Trichome

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎URLs causing problems with archiving?: Is there a page describing how blacklisting works?
MarkMarek (talk | contribs)
524 edits
69.122.154.231
Line 685: Line 685:


---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 17:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
---[[User:J.smith|J.S]] <small>([[User_talk:J.smith|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/J.smith|C]]/[[WP:WRE|WRE]])</small> 17:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

== [[User:69.122.154.231]] went on a major spamming spree today ==

User [[User:69.122.154.231|69.122.154.231]] added [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.122.154.231 multitudes of external links on New York related pages]] today.

;Sites spammed
{{spamlink|newsday.com}}<br>
{{spamlink|lirealestateonline.com}}
...and more

;Spammers
*{{IPSummary|69.122.154.231}}

Revision as of 20:21, 27 October 2007

Shortcut


Archive

Archives

List of archives (with sections)

socyberty.com

Another suite101 type of site - authors can pretty much write what they like and they get a share of the revenue generated by the advertising on their article pages. Little apparent editorial control in terms of fact checking and writers do not need to be subject experts - most seem to cover broad ranges of subjects and use screen names. This makes it inappropriate as a reliable source and unlikely to be appropriate as an external link. It's not that big an issue yet, but a couple of authors appear to have just started trying to get their articles on Wikipedia so it may be the beginning of a push.

Users:

-- SiobhanHansa 15:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ifood.tv

I've noticed links to ifood.tv popping up here and there. In most cases, by spot checking, I found the links added by IP users mapping to India. (Look for 122. IPs). I'm not entirely convinced that this is spam ... well ... it's spam, but it's borderline useful content as opposed to merely being a link aggregator or trying to push a commercial product. Maybe I'll be more dogmatic tomorrow, but I thought I would post it here first to see if anyone has a strong opinion one way or the other on removing the links. --B 02:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's monitor how it gets used. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anvilmedia COI and spamming

User is attempting to create articles for clients on its client list: anvilmediainc.com/full-client-list.htm Including Retrevo, GolfNow.com, Portland Oregon Visitors Association and ColumbiaSoft. Also spamming links to:

Links

retrevo.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

User

Anvilmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please ban to the blackest depths of the blacklist. Thanks. Katr67 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to blacklist, which you can request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, please don't post live URLs as they will prevent this page from being saved. You also need to get the spammer blocked, probably by posting to WP:ANI (in this case). MER-C 13:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links

golfnow.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

Now spamming under the guise of adding refs and replacing links to one golf ref with links their client's site. Katr67 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam.eleu.net spam.eleuthera.com spam.bahamashomesite.com

Spammers

Cross posted from WP:ANI#Undo links (permanent link). MER-C 09:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still spamming, as pointed out on my talk page. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 04:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still spamming. MER-C 09:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors spamming http://spam.britannica.com

Links
User

Looks like another case of an editor spamming what could be useful links. I've not looked carefully through all this editors contributions, nor looked for similar editors. --Ronz 17:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... Looks fine actually. Britannica is a reliable source. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editors whose sole contributions to Wikipedia are nothing but the same link are spammers. 24.148.22.105 is one such editor. The quality of the link is not in question, it is the manner in which it is being spammed across Wikipedia. --Ronz 16:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather then blindly revert why not judge the links on their merits? If the link qualifies under WP:EL it's not spam. I'm not going to revert you (as I don't really care that much either way) but I think your rather missing the point. Linking to reliable sources = adding value to the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the same editor adding nothing but a long list of external links is spamming. Editors should just revert them en masse, not look at every single one for merit. Spam cleaning is a different process than editorial improvements. An editor CAN leave spammed links if they are excellent ones, but there is no need for an editor cleaning blatant spam to 100% time make their own judgment as to the merit of every spammed link. 2005 23:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the site from the monitorlist of COIBot, and whitelisted it against automonitoring. Please let me know if there are more accounts, I will blacklist the seperate editors (like this one). COIBot will of course still report authors with large overlaps or in close IP proximity. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.overvoice.co.uk

