Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
|
|---|
Detroit External links
Some of the External links in the article Detroit seem like spam. What do you think? -Marcusmax 00:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I tagged this with {{cleanup-spam}}. Thanks for the report. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No follow? No problem
I thought this was cute. (Notice the subdomain of the spammed url). Nposs 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I particularly liked the special "/?Wikipedia" tracking tag. Nothing screams spammer more than the addition of a custom embedded mechanism for tracking Wikipedia clicks. (Requestion 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC))
- Caught one last month URL tracking givaways.--Hu12 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talking of nofollow (yawn) that's six weeks now. Dramatic decrease in spamming spotted? --BozMo talk 15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to have slowed down @ all. At least for traffic oriented sites, forums ect..--Hu12 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talking of nofollow (yawn) that's six weeks now. Dramatic decrease in spamming spotted? --BozMo talk 15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well… spamming isn’t the only thing Joseweb (talk · contribs) did, see: Cultural Experiences Abroad. --Van helsing 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did some minor external link clean up but this article needs a lot more work. The CEA page does seem a bit promotional and I've listed some issues I have with it here Talk:Cultural Experiences Abroad. Feel free to chime in and apply WP:EL as you see fit. Does this company even meet the notability guidelines? (Requestion 19:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC))
- I hacked away at Cultural Experiences Abroad some more. It's better but it still looks like an advertisement. (Requestion 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
Second opinion on fact-sheets.com
Can someone else please look at the links to fact-sheets.com? They don't look very useful to me, in general, and I can't figure out if they are a reliable source or not. Thanks. Deli nk 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- fact-sheets.com (*|search current) The site's business model is to take public ___domain content, slap some ads on it, promote it, and sell concessions for the ad revenue. There ought to be not a single link on Wikipedia, ever. It's not a reliable source. If it's cited anywhere, we can and should cite the original sources instead. For example, the reference [1] in gasoline was scraped from ftc.gov.
- This is worrying: [2] "Advertising Services: In addition to designing and hosting your fact sheet on this site, we can create a targeted, cost-effective advertising campaign to bring your sheet to the attention of potential customers or other interested web users." — If you want to get ad revenue for specific topics, what could be more targeted than a link in Wikipedia's articles? Customers are encouraged to place links for pages they bought on other web sites. (essentially saying: of course within ethical limits, but that's your problem, not ours…).
- It seems very similar to the suite101 case. Is there enough evidence for paid promotion to blacklist yet? We definitely need to watch it, there's a serious potential for future abuse. See contribs:64.241.242.18. The IP (___location Hyde Park, Boston, Massachusetts) resolves to Looksmart, LTD, the site is hosted in Burlington, Massachusetts. Massive linking in 2004, spam warning, reduced but continued. More recently, Looksmart's getting smarter, the promotional work appears to have shifted to the customers, see contribs:71.139.2.142, three pages are "posted by The Riverman" (the other doesn't tell). Femto 12:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, Femto, that's very helpful. I've removed all the links now. Only one link was used as a reference, but it was a link to a missing article. Deli nk 14:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Someone should ask User:Shadow1 to add this to User:shadowbot. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea, done that. Femto 14:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Shadow1 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Someone should ask User:Shadow1 to add this to User:shadowbot. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, Femto, that's very helpful. I've removed all the links now. Only one link was used as a reference, but it was a link to a missing article. Deli nk 14:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
www.moviesbuzz.com
*.moviesbuzz.com
Spammed by:
- 59.144.5.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 202.53.8.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 125.22.65.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 59.144.5.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 122.164.146.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 122.164.143.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- Nova_joseph2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
All of the content I have checked on the site is copyvio, much of it taken from Wikipedia. Many of the links added in fact led to articles copied from Wikipedia without proper citation. Latest addition: added content copied from musicbuzz (to the article talk page) and added link to the website - even though the content itself had originally been copied from the Wikipedia article being spammed. That IP in particlar appears to be beginning an alphabetical spam of all the copied material on musicbuzz. It seems like a good potential blacklist (but from what I understand, and admin has to propose it. Right?) Nposs 18:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen these types before, copy a wiki article then link from it "claiming" relavance. Not sure why no one has proposed other 'wiki"/scrapper type sites be barred from linking here..Good catch.--Hu12 20:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- How can I get this blacklisted. Linksearch says the culprit is back. Nposs 22:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Black listed [3]--Hu12 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- How can I get this blacklisted. Linksearch says the culprit is back. Nposs 22:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Spammer or just a big Discovery Channel fan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.61.191.81 Puzzling. --CliffC 02:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- That guy does not seem to be adding in any external links, I think he is just fine. If someone wants to, they can show him how to cite an article, but other then that, no biggie. ;) —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Blacklisting URLs
Could someone look into the possibility of blacklisting the urls constantly being added to Lingerie and Generic drug? I've asked for semi-protection on those pages, but I think that just might shift the target of this spammer. Robotman1974 00:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've placed a request at the m:Spam blacklist. It's be worth checking if there are any associated URLs. -- zzuuzz(talk) 01:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If a spammer uses multiple accounts/IPs
If a spammer uses multiple accounts/IPs, how should the problem be reported? Conceivably none of the accounts would ever get to a level 4 warning, so it seems like AIV might be the wrong place. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just report all the ips and articles spammed here, as the reports in previous sections. If it is too massive, it is better to just blacklist the links. -- ReyBrujo 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. There's a spammer using an account & IP reported at Template:Ssp, could someone just look at that link and see what they think? In the future, I'll report similar problems to this page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam"
Here is the proof that such self-declared "spam-fighters" as A. B. have been vandalizing Wikipedia. While deleting links from classical Indian dance, our dear over-zealous spam-fighters have nevertheless left the promotional and commercial link to dancevillage.org (which only link to Barnes&Nobles shop!) and closed their eyes on the fact that the eventsindia link was about volleyball, ceramics, anything but classical Indian dance.
I believe that the admins have to seriously look into cases of vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam". Jag Ju 11:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Sticking my nose in here) I don't know about the links removed in January by A.B., but on my machine
- http://www.dancevillage.org takes me direct to a seemingly useful site about Indian dance, not B&N
- http://EventsInIndia.com takes me to a page with a "Browse by tags" section with a "Dance" link that brings me to a page listing several dance performance dates.
- So I think both links mentioned above as examples of "bad links left in place by A.B." and removed by Jag Ju today are in fact good ones and should be restored to the article. --CliffC 13:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Another sock of User:Santap, I presume. Don't feed. I'm sure A. B. can provide a better outline of this case if necessary. This should speak for itself:
- User:A. B./Sandbox2
- Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sselvakumar
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#in.geocities.com/medhahari
- Talk:Bharatanatyam
Femto 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- When the spammers get all angry and start calling you a vandal then you know you are doing something right! (: (Requestion 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC))
- The truly bored can also see this tedious Meta discussion of my many sins on Meta:
- m:Talk:Spam blacklist#Medha Hari spam on Wikipedia
- Permanent link to this discussion
- m:Talk:Spam blacklist#Medha Hari spam on Wikipedia
- The socks are on the march again.
- The truly bored can also see this tedious Meta discussion of my many sins on Meta:
- As for the other links, I have no opinion and I did not look at them. By all means delete them if they're spammy -- or even if they were added in good faith but just don't meet WP:EL. ---A. B. (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
TOC box overlaps text in Firefox 2 at 800x600
So I changed it, but I think the lead needs to be trimmed anyway. Xiner (talk, email) 21:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Practitioners of sustainable architecture
Would anyone like to confirm that axing the whole "Practitioners of sustainable architecture" section of Sustainable architecture will only improve the article? It looks like a spam magnet to me. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- That heading is like a big please place your promotional link here sign. 9 out of the 10 practitioners are external links and all of the External links look spammy except for the umich.edu link. My vote is ax them all. Green building looks like a spam magnet too. I gave User_talk:Ecoarchitect a spam2 warning but I didn't revert anything. (Requestion 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC))
- Thanks for the confirmation. I went ahead and removed the whole section. ✤ JonHarder talk 02:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Didn't we clean up a bunch of these kinds of articles a month or so back? Oh well, this stuff keeps poping back up no doubt. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Spam and art promotion
After polishing up articles on terms for fine art printing (Giclee, Iris printer, ect) I found that searching buzz words such as "Giclee" and "fine art print" take you to sections of articles and even whole articles on artist and galleries that seem to be spam/COI. A common practice seems to be galleries putting up pages for them selves and for the artist they represent and then they linkspam by linking the artists and the galleries to other topics as "See also" instead of "External link". An example is:
- Quent Cordair Fine Art
- Quent Cordair
- Difs of this artists/gallery added to other articles as wiki link/See also - [4], [5]
It seems that all these edits are being made by the same editor using different sockpuppets and IPs. I'm not sure if I should just delete/speedy these things or go the route of a "Notability" tag and discussion (How much good faith should I be assuming when the pattern seems pretty obvious?).
In general a modern less notable artist's “notability” consists of some galleries advertising campaign. People supporting articles about these artists put forward the opinion that advertising as a form of notability. A “massive advertising campaign” is not one of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Should that notability be discounted and the artists entry on Wikipedia be speedied if no other sources are put forward? Fountains of Bryn Mawr 02:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Obsessed with Wrestling - linkspam?
The site Obsessed With Wrestling is now linked to over 1100 articles in Wikipedia. Looking on Google, pretty much all of the hits for this website are self-referential, meaning it doesn't seem notable per WP:WEB. Is it time to remove the links? (I hate patrolling wrestling articles, BTW - they're always bait for the worst kind of vandalism and spam.) RJASE1 Talk 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Adsense pub-7354244893659533
- obsessedwithwrestling.com
- It realy doesnt appear to provide a unique resource. seems its mostly a fansite. I'd say its not a WP:RS. --Hu12 13:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so we probably should ask on a few talk pages, to see what people who edit those kinds of articles think... we are the anti-spam project, not the WP:RS police :D, though what we do oftentimes does merge with WP:RS. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like
- a legitimate fan site,
- A source for potentially reliable interviews
- the site was added by multiple new and experienced wikipedians
- Is being used as the "source" for a ton of images
- Basically... it looks like this is just a case of over use and not actual spam. Some of the links undoubtedly fail WP:EL and/or WP:RS but many don't. I say, we leave it alone and let the article editors duke it out over inclusion/exclusion based on the circumstances. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like
Avalanche and climbing external links
At first I couldn't figure out if the contributions by 24.21.148.229 (talk · contribs) were spam or not. Then I went through the edit log and looked at all the diffs. Nothing but lots of avalanche and climbing related external link additions:
- avalanche-center.org
- avalanche-blog.com
- snowman-jim.org
- alpenpro.com
- csac.org
- mountain-savvy.com
- mountain-guiding.com
- forestservice.info
- i-world.net
A whois on all of those domains reports an owner of Jim Frankenfield of Internet World (i-world.net) in Salt Lake City, Utah. Some of the edits done by this user even changed existing competitor and US.gov links to his own sites in a sort of spammer vs. spammer warfare. I have added a spam warning but I haven't reverted any edits. Request advice. (Requestion 18:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
- It looks like a classic linkspam campaign to me. I suggest we revert them all and see if any established editors reinstate or challenge it. --BozMo talk 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Few more IP's
24.21.148.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.46.22.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.59.204.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
franteractive.net
- Spam sock accounts
Sam mishra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.109.170.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.109.171.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.109.127.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
69.86.44.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
64.164.147.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
64.241.37.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Spamming of www.321books.co.uk
Adsense pub-3372801561704177
321books.co.uk
- Spam sock accounts
MNewton2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pgrieg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
85.210.236.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.210.50.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.179.130.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Mal4mac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.178.102.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.178.83.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.210.48.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.179.92.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.210.191.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
85.210.245.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Seems to be a pure adsense spam site, with objectional ammounts of advertising. Looks to be a scrapper site. These are a few spam socks lobbying for their inclusion.--Hu12 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mention it on the blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Noted--Hu12 01:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a spam site, it is not a scraper site. It uses Adsense, but so do many sites linked to by Wikipedia. There is no objective measure for excessive advertising, so how can you judge? Have you read any of the articles or found any original text from which it has supposedly scraped? Pgrieg 12:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia Pgreig. Well the first one I tried was scraped from [[6]]. Also the amount of advertising is high and the content is very low (book reviews from members of the public). We don't link to Amazon which is less commercial with better reviews. We shouldn't link to this: blacklist it. --BozMo talk 12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- 321books is a proven MFA, (made for adsense) scrapper site. Quick examples include, this link (321books.co.uk/gutenberg/cousin/front.htm) scrapped from University of Adelaide [7], and an instance where 321books (321books.co.uk/gutenberg/cousin/p578.htm) even scrapped wikipedia content [8]. Your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links to 321books, and Campaigning, and Forum shopping for its inclusion on talk pages which is also considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be related only to this site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Hu12 16:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia Pgreig. Well the first one I tried was scraped from [[6]]. Also the amount of advertising is high and the content is very low (book reviews from members of the public). We don't link to Amazon which is less commercial with better reviews. We shouldn't link to this: blacklist it. --BozMo talk 12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a spam site, it is not a scraper site. It uses Adsense, but so do many sites linked to by Wikipedia. There is no objective measure for excessive advertising, so how can you judge? Have you read any of the articles or found any original text from which it has supposedly scraped? Pgrieg 12:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved conversation from 321books not a spam or scraper site:
The Cousin dictionary was generated from Project Gutenberg sources, not Adelaide or wikipedia. I define scraping as illigitimate copying, therefore this was not scraped. Also, this was very much a side project. Anyway, the pages you initially deleted -- Tesco book pages, biographies... are all original. I know that 'cause I created them myself. Note, don't come back and say I scraped the Faraday (or any other) biography, because I know someone else has scraped MY original text. The scraping you accuse me of, in relation to the wikipedia page, must have gone the other way, if at all. I'm prepared to give wikipedia the benefit of the doubt. A wikipedia user may have just have happened to generate the page in a similar way. I take such scraping of my pages as compliments, rather than an invitation to attack. You should be able to find out the original creation date of both pages and that should prove me to be the originator. Note also, I've had college professor's in America linking to some of my biographies (Socrates for instance, if you want to do a link:). If educational institutions, and experts to boot, are happy to link to my pages (adsense or not) why isn't Wikipedia? I have had run ins with Wikipedia admins before, so I decided to only do anything that wikipedia admins might not consider whiter than white under this name in case you guys get really heavy -- if you can ban my URL I'm sure you wouldn't think twice about banning my name. I don't want my main 'contributions' name to be trashed.— Pgrieg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
- Adding links to your own websites is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. see Advertising and conflicts of interest and WP:COI. This link campaign as noted once before by Notinasnaid back in early December About the 3 2 1 Books link. Other notable discussions are located on PEST analysis. I've had to resort to using particular versions of these discussions as a result of Pgrieg deleting or editing others comments. See" [9] and [10].--Hu12 19:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm particularly concerned about this statement I don't want my main 'contributions' name to be trashed. --Hu12 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you asked for checkuser it will probably be refused on grounds these are obvious socks and should just all be blocked. I suggest for a year given they are IPs? Or are you concerned that Pgreig might be the Sith apprentice rather than the master? --BozMo talk 19:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- "I have had run ins with Wikipedia admins before, so I decided to only do anything that wikipedia admins might not consider whiter than white under this name in case you guys get really heavy..." This comment -- that the user has had conflicts we're not even aware and that he's using a sockpuppet -- along with Hu12's evidence of other sockpuppets is conclusive proof of bad-faith edits made to abuse Wikipedia's for personal gain in spite of requests to do otherwise.
- Links elsewhere:
- http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.321books.co.uk&namespace=
- http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.321books.co.uk&namespace=
- http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.321books.co.uk&namespace=
- Links elsewhere:
- Our respective points of view are clear and the link is blacklisted -- I suggest an admin block all the accounts and then we all move on. --A. B. (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- bad-faith edits Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pgrieg Confirmed, admin block on all accounts --Hu12 05:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Our respective points of view are clear and the link is blacklisted -- I suggest an admin block all the accounts and then we all move on. --A. B. (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"On the Lot" - heads up
"On the Lot is the title of a recently-announced upcoming reality show competition produced by Steven Spielberg and Mark Burnett. The show, which will air on FOX, will feature filmmakers competing in weekly elimination competitions..." I have already removed film promotions from the program article (four "examples", ), Director, Rocket and Imagination. Keith mosher might be an autobiographical article to promote another; Five-Minute Funnies and User:Albylicious are dubious. An odd link is floating on Talk:Jersey Devil. I think we will see more examples, and people using one entry to justify their own entry. Perhaps watch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Linksearch?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=films.thelot.com%2Ffilms%2F&namespace= Notinasnaid 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thats defiantly a good idea, and try to inform the editors of that page about WP:EL and WP:SPAM, so that they can help out as well ;) —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
removing 404's and 301's
heres a fun project Wikipedia:Dead external links. and [11]--Hu12 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just remember, though, that only regular external links should be removed. References, using external links that have gone dead, should definitely not be removed. Notinasnaid 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Vandalism getting worse
Out of interest last year and this year we took a snapshot of 2000 (last year) and 4000 (this year) main WP articles for the Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. What is really noticable is the number of vandalised pages in an instantaneous snapshot like this: last year it was 3 this year it is about ten times higher (we have hand-checked through N so far). Sad. I wonder if the trend will keep going up? I don't think spam is getting better either. Maybe it is time to semi-prot wikipedia but much of it was from named users. --BozMo talk 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh lovely. Hopefully in time we will get a few more tools out to help with counter spam. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I look forward to Stable Versions being implemented some day soon. Somedays it feels like we ban two [expletive]s and three more show up. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of it is petty vandalism. However a lot of it has been relatively longstanding. Often instead of being reverted vandals are partly deleted and the grafiti stays in through the article being editted repeatedly/reverted to the wrong version by admins e.g. Comment about Jimmy Carter's private parts at start of second section [12] survived 16 reversions including by 2 sysops. Also some topics people seem afraid to revert: put in that some famous historical figure (say Henry VIII) was a noted sodomist and it often lasts weeks. Will Stable Versions fix this? Most of the top 4000 articles get at least 20 edits a day. --BozMo talk 11:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- I look forward to Stable Versions being implemented some day soon. Somedays it feels like we ban two [expletive]s and three more show up. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
www.greylizard.net
*.greylizard.net Adsense pub -5389895745956830
Static1635 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Pages spammed:
Sock #1:213.121.243.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Sock #2: 172.159.50.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I'm out of reverts on the Fiesta page. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Nposs 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have indef blocked the user as a spam only account. --BozMo talk 09:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know why the link count didn't get updated for yesterday? RJASE1 Talk 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why not ask User:Veinor? It is in his userspace, so my guess is that he'd know the most 'bout it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Virus-related spam
Today I came across a November 2006 BBC article, Virus creators target Wikipedia, about links added to the German Wikipedia which were intended to induce users to install malware on their computers. I don't recall that this topic has come up here. Recently I was following "removal instruction" spam and was receiving unexpectedly stiff resistance which I just attributed to WP:OWN. However, maybe we need to be more vigorous about cleaning up "removal" site links.
Many of the virus, spyware and other malware articles include one or more links to removal sites. These typically are not recognizable (not Sophos, Norton, etc.). Since readers place a great deal of trust in Wikipedia, it is important that these sites are trustworthy. I'm not sure how one does that, other than sticking with the big-name anti-malware firms. I am beginning to think all of these links need to be removed. Wikipedia is not a tutorial, so is there any need to suggest how to remove malware?
Can we arrive at a consensus on removal instruction links?. Is Wikipedia in the business of recommending cures? If so, how does one determine the reliability of the cure? After kicking this around a bit here, it should probably go to the discussion side of the WP:EL article. To see example articles, look at articles in Category:Computer viruses and Category:Spyware or others in the Category:Malware tree. ✤ JonHarder talk 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- A lot of malware is ironically to sell "removal programs". I strongly suggest that we only push the microsoft page suggesting cures http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/columns/protection.mspx and leave it to them (much though my left hand is trying to strangle me for ever suggesting microsoft. Some very good free products are available (Lavasoft is probably the best) but microsoft reviews them and lists them. --BozMo talk 08:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, just apply the "reputable websites only" !rule when in doubt. Trendmicro, mcafee, pandasoft, safternetworking.com, lavasoft.com, microsoft.com and other high profile, well known computer security websites. I try to keep up on this stuff so if you want me to look at a particular link, let me know. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
One to watch http://www.sustainlane.us
- Spam sock accounts
Abendigoreebs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Biolane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
66.92.24.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Only noted one legit reference added to Transportation in New York City. Others all come are by Abendigoreebs. Doesn't seem to be a spammy site, however when this many are added and only one seem's to be legit, I question weather this is a WP:RS. Mabey others can have a look.--Hu12 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
http://www.goldenskate.com
goldenskate.com
Gsk8 (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for spamming links to this site - after I cleaned up all the spam, Kolindigo (talk · contribs) reverted all my cleanup and added the links back. A site to keep an eye on. RJASE1 Talk 01:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I cleaned up all the spam links added by this user. However, it looks like some folks have gotten over-excited here and have been removing legitimate links to the Golden Skate web site as well. Golden Skate is considered a reliable source for figure skating information and there shouldn't be a problem with linking to the site as a reference. FWIW, I have also had some e-mail communication with the Golden Skate webmaster regarding the distinction between "external links" and "references", and she also now understands that she shouldn't go plastering "external links" to her site all over related Wikipedia articles. Dr.frog 02:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Fantasybookspot.com
Got a lot of these. Most, if not all, appear to have been placed by 207.114.33.3 late last year. The reviews seem to be about one paragraph long followed by links to amazon.com to purchase. I don't personally think these are anything more than commercial spam. Anyone other views? IrishGuy talk 03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- At least all the ones that are not interview should be deleted. Also, I suggest removing all the "extra" links that appear as "[http://www.fantasybookspot.com Fantasybookspot.com]" The others should be reviewed one at a time. -- ReyBrujo 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
/* List of cities on stamps * (crossposted from my talk page)/
I'm crossposting this here for comment per Eagle 101. The article in question seems to be mainly a vehicle for spam. RJASE1 Talk 05:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi RJASE1, I voted on this AfD as a speedy delete, because it's advertising. The main author of the list, User:Daniel C. Boyer, has a long history of self-promotion on Wikipedia--see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Daniel C. Boyer, from May 2005, for many examples. I don't have any evidence that this is another attempt at self-promotion, aside from the list itself, but it seems natural to suspect that the author is involved with the company somehow. At any rate Boyer has been a Wikipedia editor since 2002; you'd think by now he'd understand basic policies like "no advertisements". It seems like this is a continuing problem, but I'm not sure if it's worth reporting to anyone, and I'm not sure where I'd report it. Do you have any thoughts? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
link farm AfD needs closing
The Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_screen_capture_software has been festering for 9 days and it needs to be closed by an impartial administrator. The spammers and socks seem to be popping out of the woodwork on this one. (Requestion 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
- Well, the outcome looks like "inconclusive" to me if closed now. If you take the socks and new users out there are still enough vaguely established users to make it hard to reach another outcome. I will add the article to my watch list put a note here if the spam gets out of control. --BozMo talk 08:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)