guys can let me know which you choose for The SpamWatcher 13:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I am happy for you to post these kind of things on my talkpage if you don't want to use the speedy etc process. Personally, I also am happy to see things here we are all fairly good at picking what we want to work on and we can always take or leave comments and some of these (professional SEO pushing company websites) belongs here. As for our name I'd rather be called a "spammer" than a "spam member" which appears to be the official jargon but which I find rather indecent. You did have a previous ID though I recognise the style: I am sure I will work it out sometime. --BozMo talk 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry SpamWatcher if I misread your tone, but it seemed like an extremely odd choice to leave spammers with a strikeout in your description of us. And while I hope you are not evading a block by using a sockpuppet account, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are currently doing (although some of these issues are clearly more appropriate for the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard). I'll leave it to other Project members to decide what to do with your suggestions here and whether or not you should continue. Thanks for your civility and dialogue. (And, yes, like BozMo, I know of three other accounts you've used before as well.) -- Satori Son 13:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Spamwatcher has said he will post stuff on my talk page and I can redeliver it whereever if I agree. That's fine with me. I am pretty well back to full health have nearly finished the 2007 Misplaced Pages CD and should have more time.--BozMo talk 14:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The greatest trick The Penguin ever pulled was making everyone think that he was Batman. I have a vague memory of this from an episode on TV. Hey, you're the one who brought up the Batman imagery. So let's look at the facts. You enter this WikiProject Spam forum with an air of mystery and intrigue. You have an agenda (Category:Marketing research companies). You are obviously an experienced wiki user but you don't want to clean up the spam because of a "conflict of interest." What COI might that be? I have no idea but the story just keeps getting more and more interesting. You even have a comic book flair and a comedic tone to your posts. Let's not forget that Batman was never the funny one. So who is the person behind the mask of the SpamWatcher? We'll probably never find out, but like any good superhero story line that option has to remain open. So SpamWatcher, please don't leave, this place is much more interesting with a character like you around. (Requestion 21:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Actually I agree: a bit of drama is fun and we are all in danger of getting boring (especially me: you try proof reading 12000 pages even with help). I am not sure about the penguin but a flash of a Beglium moustache blaming everything on the butler is fine for me. Whether it will confuse newcomers about the serious nature of our project ain't my problem. --BozMo talk 14:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The great Quantcast mystery

The article about Quantcast was set up by a user who spent 27 of his 30 edits on the Quantcast topic. When Calton came and put a speedy on the article, it was amazing to see how new single-purpose accounts appeared out of the proverbial woodwork to save the article from deletion. Not to mention, the most recent edits to the article come from our old friend, the Compete, Inc anon IP guy.

While we're at it, our busy contributor Reznor34 (the creator of the Quantcast travesty) has recently made edits to the article about Helmi Technologies. When we look into the history of that little article, we see a lot of activity by Jrisku and his anon IP friend. Could they possibly be serving any other purpose than to promote their company Helmi, thanks to Misplaced Pages's free server space and traffic pipeline?

We've been hoodwinked by these professional spammers. But now they've met The SpamWatcher 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm good catch. You know... you could actually do the marking on these if you wanted to. Anyway, it looks like it's been marked with a PROD. If it gets removed, it will get deleted in AFD no doubt. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(Struck-out recomendation) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeking guidance on farecompare.com

I have noticed the pervasiveness of links to this site from airport articles. In many cases, I believe that the addition is a good faith edit as the page as a list of destinations served. However, I do not know how reliable this is. I remove the links from sites that I patrol but hesitate to knock this off on other pages. Its clearly commercial. Some of the editors could be spamming, but I have no evidence. There are likely reliable non-commercial sources, although they may be time-consuming or even impossible to located in the cases of some foreign airports. Any thoughts?Montco 00:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would remove those links that you can find a better alternative for, but otherwise leave them if there is some useful information to be gained from them, and it is not too much of an advertisement to buy a ticket. —— Eagle101 05:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the three revert rule apply when dealing with spammers?

