Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 595: Line 595:


{{deferspambot}} [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
{{deferspambot}} [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

== http://spam.apunkachoice.com ==

{{spamlink|apunkachoice.com}}

;Related domains
http://spam.indiaexpress.com
*{{spamlink|indiaexpress.com}}
http://spam.cricketzone.com
*{{spamlink|cricketzone.com}}
http://spam.diwaliecards.com
*{{spamlink|diwaliecards.com}}
http://spam.diwaliecard.com
*{{spamlink|diwaliecard.com}}
http://spam.zintrip.com
*{{spamlink|zintrip.com}}

;Spammers
*{{IPSummary|122.162.62.199}}
*{{IPSummary|122.162.62.19}}
*{{IPSummary|122.162.60.80}}

Citation spammer. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:50, 15 September 2008

    When reporting spam, please use the appropriate template(s):
    As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed.
    Shortcuts
    {{Link summary|example.com}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template - Do not include the "http://www." portion of the URL inside this template
    • {{IP summary}} - to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
    {{IP summary|127.0.0.1}} --- do not use "subst:" with this template
    • {{User summary}} - to report registered users suspected of spamming:
    {{User summary|Username}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template

    Also, please include links ("diffs") to sample spam edits.

    Indicators
    Reports completed:
     Done
    no No action
     Stale
    Defer discussion:
     Defer to XLinkBot
     Defer to Local blacklist
     Defer to Global blacklist
     Defer to Abuse filter
    Information:
     Additional information needed
    information Note:
    Archive

    Archives

    List of archives (with sections)


    Luna Musik Management, Guzman Construction

    Spam domains


    Related domains


    Spam account


    Not enough warnings to justify blacklisting. Bears watching.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Wait -- there was another IP previously blocked:
    75.153.46.151 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Many thanks to Delicious carbuncle for flagging this.
     Defer to Global blacklist --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ourdaily.info

    Link
    Account

    The site itself provides summaries of news from other sites. The other sites may be appropriate, but news/search aggregators are not per WP:ELNO "Links normally to be avoided ... 9. Links to the results pages of search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds."

    Also, in multiple cases the anon redirected a valid link in favor of his link ... keeping the original description in what appears to be an attempt to redirect page hits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Adsense ID 1271060355521522
    Ignored 4 warnings.  Defer to Local blacklist --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk page spam-tracking data

    I received a question[1] about the tracking data I add to spammers' user talk pages; after answering it,[2] I thought it might be useful to repeat it here and see what comments and suggestions others may have:

