Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Spam - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Loren36 (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 8 May 2007 (Reverted edits by 212.76.68.204 (talk) to last version by Shadowbot3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:29, 8 May 2007 by Loren36 (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 212.76.68.204 (talk) to last version by Shadowbot3)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed. At all times, please remember WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE. Calling another user a spammer may be taken as an insult, so focus on the edits rather than the editor.
Shortcut
  • ]
Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

DMOZ linking

There is currently an edit skirmish (not yet a war) over at Misplaced Pages talk:External links over whether the {{Dmoz}} template and DMOZ links should be allowed in articles at all, much less whether its use is encouraged or not. I was under the impression that there was strong support for using the DMOZ template in articles. See these discussions, among others:

  1. Talk:External links - Yahoo Directory and DMOZ
  2. Talk:External links - Link to DMOZ
  3. Talk:External links - DMOZ Again
  4. Talk:External links - Use of deep links into DMOZ categories
  5. Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 15#Template:Dmoz
  6. Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 19#Template:NoMoreLinks

Am I wrong about this? If so, this necessitates a big shift in how I and others have been fighting spam links. -- Satori Son 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion has been going on since before I was a Misplaced Pages editor  :-) I'm not seeing anything different happening right now. Maybe there are some new points, but I wouldn't rush to change anything yet, in terms of how we treat those links. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 23:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
But it makes me nervous when I see very well-respected administrators saying things such as:
  • "...we're throwing ourselves on the mercy of that project's editorial judgment and policies rather than our own."
  • "It may be popular, but the point of our guideline pages is not to advertise popular websites."
  • "We are not linking to Google searches, not to the Yahoo categories directory and we should link to DMOZ either."
Those statements were really surprising to me because, like I said, I really believe there is widespread support for using DMOZ links. I guess we'll see how the conversation goes over there. -- Satori Son 01:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The primary use of the link is to prevent us from becoming a linkfarm. Frankly any site that wikipdia editors deem as a good linkfarm is fine by me, but we only need one linkfarm per article. —— Eagle101 01:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Preventing a linkfarm can be achieved by simply moving the links to talk, ask editors to use these as sources where possible, and referring editors to WP:NOT#LINK that states There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
If only it was that simple. I'm the person responsible for most of the {{cleanup-spam}} tags in Category:Lists_of_software and Category:Software_comparisons. Let me say that it is a warzone out there and the spammers frequently out number me by a factor of 10. Sometimes it gets so bad that I have to worry about 3RR. And trying to AfD a link farm is a bad idea because spammer socks pop out of the woodwork like you wouldn't believe. DMOZ might be a useful spam fighting tool if it could be enforced but that would require policy and not a guideline. (Requestion 02:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC))
But back before the DMOZ language was removed from WP:EL against consensus, I had pretty good luck using that guideline to keep the {{Dmoz}} template in and dozens of spammy links out.
And jossi's suggestion above that "Preventing a linkfarm can be achieved by simply moving the links to talk, ask editors to use these as sources where possible, and referring editors to WP:NOT#LINK ..." is somewhat wishful thinking. That would work great in an ideal WikiWorld where every user is mature, intelligent, policy-savvy, honest, reasonable, and without a conflict of interest. It's doesn't quite work out that way here, as I'm sure most of you are well aware. If jossi were right, there would not even be a need for WikiProject Spam, much less links to DMOZ. -- Satori Son 04:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been ignoring this discussion and making comments on the external links page since that's where the discussion may affect guidelines. But I wanted to respond here at least once since I'm one of the editors who doesn't agree with the dmoz language, and (I hope) I'm also an editor who is generally thought to do some good work on anti-spam stuff. While I respect and understand the desire for an easy fix, I don't believe we should promote a site that isn't a sister project and I've never been a fan of the practice of using any directory simply to stop link farms forming. I basically agree with Jossi that we have policy to stop link farms - we don't need to throw them a bone and I really don't think we should. It's not great for our readers when we point them to a directory with little regard to the directory's value to the article. I know there are some articles, particularly ones that are frequented by a lot of enthusiasts, where it is time consuming and frustrating to move away from a community site feeling and nigh on impossible to get editors to think about prioritizing information from a neutral point of view (and the external links section can be the least of the problem with such articles). In such circumstances a guideline that says "no we do it this way" is a very handy tool. But I don't believe our guidelines should be written to make that easy at the expense of providing sound advice to editors who actually want to write a great, encyclopedic article. I hope the discussion on EL will eventually result in something that can address both needs.