I am having some difficulties with User:Shanlung who persists in adding links to his personal pet page to the Parrot article. I've reverted him twice and tried to explain on the talk page why the link does not belong but to no avail. (I also notice he's been trying to put this link on the African Grey Parrot page as well). Can I keep reverting if its spam? I don't really like to but it really isn't an encyclopaedic link. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think 3RR applies, since it is not blatant and inappropriate commercialism. You should now bring it up on the talk page and leave it a day to see what other editors think, difficult as I know that is. In my view. In any case, you cannot win an edit war with a determined editor through reversion; reversions only work well for driveby spammers. Notinasnaid 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 3RR definitely applies. You should always ask for help here and no go beyond a third revert. --BozMo talk 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR does not apply in cases of vandalism... is spamming vandalism? "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages." and "Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism.".

So no, in a technical sense reverting spam does not invoke the 3rr. I would however proceed carefully and avoid passing the 3revert barrier if at all possible. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the discussion on AN/I there seems to be a general view that everyone tries the "vandalism defence" and except blatant blanking life is too short and editors get a ban. --BozMo talk 08:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on it. Reverting spambots is probably the only decent way of using the vandalism defense. If its really spam, I'm sure you'll find others here or the village pump willing to assist you. Kevin_b_er 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation Spamming of http://www.trainweb.org

Adsense pub-6543611023224625
trainweb.org

Spam sock accounts

Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Seems several topics on this have arrisen User_talk:Noroton#Trainweb.org, User_talk:KyraVixen#Don.27t_you_dare and Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Adding_links_to_organizations_to_articles_about_related_things, worth keeping an eye on--Hu12 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note that these two sites are from the same owner:

trainweb.com

railring.com
--Hu12 23:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(copy from WT:EL)

• Response: Beetstra, please explain what Misplaced Pages rule "canvassing" violates. I haven't found it, but I assume you can provide it to me. Then I can figure out what you mean by it. I've explained ad nauseum why the Connecticut Commuter Council, acting in the role of official state Ombudsman for each of the stations, needs to be referred to in each of the station articles. As I said in the discussion I've linked to below, you can't have a full understanding of the station without knowing who the ombudsman agency is for that station.

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)

(proceed from discussion on WT:EL

Noroton, thank you for your response. I have indeed asked you to avoid canvassing. I am sorry, I am not sure the word canvassing is correct, I meant the mass addition of links (either internal or external) to articles that are not directly linked to the subject, my excuses if I did not make myself clear. Still, regarding these edits, you have been asked to read WP:SPAM (e.g. in the warning that I have provided you). The first paragraph of WP:SPAM states:

"There are four types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, bandspam (tangential references instead of disambiguation which promote some entity) and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.".

Your first mass-addition of these links fall under "wide-scale external link spamming", in your last additions you again add the external link, this time in a tangential reference and an internal link, again spamming (under the wikipedia definition) them across the articles. I also asked you to add content to the article, and gave you examples of data that could be added. I don't see why this piece of information is more important than the contents I suggested to you. Commuters use the station day in day out. They must see the pamphlet on the station wall. For me the information you added means nothing, there are many other things that I might want to know about the station, but which have not been added.

So your external links were, once again, removed because you were spamming them. I am sorry if my terminology confused you but I hoped/expected that my earlier explanation was clear enough. You reacted quite fierce on my first removals of these external links, and I have, IMHO, kept my patience in explaining to you what I meant. Also your initial reaction on these latest removals ("Don't you dare") is again angry. Please understand that apparently these edits don't get understood (also seen two other editors show their concern), and may need a good explanation or discussion before they are performed, or maybe they should not be performed. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wide scale Spamming examples:

• trainweb.org citation additions:

• trainweb.org Link additions:
  --Hu12 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As citations, it's not so much an addition of spam links but an addition of the same information to many pages, where it is better presented on Metro-North Railroad. This is the same basic issue as with the external links. --NE2 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK, NE2, just explain to me how adding a link to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article in each of the station pages is a violation of WP:SPAM or a violation of some other rule. Any other rule. I've explained below and at the External Links discussion page why I think it's absolutely integral to those articles. Please. Just explain yourself. Noroton 03:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we all indent with a ":" at the front of each paragraph and a "*" at the start of each comment. It's going to be difficult enough responding to three or more different people, and it makes it much easier to follow individual threads. Indent one more time with an extra ":" when you're responding to an already indented paragraph.