    I add the following:
    1. Always: a "live link" to the actual site: http://example.com (Contrary to some fears, this doesn't buy any search engine favor for the spam domain). Adding this link means this spam account page show up if someone uses the Special:Linksearch page to look for other instances; for example, click on this wikilink and you'll see this talk page on the list because of the live link above:
      Special:Linksearch/*.example.com
      Often spammers use multiple accounts and you don't know there's a real problem until you see the cross-account pattern.
    2. A list of domains adding this link. I use these special spam investigation templates but that's not critical:
      1. {{IPSummary}} … example:
      2. {{UserSummary}} … example:
    3. Optional: add {{LinkSummary}} for each domain … example:
    4. Optional: If you poke around and find any related domains, list those, too. Don't list them though unless you're certain the same person controls them. One way you can tell: follow the money. If the spammer uses Google ads, the Google ad links will have an embedded referral code prefaced by "ca-pub"; that's the account Google sends the ad revenue check to.
      1. Here's the link embedded in a Google ad on one spammer's page:
        • http: //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/iclk?sa=l&ai=Bef_BV7S-SJSyNJbazQXI8vGTDfTTtVuKk47WBMCNtwGA6jAQARgBILmehgcoBDgAUP6v0-r-_____wFgybbIh-CjtBCyARR3d3cudGhla GlwaG9wb3N0LmNvbboBCTcyOHg5MF9hc8gBAdoBTWh0dHA6Ly93d3cudGhlaGlwaG9wb3N0LmNvbS8yMDA4LzA4L2Fs YnVtLXJldmlldy1ob29kdHJlYXNvbi1ieS1ueW9pbF8xMy5odG1syAKM_LAEqAMBsAOSlaAGyAMHiAQBkAQBmAQA&num=1&adurl=http:// clickserve.dartsearch.net/link/click%3Flid%3D43000000077783491&client=ca-pub-1294607511457798&nm=4
      2. Alternately, if you can usually click on "Ads by Google" and it will take you to a page about their Adsense program. Once again there's an embedded referral code:
        • http: //services.google.com/feedback/abg?url=http: //www.relianceinsider.com/&hl=en&client=ca-pub-2213215412374142&done=1&adU=+&adT=Reliance+Reliance&adU=++&adT=Reliance+IPO&adU=+++ &adT=Reliance+India+Mobile&adU= ++++&adT=Reliance+Infratel:
      {{LinkSummary}}'s AboutUs.org link takes you to a page that includes bot-produced guesses as to related domains but these are not definitive. That page will also have a "What links here" link in the left column that lists additional suspects. The domaintools link gives more definitive information as to who owns the domain; on the other hand, its "Related Sites" list is usually wrong and a waste of time. Note that tracking down everything with AboutUs.org can be very time-consuming and is very optional.


    Here's an example of tracking data I added to a spammer page: [3]. Do not use "subst" with any of these templates. If you don't have much time, at a minimum add a live link.
    If the spammer is on his 3rd warning or worse, I list it at WT:WPSPAM. The WikiProject Spam team seeks to identify and stop especially problematic spammers that ignore requests to stop. Our primary tools are the spam blacklist and XLinkBot; blocking usually doesn't do much since spammers often just switch accounts or IPs. WT:WPSPAM is also helpful if you're in a rush and don't want to spend much time on the spammer.
    If this is just a first or second warning and the spammer's used no other accounts, I may just use a live link since a full investigation is time-consuming and most spammers stop after one or two warnings. Instead, I spend most of my spam-searching time perusing blocked spam accounts to see if their domains should also be blacklisted: Special:IPBlockList
    Thanks for your help. We're covered with spam, so we can use all the help we can get. All the links in those special templates lead to a variety of interesting tools for finding related domains; other spam accounts, etc. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 September 2008


    Comments? Suggestions? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, seems fine. For the record, XLinkBot tries to extract the link matching the revertlist-rule the user has added from the diff, and adds that to the warning on the talkpage (sometimes fails). In this way these editors also show up in the linksearch.
    If the additions are by new or ip users, then we can be quite early in adding it to XLinkBot. It does not harm established editors, and keeps a lot of work away. If I see a link being added and where there are not many other uses yet, I first add it to XLinkBot, warn the editor (if XLinkBot does not beat me to it), and revert his earlier edits. I know this is not always nice, but I have been running after editors too often, keeping on warning and reverting. It is then important to react swiftly when the editor does start to discuss, either on his own talkpage, or on user talk:XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ship related postings by User:Viliyana89

    Could you take a look and tell me what you think?

    Links

    The first three links all share the same Google ad-sense account. The primary edits of this user appear to be to add the above external links - but there are some good additions mixed in as well. I'm very suspicious due to three of the sites being closely related, but the mixed-in good edits make me wonder if it could somehow be a well-intentioned user who is making questionable additions of links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I see you've already dealt with this spammer:
    Compare the user name to that on the domain registration for yachtcritic.info.
    I found 3 related domains using the AboutUs.org pages:
    If you poke around, you may find more.
    Definitely spam in my opinion.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've posted to the user's talk page - and will add links to the involved user talk pages as well. If it continues, I'll consider submitting it for blacklisting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Err... what's this?