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

Spammer

Slow but persistent. Probably not appropriate to block IP as can go 6 months between adding, would local blacklisting be appropriate, or is that overkill? -- SiobhanHansa 13:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued this morning [1]. user did not respond to talk page message about this discussion. -- SiobhanHansa 13:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it is blocked for now but given that the only contribution to Wikipedia is external links I'd talk nicely to an admin I think. The ip looks like one provided to a business by a UK provider - working on "voice overs" I guess --Herby talk thyme 15:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reported at WP:AIAV this morning. admins there seem to have become more responsive to spammers over the last 6 months (or I've learned how to make my case better). I'll see what happens after the block expires - it's not so aggressive that it can't be dealt with once s/he returns. How do you recognize that the IP is provided to a business? -- SiobhanHansa 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google'd EACS Ltd - the providers, looks like they supply business (& I've not heard of them in the domestic market) so it is may well be static. I think I might look at at least a month with a "special" message along the lines of "come back if you want to contribute something other than links" (were I'm an admin!). The problem is they will probably not be back in that week. The earlier edits puzzled me but IPs do change --Herby talk thyme 16:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam.humanthermodynamics.com

Spammers

See also this WP:ANI report.

This fellow has been changing accounts when caught. I suggest blacklisting these domains. - Jehochman Talk 19:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some spam pages:

This really needs to be blacklisted at meta. MER-C 02:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.oplenac.org.yu

oplenac.org.yu: 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 09:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.lokesewa.com

lokesewa.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 13:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User creation for self promotional purposes

  1. I stumbled across the user page of User:Rendering by accident. The user was assigned to several categories of the article main space. I then noticed that the user also used the template:Infobox company for his page. Then I took a step backwards and realized that this page was created just like a real article, but in the user space to avoid easy detection and speedy deletion or an AfD. I changed the category references to pointing links (added the ":" in front of the categories) and removed the infobox template. Each with a long message in the edit summary what I did and why. I did not "flash" the user page, because that would appear as if I would vandalize the user page. The user page was created a couple months ago and except for the Wikipedia:Introduction and his user page was nothing else edited by that user. See Special:Contributions/Rendering
    1. What is the best way to approach this?
    2. Is there a template that should be placed to mark the user as "to be deleted"?
    3. What would be the right approach if the user has such a page but some legit edits in main space articles?
  2. Second thing. I suggest that there will be sent out a bot to remove "infobox xxx" templates from user pages. Maybe only users home pages and not pages created like at "user:user/pagename" to avoid removal of templates from real work in progress pages that are being prepared for the article main space but still being drafted.
  3. The detection of users assigned to main space categories is a bit tougher, because that can happen by error (happened to me too) and you can't tell easily if a category is used for the main space or not.
Thoughts, ideas, suggestions, answers anybody? Thanks. I would be surprised if this issue is not already debated and acted on somewhere. Just pointing me to the appropriate project or page will be sufficient. If not, then there should be one IMO :). Thanks and cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#G11. There is effectively zero tolerance for this kind of spamming. MER-C 08:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do I report/flag something like this. I don't have permission to delete a user. :) Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You tag it for speedy deletion with {{db-spam}}. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.thephoenix.com

Links
User

COI. Has been warned and has stopped for now. I think we need a user protection program for all these interns who have been told to spam by their employers. :-\ P.S. Note the link can be used as a legit reliable source. Katr67 02:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

associatedcontent.com articles by Jon Hopwood

added to articles about various Hollywood and Pro Sports people.. There are a few different URL's, but all of the articles were written by Jon Hopwood.

--Versageek 07:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

borgenproject.org

borgenproject.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:

See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clint_Borgen and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Borgen_Project.