• Beekstra:

Taking your points in the order you made them:

1. You wrote: "I also asked you to add content to the article, and gave you examples of data that could be added. I don't see why this piece of information is more important than the contents I suggested to you." First, I can't find where you suggested that to me. Please point it out. Second, I'm sure you realize that I'm not required to add to an article the specific types of information you suggest (even had you suggested them).
2. You wrote: "Commuters use the station day in day out. They must see the pamphlet on the station wall." Oh, you mean you're familiar with the train stations in Connecticut? You've seen the pamphlet on the walls? And if every station had a pamphlet about the council on the wall, why should that mean that an article about that station should not link to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article? In fact, doesn't that support the strong connection between the council and the individual stations?
3. You go into history in your post above: I had originally linked to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council Web site in the "External links" sections of each train station article. After all that work was deleted and I was referred to the WP:External links rules, I got into that discussion with you on my talk page, and toward the end of it you suggested I create an article for the commuter council, and that links to that from the station articles might work (or might not). I decided to create a commuter council article. You mentioned that a simple link of the sort I actually decided to make to a possible commuter council article might be considered canvassing, but I couldn't find any reference to canvassing in Misplaced Pages that seemed to apply. 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, so I created the article and linked to it. I decided that simple statements on the article pages for each individual station for which the commuter council was the official state agency created to represent the interests of commuters would be a contribution to each of those pages. I did put footnotes in, because I always put footnotes in articles, whenever I possibly can. My past edits are all an open book. Check them. (If you don't understand how to do so, I'll be happy to show you.) You who appreciate Misplaced Pages rules so much should understand why I do so. It is a contribution. 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.

Now we come back to you. Kyra and I had come to a reasonable agreement on her restoring links to the article in the "See also" sections. She was willing to restore links at least to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article. Although 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, which I think is of importance to people who want to know about the stations. We agreed to that, and it would have involved no external links to the Commuter Council site on the station Web pages. But you barged in and said that no, you didn't think that was a good idea. That is the only reason why we're discussing the matter on this page.

For some strange reason, in your recap of what's gone on, you omit that final chapter -- the reason why we're here on this page. I had an agreement that I thought met Kyra's and your objections concerning external links and spamming, but you said you didn't like it. Why on earth not? Cite a Misplaced Pages rule that says we shouldn't have that "See also" section with that item. Cite one. Tell me how it's "spamming" to do so. Tell me.

It is now up to you to justify why we shouldn't implement that reasonable consensus I had reached with Kyra. And why are we discussing this at a Spam project site? Where's the spamming here? Cite the section from WP:SPAM. Don't just tell me you don't "like" it. Give me the reasons. Don't you realize that links from one article to another are spread out all the time? That's the real issue here: Why shouldn't a simple link from one Misplaced Pages article to another be allowed to stay unmolested?

You talk about my being angry. I've got reason to be angry. My work has been deleted, mostly by people ruder than you. I've been accused of having some kind of interest in the commuter council, both by you and by HU12 (no, he's questioned whether or not I have some interest in some business related to this). Why on earth wouldn't I be angry? I've tried to be reasonable and come to agreements with other editors. I thought you were trying to do that too. Now I wonder if I was wrong. Explain what violations are involved in Kyra's solution of linking to the commuter council article in a "see also" section.Noroton 03:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am again going to sound cynical, sorry.

I asked you in the same answer that you are citing from all the time here to add content to the articles: "....but you could do that in a consideration of really adding more content to the article.", I also name some things (though in another context, earlier in that same answer): "how it was build, when it was build, how one can access it, if it has a toilet, if it has disabled access, whatever". But the only thing you want to add to the articles is a link to the council, you keep on saying that it is important. Do you really believe that commuters will go to the wikipedia for that information? Or that people that are not connected to the station care? I cross Richmond Road 10-12 times a week, do you think I care they have a neighbourhood watch (do you care?) and that I would try to find that out on wikipedia, no, I would call an emergency service right away, or just ask in the street, I don't walk home or to work to go onto wikipedia to find that information. I might want to know if the road is actually on an old trail between the sea and a sweet-water source, and that it contains one of the oldest stone houses of the city (and hence that it has a protect scheme including a neighbourhood watch), whatever (I don't know what there is to tell). Same for the stations, I would like to know if it has a copper roof from 1867, has been hit by a meteor in 1918, that a president actually came by train to visit the people and dismounted the train at this very station, that there is a 24 hour tropical swimming paradise next to it and that kids use the station to go there from nearby stations .. or even that the council has decided to replace the copper roof with a gold one in a meeting on June 23, 2001.

