Wikipedia talk : WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Aug

Affiliate ID 1405659

Spam sock accounts

Affiliate ID 3174545

Spam sock accounts

Affiliate ID 321266

Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal

Affiliate ID 2894426

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light

Affiliate ID 815360

Spam sock accounts

Affiliate ID 466479

Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal

Affiliate ID 316906

Spam sock accounts

wikipedia foundation refferal id Affiliate ID 312838
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising

added by

Template:Vandal
--Hu12 01:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliate ID 4038970

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light fr.

Affiliate ID 3963846

Spam sock accounts

Affiliate ID 3224340

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website has now Been Rebranded ;

Template:LinkSummaryLive

de:Special:Contributions/Skrill "We are the operators of Skrill (Moneybookers) and would like to contribute to the data and facts in the record are currently using our online payment service."

"Skrill is the future of Moneybookers. A rebranding that extends and improves the Moneybookers global payment network even further. Clients will use Skrill however they need. To make payments, receive payments or transfer funds. " - corporate.skrill.com/

-Hu12 (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgestreet http://spam.hedgestreet.com

→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hedgestreet
other article; Hedgelet → See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgelet

Template:Spamlink

Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal
Template:Vandal
Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 05:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.mastyspot.blogspot.com http://spam.invisionplus.net http://spam.mastyspot.co.nr

Spam pages

Sites spammed

Spammers

Invisionplus.net should be fed to shadowbot as it is yet another create your own forum site. MER-C 13:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.thevirtualsexreview.com

Spammers

Template:IP vandal light

MER-C 13:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam. paullee.com

Spammers

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light (has other contributions)

MER-C 13:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.thecandypitch.com

Spammers

Reported by Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two more spammers. MER-C 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.justpressplay.net

Spammer

Template:IP vandal light

Reported by Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spamlink
Template:Spamlink

http://spam.sitespect.com

Template:Spamlink

Accounts

Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 05:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

myperpignan.com perpignanfr.com

Spammers

There are more, I think. Long term dynamic IP spamming. The local blacklist beckons. MER-C 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another spammer. MER-C 13:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Local~~ Global blacklisting requested. MER-C 13:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was requested via WP:ANI and I have updated the local spam filter. Have no meta privs, sorry! - Alison ☺ 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done User:Herbythyme has now updated the Meta blacklist so I've gone ahead and unprot'd the article and will remove them from local. Yayy!! - Alison ☺ 14:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding www.myperpignan.com and perpignanfr.com as soon as requested I stopped adding my site to the links page. A number of others had been doing the same. i am new at this and assumed it was OK. I even included my email address for you to contact me. There was no need to swear in your emails to me. It was not necessary. I am asking you in a more polite manner than you did to me to remove me from this list of banned sites. Thanking you kindly.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.94.53 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 September 2007

http:// spam.trackthatad.com squidoo spam in welcome messages

There's been a few accounts recently adding squidoo/trackthatad spam in welcome messages:

-- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That warrents a black listing if you ask me... --T-rex 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some are blocked already, all the spam needs to be deleted.--Hu12 05:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the spam is now gone and the accounts blocked. I don't see any reason for trackthatad links on Wikipedia. Squidoo backlinks need constant checking. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to localy BL this, there is no instance when this link is appropriate on Wikipedia--Hu12 06:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightly bot archiving broken

I left a message at User_talk:Shadowbot3 about a problem first noticed by User:Hu12, that this page is not being archived correctly. Has no effect on users of this page unless you are searching for an item archived since 13 August. Will keep you posted. EdJohnston 05:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This occurs when there is a blacklisted link in the archive. The bot can't add the archive or de-link the bad links, so the current months archive needs to be checked manualy sometimes. Its been corrected, there were three BL links, should archive succesfuly now.--Hu12 05:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.bleb.org

Can somone make sense of this?

Seems like these are all on SPA's..or does this serve a function?--Hu12 06:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the legitimate uses for user accounts (this has been brought up during usurpation discussions) is to customise the layout for reading Wikipedia. The dates of creation of these monobooks are wide-ranging, which indicates it's not a campaign of any sort. I don't see there's anything wrong here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.mbapakistan.com

Spammers

MER-C 12:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:Contributions/88.228.91.25
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:Contributions/88.244.232.32
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:Contributions/Hutame
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:Contributions/Jimraynor
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96zel:Contributions/88.242.137.140

Photobucket question

I know I've run across administrators removing photobucket.com links, and I do know that LinkSearch keeps a record of them, but I've searched and searched for a specific policy regarding the use of them, and so far have come up empty. Could someone please let me know how to deal with editors that add links to photobucket images (aside from copyright issues, is there a policy with regards to linking to them)? I did check the external links policy, the copyright policy, the image policies, and could not find a specific note about the issue. Thanks in advance! ^Ariel♥Gold 12:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

http://spam.sirensmag.com

Template:Spamlink

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 22:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

http://spam.value-investing-center.com

Adsense pub-5663444745029481

Template:Spamlink

Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 23:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

Spamming of adsense related EL's

Adsense pub-5908824067047283

Cross-wiki Spam accounts

Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal
--Hu12 09:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense Spamming

Adsense pub-7086695109148775

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 09:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam. sustainlane.com

A green campaign, users linking all occurances of the word 'sustainlane' to the external site, as well as names of cities which are named on the site as being 'green' (see alse Green cities

Template:Spamlink

Users:

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

SustainLane Government
Sustainlane
Template:Vandal
Template:Vandal
Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.earncash.co.in

Adsense pub-1525486784170633

Template:Spamlink

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

Local Blacklisting?