Has been ongoing for years and includes POV pushing into article content with links to the site as cites. Given the lack of methodology and the lack of significance of the group their statements should not be influencing our content. Recommending for blacklisting, is on many wikis, by the looks of it due to being copied from en: articles so will start with meta and see how that fares. -- SiobhanHansa 12:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now done on meta -- SiobhanHansa 13:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming internal links to the WP article The Arts Trust - Institute of Contemporary Indian Art

Spamming 'See alsos' to the Wikipedia article . He is adding them to articles that have something to with art, but have no earthly reason to link to this particular museum. He also adds external links to the same museum. I reverted two of the 'See alsos'. Not asking for any special help here, except if anyone would like to help revert, that would be welcome. One of his links appears actually appropriate. EdJohnston 18:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just internal spam, this IP along with a couple of other accounts are also spamming external links to the Institute of Contemporary Indian Art's website (which seems to be a commercial gallery rather than an art museum) - http://spam.theartstrust.com. theartstrust.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
Other accounts involved in promoting this institution:
-- SiobhanHansa 15:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam.choosehelp.com

Editor jumps from IP to IP so warning will miss anyway. Local blacklist request submitted [2]. -- SiobhanHansa 21:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choose Help.

Mschoel it turns out is the marketing manager for choosehelp and has deleted a spam warning on from his own talk page, so is clearly aware the linking is not entirely appreciated. -- SiobhanHansa 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam.france-photos.site.voila.fr

france-photos.site.voila.fr: 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

Cross-posted from the local blacklist. So that's what happens when you spend the night programming instead of spam patrolling. MER-C 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.whototake.com

whototake.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 12:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.vernissage.tv

vernissage.tv: 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 13:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.reveillemag.com

reveillemag.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 13:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.socialistreview.org.uk

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

Spammers

Could possibly have some value, so remaining links might have been added in good faith. MER-C 13:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.pinoychess.informe.com

pinoychess.informe.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

Accounts

MER-C 13:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.aufeminin.com

aufeminin.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 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unitedstatesadjusters.com

This is primarily on articles Public Insurance Adjusting & Public adjuster (which should probably be merged). There have been a few other companies added as well, but this is the only one that keeps coming back.

--Versageek 13:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.constitution.org

Looking for advice: I am new to this process, and also I am not sure if what I am seeing is considered WPSpam or not. Above, I see a lot of instances of a single user, or single IP, blatantly spamming. Yet, what I see with www.constitution.org is more subtle and complex.

WikiUser Jon Roland, for many years, has kept a blog where he has assembled a collection mix of his political commentary combined with a repository of public domain text. It appears that many users, including Jon Roland, take advantage of his repository while editing Wikipedia. This has an effect, (deliberate or unintentional), of creating a lot of Wiki links to his website raising both the traffic to his political blog, but also raising the tendency of Wiki editors to find his website ranked high on Google when they do a web search. (A self reinforcing loop)

I have checked about twenty of the six hundred links and typically I found that the public domain texts in his self published repository/political blog were all also available on non-self published websites. Clearly, this is an issue of WP:V, specifically, WP:SPS. But, also, I am curious if other editors consider this a variant 'loop' type of WIKI spam? SaltyBoatr 16:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting it on COIBot's monitor list, lets see how this gets used. Such self-publication sites may indeed be a problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Situations that involve good, long-standing editors are tricky to deal with. And good sites that are also promoted by their owners are also problematic from a spam fighting perspective. In part this is because Wikipedia has raised its standards over the last few years and behavior was tolerated, even welcomed and encouraged when the project was younger, that does not meet our current expectations. Making texts available online was (and is) a public service. Especially before other Foundation projects came along, this was work above and beyond most editors' contributions. The self published issue is much more widely recognized now than it was initially - but it's not an absolute violation of verifiability, especially when you're talking about republishing texts which are themselves established. The question becomes more a case of whether the site has a reputation for providing trustworthy texts, and it sounds like by now it may well have.
It doesn't sound like other editors finding Roland's site and using it as a link is necessarily a violation of any of our guidelines or policies. He's provided content people want and built a reputation, and now he's found more easily. That's pretty much exactly what's supposed to happen, and it generally works in our favor, penalizing him because he did it at a time Wikipedia didn't take such a hard line on links doesn't seem fair. Also we should remember it's not as though getting a benefit from providing good content is unacceptable - we link to newspapers all the time whose good content means they get more eyes to look at their advertising. The question should be about whether the content linked to is good for our readers and whether there are better sources for that content.
However our standards have changed and we need to deal with improving our content - If he's still doing it, Jon Roland should be politely reminded that he should not add links to his own site directly to article pages. And if there are better links available with the same content we should replace the ones on our articles. -- SiobhanHansa 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed something, I don't think Roland is being accused of spamming in the normal sense. There appears to be no real commercial intent here. His site is ancient by internet standards, dating back to at least 1996. I wouldn't be surprised if he was the first person to make some of these documents available online. - Hoplon 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Roland's site does solicit money contributions, so I don't see how you can claim it has no commercial intent. I do agree that the primary intent appears to be pushing his politics. SaltyBoatr 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this isn't a standard case, but I would point out that spamming by Wikipedia's definition isn't about commercial intent - We get plenty of people spamming their personal opinions, or simply trying to make their own sites more popular or pushing their favorite fansites, as well as nonprofit orgs promoting their sites in order to further their own missions. Revenue generation is far from the only driver for spam. -- SiobhanHansa 04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree this isn't a standard case. For the additional reason: It appears to me that the repository of text maintained by Roland serves as a tool for, not an individual person, but also a like minded pool of 'people spamming their personal opinions'. SaltyBoatr 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ehow