I am not saying that there is no link between the your subject and the station, I am saying that the information you are trying to add is non-encyclopeadic ('Commuters make up the vast majority of riders using the station.' Yes, who else, the fact that you add that sentence to many articles already shows that it is not encyclopaedic). And you provide a sentence ('The Connecticut Rail Commuter Council is a board created by the state to represent commuter's interests before Metro North and state officials.'), which has a reference. Now, in general, adding references is indeed a good thing. But in this case, I believe the sentence does not need'a reference (it has an internal link that asserts this statement), and the reference you provide with ('Connecticut Rail Commuter Council Web site, accessed March 17, 2007') does not assert that it represents the commuters interest for this station. The sentence without the reference might have been a good addition (and that is exactly what I suggested you earlier). A good reference might have been the actual document on the site where they have decided to take care of this one station (I believe you call that minutes?).

The link has been removed several times on some of the articles, you seem detrimental that that link is needed, while 3 different people have removed it (see e.g. ), and there are at least four different people discussing that (also note that the link has an ad-sense number, apparently it gets spammed). I could have agreed with only the sentence (as I suggested you): "The addition of a sentence linking to the Council-page might be considered canvassing when performed on a set of articles, but you could do that in a consideration of really adding more content to the article." (I said sorry, I think the word canvassing in that sentence is wrong, but I did not see you ask me for clarification of my statement either), what I meant is that just adding internal links to tunnel people to a subject you (and as far as I can see now, only you) find interesting is, IMHO, still a form of spam. I hope you can you show us a discussion about this where other people actually say 'yes, that is important information, go ahead and add it'; in fact, you only started now to discuss that now). If and when you reach consensus on such sentences, please do refer to that discussion in the edit summary for the additions, that shows people that you are not spamming a link, but that it has been agreed upon to be a good addition to the articles.

I disagreed with Kyra's suggestion. See also sections only contain internal links, no explanation (and then why is that internal link in the see-also section), and I think there is information which is much more encyclopaedic about these articles (information that may be interesting for all wikipedians) than the link to a council (which may be interesting to a few of the few commuters that actually use wikipedia to find information about the station; most would just look tomorrow morning on the station billboard itself, how important can it be that the information should be available while they are not in the station, in the evening, while Oprah is on TV). Again, I can agree with more contents and the full sentence you provide, without the reference.

Again, I am sorry if I sound cynical, and I am sorry if I was a bit unclear in my initial comments to you but I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra 10:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• First, I'm sorry about being so long winded in my reply above. It was late, and I appear to have made the same point three or four times. As to your statement, "....but you could do that in a consideration of really adding more content to the article" — your meaning was not clear. I take it you are not a native speaker of English, and that would explain it, or perhaps it's a non-American usage (overall, your English is better than that of most native speakers). I understood your comment as a suggestion to do essentially what I did. Kyra's suggestion, if you reread it, matches yours as far as not including the footnote.

As to "See also" sections only containing the link and nothing else, you and I disagree. That disagreement is not over WP:EL, and that disagreement is not over WP:SPAM. There is no reason not to fill the white space to the right of a "See also" link with information on just what is being linked to. It doesn't matter whether or not you haven't seen it done, that is not a good reason to object to someone doing it. Actually, I've just looked it up. At Misplaced Pages:Guide to writing better articles#Layout I found this: See also - A bulleted list of internal links and a short explanation of each if it is not already obvious. (The same point is made here: Misplaced Pages:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions.) That confirms that it is perfectly acceptable to add explanatory information. What I want to add is not already obvious ("*Connecticut Rail Commuter Council, a state board representing commuter interests"). Here's why: Without an explanation, casual readers might think it's simply an unofficial organization. Because it's official, it's somewhat more likely to stay active and be heard by state officials and railroad officials.