    Is my name listed here because I linked to a no-no website, or something? I added the link because it's a news website that verified my information. Is there a problem with it? Blue Danube (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, your name is in the list in the bottom. That list is just an overview of how and by who the gets used. To me it seems that this link is widely used (by many high volume users, and by a wide range of different users), I don't see evidence of spamming, and I even think that user:Tampabay721 is not involved in the website (and I have now whitelisted that user for this link). Nothing to worry, I would say. That your name, and those of other high-volume users appears there is for us a reason to not blacklist the link in any way if it would be added inappropriately ('spammed') by a user, but that we then have to handle that 'problem' in a different way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    percorch.com

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

    Spammers

    MER-C 12:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Spammed after your last warning.  Defer to Local blacklist --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hospital search site spammer

    Hi, I warned this user about spamming and rolled back all the links without contacting y'all. Today he's reverted all my edits. (See my talk page and his/hers for more info.) I haven't had time for more than a quick reply but I think this needs a sterner warning and an admin to roll back the links again. Gotta run, thanks. Katr67 (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have rollbacked the edits again, added it to XLinkBot's revertlist and given the user a final warning. Unfortunately, if the user uses undo the bot does not remove them again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Millionstars alerted me on my talk page to some related spam/spammers:

    I haven't done any cleanup, but note that link in Utah article isn't broken just misformatted. Katr67 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tax info

    Agiletax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

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

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

    Vast majority of edits are addition of a "reference" that is really just a link-aggregator ad-farm. Primary sources should be referenced instead in all cases. 128.138.120.79 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Links related to EvisionHoldings.com

    Links
    Accounts
    Gumby945 could use a block, given he's ignored multiple warnings. --Ronz (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My 2 cents: blocking seldom stops a spammer -- he just switches IPs or accounts and then he's harder to find. Better to just blacklist his domains
    Related domains


    Public domain registration data
    Evision Holdings Inc.
    10437 Wyatt Earp Ct
    Las Vegas, NV 89129
    US
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    historyanimated.com

    216.228.170.126 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) has added links to historyanimated.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com to more than 40 articles, with only a couple of other edits. I reverted all such links made by the IP and left this warning. Another editor has questioned here whether the links are spam. The editor at 216.228.170.126 has questioned my actions here. I welcome review and any feedback on my actions. -- Donald Albury 15:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's definitely spam, as they ignored your warning. Also:

    MER-C 02:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the author of the material in question. I believe the material fits the Wiki guidelines for adding external links. It is directly relevant, free, and not meant to promote any product or website. If it were possible to add it directly to Wiki without an external website, I would gladly do so. These are complex animations of battles showing the background and movement of forces during battles - each takes about 200-250 hours to build in Flash. Take a look at Gettysburg and decide for yourself: http://www.historyanimated.com/GettysburgAnimation.html

    Donald Asbury (above) deleted some links and received this response from one of the authors "Hi, Donald. I'm not sure why you think the animated history links are spam, but I restored the one on General Forrest after checking the link. I think it's an excellent link for anyone interested in Forrest's military history. JD Lambert"

    And the only time I am aware I was warned about adding links the actual author of the material repsonded to the warning person "I came here to thank Jcagney for adding the "Animated History of The Siege of Petersburg and Surrender at Appomattox" external link to the Battle of Sayler's Creek article which i was watching because i recently created the Sayler's Creek Battlefield article. I found it really interesting and played it all the way through. I could see it being questioned for its direct relevance to any one article like the Battle of Sayler's Creek article, which is covered in only one page of the animation. The animation would be most relevant for a wikipedia article about the entire siege-to-surrender period, if there is one. However, for the Sayler's Creek article, having the link there still helps to place that battle in a larger context. I think this is an unusual thing, we should try to figure out how to incorporate links to this, rather than block it off because it is different. Anyhow, thanks again because i enjoyed it! doncram (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)"

    I asked the owner of the Gettysburg Battle page to take a look at the material on the external link and asked it would be OK to list the link on the page. He is also the author of all the maps on most of the Civil War battle pages and heavily involved in all the sites. His response: "It is not possible to give "permission" in Wikipedia because people can always edit away things others find satisfactory. I have no objection to this link (other than that I don't like the word The capitalized). There are people and robots around, however, who object to mass additions of links, so you need to be judicious. For example, adding links to all the generals' bio pages was rather over the I top. One link per battle or campaign seems fine to me. But that's just my opinion. ..... Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

    I stand chastised and agree to not violate what Hal Jespersen has suggested. Given that, does anyone have any objection to my restablishing the external links as suggested? One per campaign/battle? Thank you

    Please advise, Thanks, James Cagney— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcagney (talk • contribs)

    First, any time you leave a comment on a talk page, you should "sign" the comment by placing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of the comment. Second, I will reply to you here as I have reverted your comment on my talk page because it overwrote part of my last comment there. You need to be careful to not change anything posted by another editor on a talk page. Third, no one editor (except, possibly, for Jimbo Wales) speaks for Wikipedia, but our anti-spam guidelines have the consensus of the community and cannot be unilaterally changed or suspended. This has nothing to do with the merits of the material being spammed, nor with the intentions of individual editors who add a link to a spam site. It has been determined that allowing someone to add multiple links to an external site can be detrimental to Wikipedia, and it has also been determined that is an unacceptable conflict of interest for someone to add their own work to Wikipedia, unless that work has previously been published by a reliable source. Fourth, before contacting any more uninvolved editors to seek support for your position, please read the behavioural guideline at Wikipedia:Canvassing. -- Donald Albury 13:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My apology for being a bad typist. I did not mean to overwrite - I tried to correct. I had a further clarification from Hal Jespersen - who appears to be the main force behind the Wiki Civil War project. He states "I think your animations are well done and don't object to judicious inclusion as External links. My concept of judicious would be to select only the most important or relevant places to link. For instance, Gettysburg has dozens of articles about the campaign and battle and literally hundreds of articles about men, women, and units who fought there. I'd recommend linking only from Battle of Gettysburg and Gettysburg Campaign (assuming you also animate the campaign as a whole). By the way, 'reliable sources' is a concept only relevant if someone were to put your animation into References or Notes, using them as a cited source of info for writing the article. In most of the important ACW articles that are well-cited, we tend to avoid website References unless they have very notable owners, such as government agencies, universities, historical societies, etc. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)"

    As far as the Reliable Sources go, all the animations religiously follow the best historical sources and attempt to add nothing to them. When an opinion is given, it is the opinion of a noted historical writer and quoted as such. They follow the same pattern as all Wiki material that is in text or maps - they draw on the work of the best historians without attempting to add any interpretation to the material. The animations are highlighted on the websites of Dakota State University (the key site for history education links), TeacherOz (the key site for primary and secondary history teachers), University of Victoria, are on the curriculum of dozens of primary/secondary/colleges in the US and abroad. They are also used extensively within the Unites States military (army, navy, and marines) for historical training of US forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcagney Jcagney (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC))(talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    bookspotcentral.com

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

    87.22.38.89 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

    The above IP has done nothing but add promotional links for the website listed, starting in June 2008. At least some edits have also subtly changed existing links (mostly to a single competing site) to go to the above site instead [4], or changed existing references to point to the site[5]. They've been warned before, but I'll warn them again.— Gavia immer (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These "on The Spot" Interviews appear to be synidcated to several websites (at least a google search has them turning up all over the place) but the author's blog states he wrote them for fantasybookspot.com [6]. Which seems to be the "rival" site that the above spammer is altering links from. -- SiobhanHansa 20:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted article edited by 87.22.38.89:
    Also edited by:


    This is confusing. It looks like fantasybootspot.com has also been spammed in the past:


    On closer examination, I found this on the bookspotcentral.com site:
    Fantasybookspot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    enfacto.com

    Links
    Users


    Looks like a spam-only account, but the link appears "useful". I haven't done any investigation or cleanup. Katr67 (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello! I am more or less a newbie to Wikipedia, so I apologize for my transgressions thus far. I am a lawyer who seeks to help improve the quality of caselaw-related Wikipedia entries.
    My account isn't a spam-only account. I've made a number of edits purely to improve the content of legal articles. See, for instance, my edits to the Fifth Amendment article (I would provide a link but I'm not sure how).
    It is true, however, that most of my efforts have consisted of adding a link to Enfacto.com's full text display of Supreme Court opinions in the "External links" section of caselaw-related Wikipedia articles. Note that I have not made any changes to existing cites to Findlaw, Justia, Oyez, etc. I have only added an external link where it was absent, and that link has been to Enfacto.com.
    Not knowing the external links policy at first (but later being told about them by Katr67), I added external links to internal portions of articles. I only did that at first not knowing about the policy, and where I'd see external links to Findlaw, Justia, etc., in other caselaw-related articles (such as in the See Also section next to where cases were listed). I stopped doing that after being linked to the policy by Katr67, as you can see from my history.
    One purpose of my presence on Wikipedia is to improve the quality of caselaw-related Wikipedia entries by adding External links to open sources of law such as enfacto.com, precydent.com, altlaw.org, etc. Findlaw is a subsidiary of Thomson West and linking to it seems contrary to the ideals of Wikipedia. In addition, Findlaw has popups. Any of the above-mentioned sites would be a superior source of the full text of an opinion. I personally prefer enfacto.com, but I'm here to advocate the link to alternative, open, and superior sources of law.
    The links I made were not only to a "useful" site--namely enfacto.com--but I also always linked directly to cases and not to the site generally (which I would see more as spam). My links were all equivalent to links to Findlaw--in fact, I think links to enfacto (and precydent, altlaw, etc) are superior because they lack popups and the display is easier to read (for instance, there aren't any advertisements). Note I only added External links where they didn't exist in the first instance.
    That said, I would like to see enfacto.com taken off the spam list and I would like to start a discussion on alternatives to Findlaw as the external link to the full text of cases. Any help on this matter would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K8lj (talk • contribs) 21:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC) K8lj (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, well I suggest you go raise these points at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law where many of our editors who work on legal topics coordinate their activities. If your link has merit, they may want to use it. They can also give you some coaching on how to navigate our rules and practices here. For starters, take a look at our simplified ruleset.
    You aren't on any blacklist but we do have to keep this record here. Fell free to go ahead and remove our warnings from your user talk page now that you've absorbed them. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    relationship-buddy.com

    Link
    User

    Reported by Kelly hi! 03:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad backlog on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

    Please pitch in and help whittle this down. We have editors who've been waiting several months.

    Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Other eyeballs required

    This started as a content dispute so I would really appreciate other editors taking a look at this for me.

    My man manny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) added references on the 529 plan article to 529plansblog.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com . I removed them stating it wasn't a reliable source but the other editor reverted with reasoning on [talk page]. While building the case that this was not a reliable source I discovered the domain name had been registered only two days before My man manny added it to the article. I looked back through past contributions and found links added to similar sites also registered to the same user and in one case also added only shortly after the site had been registered:

    This looks like an attempt to get adsense sites into Wikipedia to me, but especially since this started out as a content dispute, I would appreciate other comments.

    -- SiobhanHansa 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not knowing much about Wikipedia, doing some more reading I see that I have been editing in violation of the TOS. (Not all of my edits, mind, but some.) I will not be editing Wikipedia further. I would delete my account, but that does not seem to be possible. (Ah. I just changed my password to something I will never remember. That will do the trick.) --My man manny (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://spam.f-100.org

    f-100.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Spammers

    MER-C 12:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dragon Ball Blogspot spam

    87.216.53.226 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) Has repeatedly spammed Dragon Ball related articles with links to blogspot.com. Has been warned mutiple times, but contained to re-add the links without discussing their volidity.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] --Farix (Talk) 12:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://spam.cotabatowarez.com

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

    Spammers

    MER-C 12:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Updated. MER-C 11:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://sss.carifree.com/

    Link
    Account

    User spamming link to multiple oral healthcare related articles. The link is essentially a commercial website, although the specific pages linked are somewhat informative - still, better links already exist in the related articles, so these links are redundant at best. Also, note that the user name of the contributor is the same as the company mentioned on the website, so a likely COI issue here as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    computerathlete.net

    Link
    Account
    68.44.45.20 was blocked for spamming the link. He's returned and he's picked up right where he left off. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    healthaliciousness.com

    Link

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

    Account

    Masparasol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

    Some diffs

    [18], [19], [20]

    The user Masparasol had a very sparse and otherwise unremarkable editing history until last month. Since August 15 the user has added links to healthaliciousness.com to 26 articles, but made no other edits. There are currently 39 links to healthaliciousness.com from en-WP. Ordinarily I would just revert these links, but Masparasol may be acting in good faith, and I would like some opinions on this before I start chopping. -- Donald Albury 08:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After reviewing the site, it appears to be primarilly a personal blog, with recipes and nutritional info also available on some pages. Based on the information on the "about" and "Terms of use" pages, the site clearly fails as a reliable source, so where it has been inserted as a reference should be undone. For where it gets used as an external link, those should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis; but of the ones I've looked at so far (granted, just a small sample as yet), the link should be purged per WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY.
    As to the user - there's circumstantial evidence to suggest a COI (most blog entries are from the same state the user claims to originate from, and the site was registered only about two weeks prior to the first posting of the link on WP) - but I would probably still WP:AGF at this point and just issue standard notices to their talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments. I'm going to have to find the time to work though the list (instead of just hitting the Undo button repeatedly). -- Donald Albury 18:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://spam.xriot.biz

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

    Spammers

    MER-C 11:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    REIT Spam

    Spammers

    Kuru talk 12:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://spam.snowdeck.cz

    Link
    Account

    User adding link to Snowdeck and Snowskate articles, despite warnings on the IP talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC) ‎[reply]

    Civicseo.com spam

    Domains


    Related domains


    Possibly related


    Accounts


    Previous report

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sites hosted on 72.52.135.1

    72.52.135.1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

    Adsense IDs
    • pub-3138681755179606
    • and others, see related domains.
    Sites spammed

    http://spam.thesavvytrader.com

    http://spam.propertyinvestmentbeginner.com

    http://spam.usedmercedesonline.com

    Related domains

    See [27]. I'm not going to reproduce all 838 related domains here, it's going to kill this page.

    Spammers

    MER-C 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tenant

    Tenant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

    Per contribs, account has only been used to add *.ontariotenants.ca links to other articles. I might have assumed good faith, but this edit [28], where the editor removes that domain from a spam-related discussion, makes me think otherwise. Account is several years old; I noticed it after this edit. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Though sometimes informative, the site is a personal one with advertising, not an official gov't site. justinfr (talk/contribs) 17:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://spam.xrio.com

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

    Spammers

    MER-C 08:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    spam.fibre2fashion.com

    Previous incidents
    Spam pages
    Sites spammed
    Related domains
    • Google Adsense ID 8276117663149086
    • Google Adsense ID 9876665472609145
    Spammers

     Defer to XLinkBot MER-C 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    http://spam.apunkachoice.com

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

    Related domains

    http://spam.indiaexpress.com

    http://spam.cricketzone.com

    http://spam.diwaliecards.com

    http://spam.diwaliecard.com

    http://spam.zintrip.com

    Spammers

    Citation spammer. MER-C 12:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&diff=238570739&oldid=238568698

    Leave a Reply