Did this happen while I was off for a couple of months? It seems like most requests are still being made at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. What's the difference between the two? I skimmed the archive but couldn't find a discussion about this. If I missed it, please just point me in the right direction). Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 13:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist affects en.wiki only, the one on meta affects everything with the spam blacklist extension. MER-C 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we should g local unless there's crosswiki spam? -- SiobhanHansa 14:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider true spam (porn, viagra), even if it is not crosswiki yet, also for the meta blacklist. The less blatant ones either for the local blacklist (if it is rubbish), otherwise user:AntiSpamBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing blacklisting out to the individual projects highlights the fact that it's very hard to find out what other projects have been spammed. We have one fairly new tool at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~eagle/linksearch to search the largest Wikipedias. It misses almost 200 other Wikipedias + all >500 other Wikimedia projects. We have another tool with which to check an IP's cross-project edits at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php but for reasons I don't understand, about half the time it doesn't work right (I don't know if it's a tool problem or a database problem). When we say something has only been spammed to a particular project, we really don't know if that's true or not. For instance, there are 1000s of external links on en.wikiquote; longtime spam-fighters here will recognize some familiar domains. Until we have much better tools for tracking spam Wikimedia-wide, I think we need to keep using meta -- if a link is inappropriate and has been spammed uncontrollably on one project we should default to blacklisting it across all projects.

I think the local blacklists are best for cases where an otherwise appropriate link is spammed uncontrollably on one project but other projects still wish to use it. There was an Italian art site for instance that did this a while back (I don't remember the domain). It was encyclopedic, but the site owner's persistence in spamming it everywhere across one project became intolerable. It was blacklisted here, but then other projects started complaining. It would have been useful to swap it from the meta list to the local list in this case.

Finally, I'll note that there's a big backlog at Meta; the only admin working on it is reluctant to even blacklist x-wiki stuff, so I suggest blacklisting here, then taking it to meta.

And please, can I talk one of our fine admins here into standing for Meta admin? I'm sure other Meta admins would appreciate the helping hand. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset

Swore I'd not be back here! Not that interesting but I was here before so I do know a bit about this aspect of the project. So - a Meta perspective. Guidelines certainly mean that we really only should be looking at disruptive persistent cross wiki link placing for a start. Really en wp only links should be dealt with on the local blacklist - it ain't hard!

Yes there is a backlog (the en wp admins that were active there seem to be awol) however a couple of us have started picking up threads (& indeed blacklisting domains).

Be patient and help us out - some of the discussions we are coming to afresh and are quite hard to work out what is really going on. I'm even inclined to say some should be closed and re-listed for clarity.

I'll do what I can but I am active on more than just Meta so have things to do. If you want me here is not the best place for contacting me - Meta or Commons would be better, mail is availble. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.euromonitor.com

Euromonitor

Template:Spamlink

Accounts

Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light IP works for Euromonitor [27]
Any thoughts on the links? --Hu12 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're selling reports and other merchandise – clearly spam. - KrakatoaKatie 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.localrestorations.com/

Template:Spamlink

Accounts

Has been added to New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Carolina, Tomato, Remediation, and Spinach within the space of one hour, not just as EL's but as links from place names. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yet more garden-variety spam..

I suspect this spammer has a big garden of sites he'd like to add, these are the ones I found today...

--Versageek 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

formalid.com

Adsense pub-4977285132140452

Template:Spamlink

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 11:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.wexfordweb.com

Spammers

MER-C 12:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.recentnews.us

Spammers

Template:IP vandal light

ccwaters 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also : Template:Spamlink ccwaters 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.free-encyclopedia-online.com

Adsense pub-3372801561704177

Template:Spamlink

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Template:Anchor[reply]

http://spam.nonstopbiztalk.blogspot.com

Adsense pub-0852699588793814

Template:Spamlink

Spam sock accounts

Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
--Hu12 21:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

biblewalks.com is back

I hadn't checked on this in a while and found it had found its way in to numerous articles again - again from single purpose accounts. There are 3 good faith occurrences on article pages that I have left.

Accounts apparently focused only on promoting biblewalks.com:

Spam blacklist request (permanent link). -- SiobhanHansa 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting refused (permanent link). -- SiobhanHansa 10:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done -- after more discussion, now blacklisted on meta as it was cross-wiki spammed on both en and he.wikipedia. --A. B. ^(talk) 11:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

netforu.org and visaforu.com

Adsense pub-7701073308242782
This is a low content site that has been repeatedly added to Visa (document), the IP users have a habit of removing content from the article and modifying or deleting other users discussion page comments if said comments reflect negatively on the inclusion of their site..

Template:Spamlink

Adsense pub-7701073308242782

Template:Spamlink

Spam sock accounts

Template:Vandal
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal light
Template:IP vandal lightcross wiki spam IP
Template:IP vandal light Vandalism account
Template:IP vandal light Vandalism account
Template:IP vandal light Vandalism account
--Hu12 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, 59.92.86.109 tried to delete both the WPSPAM entry here^[28] and the COIbot report.^[29] --A. B. ^(talk) 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And 59.92.71.110 also tried to blank the user talk page here^[30] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued vandalism; 59.92.87.54 blanked project pages. ^[31][32]--Hu12 14:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki spam:

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done -- both are now blacklisted on meta. --A. B. ^(talk) 11:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]