As for speculating on how interesting or useful the link is, I think it's a good thing to keep in mind, but with an item in a "See also" section in such small articles as these, as long as a reasonable explanation exists for having the link, it's most reasonable to be inclusive. And you should be careful about making assumptions: in Connecticut, as in probably all of the rest of the United States, Oprah is on in the daytime, not the evening.

In an article about a train station used primarily by commuters, a link to the article about the ombudsman agency for that train station is reasonable. In fact, it is easier for the commuter, at home, in the office or on the train, to link to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article and then link to the council's Web site than to write down the Web address from the notice you speculate is on the wall. It is also reasonable to believe that a good proportion of the readers of the article on the station will be commuters who use the station. We should avoid speculating much beyond this because our guesses become airier and airier.

As to your statement that I appear to be the only one interested in the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council, that's incorrect. A Google News search shows these results: (10 articles), and a search of Google News Archives shows these results: (151 articles)

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 19:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes in the tone of the project page

The actual points made in the project page are seldom much of a problem, but the way the page is written it:

• promotes a confrontational attitude, indirectly encouraging incivility, contrary to WP:CIV
• deprecates Assume Good Faith
• discourages open-mindedness by deprecating discussion, and so discourages consensus

First problem

spammers love to take advantage of the fact that Wikipedians assume good faith, luring us into discussing their links with them "on the merits" as if they had nothing but the good of Misplaced Pages at heart.

This appears to be a suggestion not to engage in discussions. If you think someone is spamming and you revert the edits, you should be able to discuss the matter on the merits. It might actually turn out that you're wrong. If you approach the matter in a way that suggests even discussion is some kind of surrender to the other party's "luring" of you, you're not likely to be open-minded. If you are encouraged to ignore the "assume good faith" injunction, you're not likely to be open-minded. I was going to suggest that something be added to this sentence to rectify its insinuations, but a better alternative would be to delete the sentence: It's subject is what attitude you should take, not what you should do or know, and it encourages a bad attitude. I don't understand what use this sentence is, so I propose deleting it.

Incidentally, after encouraging "spam fighters" to avoid discussions, we get this at #14 in the list of "how to identify spammers":

User adds links that have been previously removed, without discussing on the talk page.

So it's preferable for "spam fighters" to avoid discussion, but a sign of a spammer if that editor avoids discussion. Do I detect the whiff of a double standard here?

I think the following or something like it should be added somewhere near the top of the article:

Always consider the possibility that you're dealing with someone who may, in fact, be acting in good faith and be extra patient in explaining Misplaced Pages policy you believe they're violating. Be open-minded in reading the other editor's reasons for the edits, if reasons are offered. Be courteous, especially when you've reverted a lot of work the other editor has just done, and expect the other editor to be exasperated or angry. Put yourself in that editor's shoes.

Second problem

With the serious problems identified above, these quotes, taken together, give an overall bellicose tone to the project page and encourage bellicosity in the "spam fighting brigade". Taken one by one, there is no problem, but the article is meant to be read as a whole, and when editors read the article as a whole, it has the effect of encouraging closed minds and abrupt editing, even rudeness. Again, I myself would agree with much of what is said in these quotes, but I object to the overall tone when you take them together (boldface has been added to particular parts of quotes for the sake of clarity; occasionally in parentheses I've added other points):

1. voluntary link spam fighting brigade.
2. recognizing, hunting down, and eliminating link spam
3. the best way to fight link spam.
4. You are welcome to relate any of your own current ongoing efforts to fight link spam on the talk page so that in the immediate future we can be aware of users that are acting with an agenda to promote an external site.
5. a crafty spammer hides spamming
6. By using this divide and conquer method (perfectly innocent expression by itself, and not used here to mean anything aggressive, but in a minor way it also helps set the tone)
7. I propose the number one rule for link spam fighters be this code of honor
8. Tag 'em to stop 'em (name of a section)
9. Suspicious edits automatically deserve a { subst:uw-spam1 } tag on the user's talk page, with spam or {uw-spam1} in the edit summary. This is important! First, to drive the message that spam is not welcome here, and second, to warn us of repeat offenders.
10. voluntary link spam fighting brigade.
11. Common spammer strawmen (title of a section)
12. Spammers will offer arguments like the following. These are strawman arguments, for the reasons listed. (Nothing wrong with the points made here, but it seems that nearly every reference to discussions here is negative, such as "strawman arguments")
13. We should develop responses to those who engage in this behavior which encourage them to reform into productive Wikipedians, but we should waste no time in protecting Misplaced Pages from the damaging behavior through reverts and blocks where necessary. (Nothing wrong with this if you're talking about the obviously guilty, but if you're encouraged to be closed-minded and overly aggressive, you're less likely to understand when you've made a mistake.)

I've assumed here that the writers of the project page don't really want to ignore argument, be closed-minded and act in a bellicose manner. But the way the page is written clearly encourages that behavior. I suggest toning down the language of all or nearly all of the phrases quoted in the second part and making the change I suggest in the first part. Noroton 01:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the discussion part is a real tense bit, and very much depends on the situation. Let's break it down, we have the following very generalized subgroups that are labeled as spammers:

• Casual. They're easy to reform, probably the target for the most kind efforts. They really think their site is useful, and don't see any harm in adding it. Usually the viewpoint of Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_Interest is what is needed to convince them and get them to good editing. These are definitely the people we need to show all due respect to, as they are like the new editor, and don't know.
• Middle-road. Most would like to profit or drive traffic to their site from wikipedia specifically from the links. Don't see us as encyclopedia as most editors do, but as a useful website to add links to. Uses some strawman arguments. May complain and make a huge fuss. Reformable too, but will take some fine talk and well-worded conversation.
• Malicious. Adds links to large numbers of pages, many on remote topics that have only a weak connection to the spammed site. May alter links to their own, deleting more useful links. If they're actually contactable, many will use every argument you've ever heard of. I've heard legal threats from this camp because we are removing the 50 links they added yesterday. We see a lot of these folks and the more you see, the less likely you are to talk to the above 2 groups.
• SPAMMERS (no other good name). Adds link farms, parked domains, alters useful links. Some consider their acts vandalism. They may be robots. I loose just about all good faith with these folks. I extend this category to the ones that are strictly spambots that replace articles with junk.

So which do you want to target. I should note I could break casual and middle-road into another group which exhibits traits of both. The big issue here is with malicious and SPAMMERS. The casual and middle-road may not even arrive at the spam wikiproject and are usually delt by editors who tend to certain topic areas. A lot of the work here is dealing with serial spammers. People we are categorizing by their Ad Sense IDs are not the atypical editor whom you can reason with, if you can even contact them. But, 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)

Kevin, I understand the distinctions you're making between the types of people being confronted, but I think it's beside my point. I think you approach them all with the same two principles: You do what you feel you have to do to avoid spam, and you be as tough as you need to be in your actions; and at the same time you remain courteous, or at the very least very civil, to even the worst of them. In fact, I wouldn't go from courteous down to civil until I started getting someone who was rude in return or who was clearly violating known rules. If you try to be courteous to people across the board, especially at first contact, you're much more likely to avoid stepping over into rudeness.

You mention with Spammers (your last category above) "I loose just about all good faith with these folks." And with reason, I'm sure. But it doesn't matter in your approach: Just continue to be as polite as possible. I have personal experience with this. When I was a newspaper reporter I'd come across rogues and other people who I was about to write articles on that would severely embarrass them. It was especially when I knew I had the goods on them, and even more especially when they knew it, that it was easiest to be polite and even a bit sympathetic, but still to slam 'em hard in the next day's paper. And there's another benefit that's important for Wikipedians: If you're polite and open-minded from the start (no matter what you're thinking or saying as you type in your comments) it's much easier to back down without embarassment if you occasionally make a mistake.

I can see some value in rallying the troops with the language on the project page, and I don't think all the phrases I quoted need to go. I just think the tone of the language goes overboard and needs to be balanced with some reminders that overall Misplaced Pages principles still apply. There might be some value in pointing out that the people in those categories higher up on your list are those who should be approached with particular civility, but as I say, it's best to add that civility should be the approach across the board, and that doesn't have to weaken your resolve. Maybe these are ridiculous images or analogies, but instead of "fighting brigade" I wish it were something like "the Knights of the Spamalot Squelchers" or "Keyboard Crusaders for Truth, Justice and the Wikipedian Way" or at least "Officers and Ladies and Gentlemen" or &mdash well, you get the point. Noroton 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick question re: Birdy (bicycle) links to online sellers

I removed several links from this article that are online cycle sellers, there doesn't appear to be any encyclopedic reason for having them. It's clear (to me anyway) that these links have been added in order to allow people to buy the bike online - one of the links even says "they ship all over the place".

The links were quickly replaced by the creator of the article, who claimed they should stay "as there are no wikipedia articles about the companies". Well, they're cycle sellers, so I doubt most/all of them are even notable enough for their own article. That's not a reason to keep linkspam.

Can anyone with a better knowledge of linkspam rules take a look at this article? Even though it's well-written I think it's being used as a sly sales device for these bikes. Crazysuit 05:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. -- Hoary 05:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section, as a record:

• Riese und Müller
• BikeBox
• C.M. Wasson Company
• David Black (Rad Innovations)
• NYCeWheels
• Mizutani Bikes
• Two Wheel Action Pte Ltd

As a note, the following sentence has been spammed lately (I have reverted a great deal of them):

• BikesThatfold.com is a resource for Folding Bikes

See you around! --Dirk Beetstra 11:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Preventing any link to a domain

As this person has sadly discovered, WP has ways of automatically preventing the creation by anyone of any link to a domain.

This measure isn't one that is or should be taken lightly. But it's taken, all right. Who takes it? Where does one apply for it to be taken? I want to apply, I don't know how to apply, I've looked for but not found this information, and I'm surprised not to see it mentioned in the project page. -- Hoary 05:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You go to meta:Spam blacklist, explain why you think the link should be banned, and if accepted, an administrator from Meta (note that not an administrator from the English Misplaced Pages, although some are administrators in both) will include it in the blacklist. As you can imagine, this is used only in extreme circumstances when previous efforts to stop the spammer failed. -- ReyBrujo 05:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, note that domains included there are blacklisted from all Wikipedias (in any language, not only the English one), so it is possible to find links that have been blacklisted because of their spamming in other Wikipedias and not this one. -- ReyBrujo 05:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Splendid, just what I wanted to know. Many thanks. -- Hoary 05:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My addendum: You can also report the site here, if you show how the site is abused (e.g. several IP's), we will probably check cross-wiki. A third possibility is to contact us at IRC here. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

One more bit of advice: I have found that the meta admins are usually reluctant to blacklist a site unless it has been link spammed in more than one Wiki (for example, both the English and Spanish language Wikipedias). So, if you have the resources and/or language skills to search for the site link in other Wiki domains before you put in a blacklist request, that would help. -- Satori Son 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have such a tool that does crosswiki linksearchs on IRC. Betacommand 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Spamming pub-8182832343810773

pub-8182832343810773
http://www.randomdirectory.com

• randomdirectory.com

http://www.kitty-paws.com

• kitty-paws.com

http://www.antique-information.info

• antique-information.info

http://www.architecture-information.info

• architecture-information.info
  

Spam sock accounts

24.58.21.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
12.96.182.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

cystinuria.org

cystinuria.org
International Cystinuria Foundation
associated with http://www.randominc.net/

Spam sock accounts

Banannafish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Randominc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--Hu12 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Interactive Brokers

Marked this an an Advert. Reads like a PR piece. The last revision by a single purpose account added a consideral ammount of POV, and spammy information. Someone want to take a look at the article Interactive Brokers, before its re writen back to stub status..LOL--Hu12 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the early editors is 206.106.137.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

• Interactive Brokers -
• Also edited: Bernhard Goetz, Freedom Tower, Butterfly (options), John A. Mulheren and some others way back in March 06.
• Note: IP address is registered to "Timber Hill LLC". when I do a google search for the name, "Interactive Brokers, LLC." is the first return. According to hoovers.com Timber hill is owned by Interactive Brokers Group.

Ummm yeah. Shocking, 'eh? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Revived from the archives, seems edits like this which Promotes commission rates, trading discounts, attractive interest rates and account minimums are inpropriate for inclusion and unencyclopedic. Happyzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have a WP:COI with Interactive Brokers.--Hu12 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Another sock account in the mix, added the same as previous InterB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Hu12 09:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot
• Non-talk pages with subpages automatically signed by HagermanBot