I understand why the dmoz tactic is appreciated and used by a lot of members of this project. And even if I would prefer to see some of it done differently sometimes, I think the hard work everyone here does is great. I hope my difference of opinion on this doesn't make anyone think I don't believe you are good for the encyclopedia. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have told Siobhan elsewhere, I readily admit the former DMOZ language was not a perfect solution, but it was one that I believed did more good than harm for Misplaced Pages. Siobhan feels the converse, and I respect that opinion even though I disagree with it. Hopefully, a compromise solution can be found that at least partially satisfies both sides of the debate. -- Satori Son 18:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
First, let me say that I respect and appreciate the job you guys and gals do in fighting spam. The concern that I have about DMOZ is that is simple a way out of a sticky problem and not a solution. Let me explain: Imagine several anons adds 30 links to an article over time:
  1. A Spam fighter goes there and replaces all these links with a DMOZ category.
    1. The links deleted may be of higher quality than the ones in DMOZ
    2. Links are now deleted and editors cannot use these to improve the article
Alternative
  1. A Spam fighter goes there and moves all links to the talk page, with a notice about WP:NOT#LINK
    1. Involved editors can now proceed and evaluate which are best links to keep, and which ones to use to improve the article
    2. Some links are added to EL, others used to improve the article
Yes, fighting spam is needed, but let's not forget that we are here to write an encyclopedia.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jossi. 30 links? That's a link farm. In an ideal world your "alternative" solution would work great. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in the wiki world. Here is how the alternative solution plays out:
  1. Spam fighter removes all the links, comments them out, or moves them to the talk page. It doesn't make a difference.
  2. A revert war ensues.
  3. A hoard of angry spammers assault the spam fighters talk page.
  4. The article goes up for AfD and is deleted, that is if too many SPA's don't show up.
  5. At lot of effort is wasted and everybody loses.
I'm not a fan of the {{dmoz}} solution because I don't think it works. Many spam fighters do believe that DMOZ is a valuable tool and I support them. Why is it so difficult to have wording in WP:EL that states that DMOZ might be a good solution for handling link farms? (Requestion 21:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC))
Revert war? Protect the page, or block for 3RR.
Angry spammers assault spam fighters? Send them my way (or any other admin), and we'll indefblock them.
Not a drop of sweat. Note that spammers will come back regardless if your replace their links with a DMOZ category. That will not stop them, would it? So rather than suppression, move the links to talk, and ask editors to evaluate the links for notability and quality. A good few links can go back. Easy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This presumes that the article has a group of editors who follow it and actually read the talk page.. that isn't always the case. --Versageek 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone give me a couple example of articles in which a linkfarm was replaced with a DMOZ catg? Thanks in advance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few that I did (diff from my change to the current version). Quilt, Indian cuisine, Child labor. Clearly it's not 100% successful in stopping spammers & well intentioned but misguided linkers. In the Child labor page, my goal was to get charities to stop adding their links to the page.. and to be honest, most of the other 'good causes' of this nature also harbor linkfarms. --Versageek 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
"Why is it so difficult to have wording in WP:EL that states that DMOZ might be a good solution for handling link farms?" It isn't, but spam is only part of the use of a Dmoz link. Some broad topic articles simply could have hundreds of valuable external links. Only wiki lawyers and trolls want to see fights over whether link #5 goes to an CNN page versus an MSNBC versus dozens of other similar treatments. In its best usage a Dmoz link helps articles where it meets both needs, prevents spam and leads people to scores or hundreds of sites offering in depth coverage of broad topics. Good editors will use it as a solution in many cases anyway, but having simple text in the guideline is major help to editors. 2005 03:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The new proposed version in the box over at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Random_section_break looks pretty good. I might just give it a try on a several of the link farms that have been giving me grief. Break the internal links into a "See also" section and the dmoz goes in the "External links" section. This eliminates the spam magnet effect. It could work. (Requestion 08:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC))
The current version, a compromise that may work for Wikiproject spam patrollers, and that does not violates established policy, is pretty good, I agree. But it does not say anything about moving links to the See also section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
My "See also section" comment was a possible scenario walk-through of how I might use this new tool. Just me thinking out loud. (Requestion 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