A 'manual site', much self published I think.

wikipedia would also be catagorized as a 'manual self published' site. what is the standard here. any one can put anything in it from cyber space. who are your experts??? no one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbasharat (talk • contribs) 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors:

--Dirk Beetstra T C 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHO CARES! YOU JUST OWN A ZENITH OF THIS CYBERSPACE. STAY IN YOUR CORNER. IT MAKES ME LAUGH WHEN YOU WARN AGAINST THINGS (WITH ALL YOUR STOP

AND YEILD SIGNS). I HAD NO INTENSIONS OF SPAMMING YOUR SITE. I EVEN DONT KNOW THIS SITE VERY WELL. HERE IS A GOOD ONE: ‘This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits’.........‘The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Cholesterol, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia'. CAN YOU GO FURTHER THAN THAT? LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE DYING TO SAY, 'YOU ARE FIRED’. KNOW YOUR LIMITS YOU SHOULD BE BEGGING FOR USERS FOR YOUR SITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahbasharat (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 Oct 2007

Well I was only passing by but it is odd how you get to make your mind up about some contributions so quickly - could even be one for Meta, given the approach --Herby talk thyme 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam.jobs2web.com

Links
Spammers

IP registered to an outfit called "Hot Gigs" that builds career search websites. Not a prolific spam campaign but apparently adding links to their clients' articles. I've removed all the ones spammed by this IP. Further research turned up Talk:AT&T Mobility#Adding an External Link this conversation with a user who wanted to add one of their links. User:Hotgigs was deleted as advertising. There may be other IPs. Bears watching. Katr67 16:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.hyperwage.googlepages.com

Spam pages
Sites spammed

hyperwage.googlepages.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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategy Myopia. MER-C 09:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.sexy-actress-video.com

sexy-actress-video.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 10:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

URLs causing problems with archiving?

I just discovered that Shadowbot3 lost one of the sections when archiving earliear this month (see [3] and [4]) I think this was because there were links in the section that had been blacklisted. We should try to be more careful about this (and I'm sure I'm as forgetful as anyone else). Losing details on why a URL was blacklisted makes it much harder to make an informed decision if there is a request to remove or locally whtelist.

This got me thinking - I was wondering if we could try appending a set marker instead of prepending - we could use http://www.evilurl.com.wps instead of http://spam.evilurl.com and amend the {{spamlink}} template to search for *.evilurl.com.wps as well as the actual link - that way we could leave the appended blacklisted urls in spam discussions and use the link search feature to find them easily. -- SiobhanHansa 15:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea is good, but I think those links would still trigger the blacklist. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then it's not so good! I thought the blacklist distinguished between top level domains (i.e. you can blacklist .com and leave .org available) so I thought this might work. I've never looked at the mechanics of how blacklisting works - is there a page somewhere describing it? -- SiobhanHansa 18:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.thesmileshop.net

thesmileshop.net: 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

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.122.154.231 went on a major spamming spree today

User 69.122.154.231 added [multitudes of external links on New York related pages] today.

Sites spammed

newsday.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
lirealestateonline.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 ...and more

Spammers
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&diff=167491447&oldid=167467869

Leave a Reply