Jeyasoft Solutions

Socks


Domains


Megasearch

The final warning has been violated twice and talk pages have been blanked 5 times. The count is 15 linkspams. All domains are registered to Jeyasoft Solutions or Jeya Eskalin in Singapore. Only the m-indya.com and java-samples.com domains are known to of been spammed on Misplaced Pages. The recent talk page blankings were followed by some interesting link request puppetry over at Talk:SCADA with User:Ramkay. I request blacklisting. (Requestion 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Ramkay is blocked as a sockpuppet, the links should get blacklisted.--Hu12 01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Monitored on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra 10:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Blacklisted on Shadowbot. Shadow1 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

workforall.net

Socks - all IP's resolve to SKYNET Belgacom ADSL in Belgium

Domains


Megasearch


Threads


So far the count is 140 workforall.net linkspams. Along with a few external links, the workforall.net spammer has been copying and pasting large blocks of duplicate text into multiple articles for the past year (see the "paste dup text" note above). Here are some examples of the duplicate text: pasted four times, pasted eight times, and pasted seven times. This mass insertion of duplicate text back in the summer 2006 has propagated into a mess. The links have even worked their way into citations and references. The workforall.net spamming is one of the most intertwined cases I've encountered. Check out the threads, this user is now copying and pasting large blocks of text into talk pages. The situation is out of control. I request blacklisting. (Requestion 03:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Before taking any action please read the debate on : User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction. thanks --217.136.93.7 16:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a debate and that link was previously added above. (Requestion 19:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC))
I agree its black and white and you are the white bit. --BozMo talk 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Monitored and blacklisted on COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra 20:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The final warning was violated today. (Requestion 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

Before causing more destruction to the contributions of Workforall, please read debate on User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction. Causing more damage will be considered as vandalism. See: see WP:VAND Types of vandalism: Blanking Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. --80.201.19.94 21:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist request:
--A. B. 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Related domains:
--A. B. 03:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

afif.ws, afifpoem.com, afif2.com, afifchat.com, afifup.com ... again

Still at it after an earlier series of warnings and spam link deletions. Conveniently called attention to back him/herself today by attempting to delete the archive record for our earlier discussion here. Domains:


A sampling of cross-wiki spam accounts:

I've cleaned up dozens of links on probably 10 to 15 different Wikipedias.

Blacklisting request:

(Permanent link)

I love it when they attack our archives. --A. B. 15:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Added the rule "\bafif.+?\.(com|ws)" to Shadowbot, which should cover anything following the pattern in the domain names. Shadow1 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.npost.com

Spam sock accounts

2bar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
63.229.24.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.e-lab-book.com

Electronic lab notebook

Spam sock accounts

Midknightr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
130.166.115.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
130.166.115.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
72.134.54.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Airreg

Template:Airreg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — --Aude (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This template facilitates external links (often within body text in an article) for aircraft ID numbers. The vast majority of links are to a particular site that way over does the advertising, in relation to useful information given for aircraft ID numbers. --Aude (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I recommend keeping this template while deleting the airdisaster.com option. (The template can also be used to link to various government web sites). I also note that the template's creator, N328KF, is one of the most-prolific (19,000+ edits) aviation editors. --A. B. 19:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The one site that I thought did the best job of providing information is aviation-safety.net. But, that site doesn't support incorporating aircraft ID numbers in the URL. Or I can't figure out how to do it with this site. It would be easy enough to link an ID number to aviation-safety, FAA, or any other site without a template. --Aude (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Requestion

User talk:Requestion has taken some diatribe from IPs related to the workforall.net spam (see ↑) during the past few days. It's shifted from scapegoating this particular user to attacking Misplaced Pages's handling of spam in general. (The canvassing of that guy has attracted another 'victim', and if I was Requestion I'd feel pretty harassed by now anyway.) I'm terribly inefficient at this kind of quibbling, if anyone else wants help keeping another eye on this dispute, much appreciated. Femto 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... comments:
  • Proverb: if you wind up wrestling a pig, you might as well stop since the pig loves it and can go on forever
  • See this excellent essay: Diminishing Replies
  • I've learned the hard way that, with some folks, it's simpler to let them have the "last word" on a talk page if Misplaced Pages's rules have otherwise been upheld (i.e., the user blocked or a domain blacklisted). In this case, his domain i on the blacklisting request list.
    • I'm a very stubborn, slow learner -- it's taken me about a year myself to figure this out!
  • Even a casual reader of Requestion's user page will quickly conclude Requestion is not a vandal and that the workforall guy is seriously out of line. Further justification of our quite reasonable actions doesn't seem worth the time.
  • The workforall spammer seems to be working on a classic case of search engine de-optimization:
    • Misplaced Pages pages have high page rank
    • He/she's used so many IPs and incurred spam warnings on so many Google-trusted pages that he's further leveraging the Misplaced Pages page-ranking . (Note: our internal links are not coded nofollow!)
    • If he/she keeps at it, these discussions could float to near the top of a Google search for his web site/organization in a few days.
Sorry you had to suffer all the aggravation, Requestion -- it's not fun.
--A. B. 16:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The key with wrestling pigs is to make the pig do all the work! My strategy for the workforall.net spammer is it wear them out and indent them all the way to the right. It is better for this insanity to be localized on my talk page. Imagine the havoc that would be wrecked here or on meta? I deal with a lot of spammers so I'm not too bothered by the comments. The only thing that bugs me is the constant cleanup of workforall's sloppy editing technique and the edit conflicts on my own talk page! I don't think letting them get the last word will work since they just attack other threads. Asking an admin to lock my talk page to IP's might be a good solution if this goes on for a couple more days. (Requestion 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Serious spammage

This guy has inserted 1000's of links to his sites. Help in cleaning up after him would be welcome. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Kreis_Bromberg and other articles. There is a serious problem with www.birchy.com :) Thanks ahead of time. —— Eagle101 21:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

His link can be found on the following articles here. I've already started work on removing these... 550 links were removed on this article. —— Eagle101 22:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Holy... 1191 links on one article. See this diff!!! —— Eagle101 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
that was an amazing amount of spam!. --Hu12 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

retrojunk

There are 141 links to retrojunk currently. I removed some already but I wanted some input about whether these are worth keeping or not. They don't seem to have any notable content...just a youtube video and advertisements. IrishGuy 23:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

vinnysa1store.com

vinnysa1store.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

Reposts freely available content from Project Gutenberg and elsewhere, but plasters it with Google Adsense.

IPs:

Nposs 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

autocityindia.com indialens.com

Spam sock accounts

Autocity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
74.129.200.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 16:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(unlocked phones).blogspot.com

Our unlocked cell phone friend from Virginia has violated the final warning after receiving multiple warnings from several different editors. This has been going on since September 2006. I request black listing. (Requestion 21:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC))

Shadowbot3 archiving problem

I was searching for some old StartCom stuff and I just noticed a Shadowbot3 archiving problem that happened on April 10 2007. It appears that this cut was never pasted into Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Apr. The "Startcom revisted" thread is gone along with a bunch of other stuff. There are also some duplicate threads in that April archive such as:

I'm not going to attempt to fix the damage myself so I hope a shadowbot expert is reading this. (Requestion 07:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Healthadel spam is back

From our April archives The Healthadel.com spammer is back. This time the account is Millyuop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That's at least 7 user accounts created just to spam this link.

I see that blacklisting was declined last time, presumably because these aren't IPs. Eagle101 - Is there anyway to get blacklisting anyway? This is health advice being posted by spammers from a domain that claims no affiliations and was created in January under a domains by proxy account. It doesn't seem like the sort of thing we ought to be having just popping up all over the place. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New blacklisting request:
--A. B. 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Those Spam accounts have been blocked--Hu12 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks A.B. and Hu12. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

infertile.com

This site has some decent information, however this is likely a case of COI - and has been spammed on three occasions (Feb, April & Today(May 7th)). The user was warned once in April, and enough times to report him to AIV today, although by the time I finished messing with adding the domain to shadowbot, he had stopped.. so he wasn't reported/blocked. --Versageek 20:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories: