Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Jan & Feb

message: I came across the article on Everything2 and noticed that rather a lot of articles appear to have external links to everything2.com.  According to this  there are nearly 800 such links, including links deep into forums (see Heavy metal umlaut).  The site has an Alexa rank of >12,000 (i.e. slightly outside the threshold per [{WP:WEB]], and WP seems to be one of the major sites linking in.  It looks to me as if this is linkspamming and search engine optimisation.  The site is in Wikipedia because the site is in Wikipedia! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: E2 is a well known wiki. Personally, I used it before I knew about Wikipedia. --GraemeL (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I would agree. Remove them when they point to poor material, not because they are spam. --GraemeL (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: E2 was a popular somewhat wiki-like site just before Wikipedia started gathering momentum.  Quite a few editors here - myself among them - started out there and moved to here as we got more dissatisfied with E2 and Wikipedia got better.  I think the high number of links into E2 pages is a historical artifact of editors here coming from there and that many of these links predate the rise in standards at Wikipedia.  No need to see a conspiracy. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 17:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I confirm what Morven said above. -- Perfecto  18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  everything2.com 

message: Sheesh! It only took six hours after I finished that thing for it to show up here. :) -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial userbox 

message: Recently I recieved some VfD voter canvassing on my talk page, which apparently is a form of internal spamming.  I actually do not object to the concept of informing potentially interested parties of a VfD.  But I also think an optional banner template for user talk pages, stating that such canvassing is unwelcome, might be of interest to some.  If there is not already one, perhaps something like:
	I do not welcome unsolicited bulk-messages asking me to participate in various Wikipedia votes. However, you may inform me about votes on articles I contributed to, or Wikiprojects in which I participate.
But better written, with appropriate internal links and highlights.  I didn't want to just make a template without input from an appropriate group, and some kind of confirmation that it is a good idea. — Eoghanacht talk 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal link spam template for user talk pages? 

message: we need a spam-section template, so we can apply it to just a certain section of an article prone to spam, and not the whole thing.--Urthogie 14:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can apply  to just a certain section as well.  Thank you for using it! -- Perfecto  22:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. -- Perfecto  22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where could I find it..?--Urthogie 12:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh sorry. I restored "or section" on the tag so it can serve your purpose. -- Perfecto  17:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: K I guess that works, I was thinkin more along the lines of a seperate template for external links, which seems to be the spam target most the time on the spammed articles I deal with, with the other sections almost never being spammed.--Urthogie 19:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Urthogie. Caravaca 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template needed 

message: This is just the project I've been looking for.    I have a few questions:
# Does anybody know about any future plans regarding rel="nofollow"?  I know it was used at one time, but no longer is.  I'd like to propose using it only for links on Talk: pages, so that questionable links can be moved off the main page to the talk page for further discussion, allowing us to adhere to WP:BITE without worrying about helping the spammers in the process.  (eg. for iffy links that may be vanity/spam, or may be good-faith newbie edits, it's best to discuss the links to see if others think the link might be useful)
# Is it okay to put  on the talk page to address very likely future cases of linkspam?  Or is there another tag to use?  I and some other editors have VoIP covered pretty well, but mesothelioma seems like it's attracting more than its fair share of ongoing spam.
# I'd like comments on Price engine and Online shopping directories.  They should probably be merged, but beyond that, I don't know whether they will ever be very much more than a spam-magnet, and I've pondered putting them up for AfD or removing the "external links" section solely for that reason.  Is there any precedent for either of those actions? --Interiot 09:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: keeps trying to add external links for city guides to certain cities. All edits from the IP address have been in the 'External links' section of a city article. It looks like all have been caught and reverted, but this user is persistant, and has added themiamibeachguide.com to the Miami, Florida article five times, and the Miami Beach, Florida article once. He's hit several other cities, as well. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it to GraemeL's list. --Perfecto  03:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP address to watch 

message: Rate Your Music has over 400 internal links (), over 600 links to the site from Wikipedia (), about 1.2% of all its inbound links (), an Alexa rank of 15,067 (), whihc is high but still outside the 10k cited in WP:WEB, WP is one of the leading sites linking in according to Alexa (), several and probably quite a lot (it will take a very long time to check if it's considered worth doing!) of the internal links were added by , a prolific contributor to music-related articles; the site is routinely linked fron the "professional reviews" section of the Album infobox, but these are tnot professional reviews, it's a free-to-edit site.  And the traffic has about doubled in the last few weeks, I'm a bit concerned that this might be related to Wikipedia.  It will take some detective work, though.  Allmusic.com by contrast has an Alexa ranking of 1000, and Wikipedia is not on the first page of sites linking in, according to Alexa (, ) - allmusic has around twice the total links that rateyourmusic does () but does have many more from WP (which is hardly surprising since it's linked from AfD debates on bands as a measure of notability).  So the infobox is granting parity with a site where parity may not be valid.  I sincerely hope this is not linkspam, because it will take a heck of a lot of undoing if it is! - JzG 21:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it from the infobox, using your argument.  Or send the site to AfD. --Perfecto  17:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, it's going to take a while I think. - 14:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Take it off the infobox -> no more links. --Perfecto  03:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's a tricky one 

message: Should I AfD again it per WP:ISNOT a web directory? - JzG 10:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shh keep this spambait.  I watch it to catch spam articles. --Perfecto  17:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your fiendish plan.  AfDd a couple myself, as you might have noticed, so I buy this argument :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 14:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of websites]] 

message: I assume that this person User:Slanoue, who created the article The TV MegaSite, is the same Suzanne Lanoue mentioned in the article. I've just blocked them (their 2nd block) for spamming. Will need watching when they come back. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD it, I'd say.  Alexa ranking is 84,433 and was added by its creator. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 15:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: She replied to my email. (I initiated the first block.)  I requested that she post her response to my email on her talk page.  Yes, JzG, The TV MegaSite is AfD material.  --Perfecto  03:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Special:Contributions/Slanoue|Slanoue Contributions]]

message: Jaffer (talk • contribs • [ page moves] • block user • [ block log]) is a case I'm not sure how to handle.  He's quite upfront about what he wants to do, in his words: "adding video clips that are legal to articles. I have been using a site owned by my family called evtv1.com"(from his post on the Wikipedia:New_user_log#Jaffer.  He says he is a long time professional in the area of "historical videos and historical footage".  His reason for only using evtv1.com is: "Adding links to video is tricky because you need to know if the rights allow for such linking. That is why I have stayed with evtv1.com links because I know the rights disposition."  His additions follow a number of the warning flags for linkspamming: #1, #2, #3, #6, #8, in this addition to Ellis Island #8 is doubtful - the selling is just ads, and #6 and #1 are both explainable via his stated (and apparently good-faith) goals.  #2 and #3 arn't, but may be newbie mistakes.  I'm not sure wheather to revert, or not.  Further input, thoughts, greatly requested. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Link Spam (both headings), User talk:216.159.242.201 and 216.159.242.201 Contributions. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Is this spam?. I think the links should be removed. - EurekaLott 22:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI, I've made a quick reply there. Mrtea (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jaffer]] 

message: If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me, under the oppose section you will see that User:Masssiveego feels the tag does not explain things clearly. I feel that in the case he was referring to, User talk:Pammyfiend, that the spammer was reacting more to User:android79 than not understanding the original warning. I've asked User:Masssiveego for comments and wondered what anybody else thought. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template Tagging

message: Take a look at . I reverted an edit at Atlanta, Georgia as linkspam, and then started looking at the user's history. What I see as link spam has been well embedded in the Mayor McCheese article and listed as a reference for Chicken McNuggets. I thought I would get other reactions before I start tearing apart the Mayor McCheese article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McDonalds fancruft /spamming mess 

message: Seeking opinions from experienced editors on the contributions of User:NuWeb (talk). The user has made six edits; of these, the four that are not on Talk pages each consist entirely of the addition of external links to two websites: www.NuWeb.co.uk and www.funshed.com. --Lph 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like linkspam to me.  funshed.com has zero Google backward links, and NuWeb with not many backward links.  And, these sites can't be truly relevant to that many different topics.  Seems they're just using Wikipedia to advertise their websites. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The linkspam has been removed. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking opinions 

message: Good news: Many articles are now the first result for Google queries.  Bad news: Promoting a site and gaining web traffic is becoming just a "edit"-click away.  Seeing IP addresses pop by, add their link, disappear, come back when the referral traffic stop and add their link again, is becoming unbearable.  
# Is link-spamming as disruptive as blatant vandalism, copyright violations and creating vanity articles?  Link spamming is takes less clicks than the last two.  
# Jdavidb said, "...it may not be completely against Wikipedia policy to link to your own site in a relevant article...."  Do you disagree?  Should we raise Wikipedia:Vanity and Wikipedia:Autobiography higher to include adding external links?  
If you say Yes, then how can we educate the public about this?  One idea I have is asking Wikipedia to add a "linkspam"-related message on the bottom message of the editing box.  --Perfecto  19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raising policy and raising awareness 

message: User:Alakazam has been adding numerous links to www.sportsecyclopedia.com in each baseball team article, basketball team, and who knows what's next.  This user isn't new to Wikipedia, nor looks like he/she has been spamming before.  Also, the site has a decent Alexa ranking (143,743), so not sure it quite fits the definition of spam. But the mass addition of links to so many articles raises a red flag.  If anything, it might belong as a reference, but not a link. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied in Talk:Basketball and Talk:Baseball. --Perfecto  20:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sportsecyclopedia.com 

message: On Wikipedia talk:External links#Fanlistings, I asked for comments as to whether there is ever a conceivable time that a fanlisting is an appropriate external link.  Feedback there, here, or on my talk page would be appreciated.
If I hear nothing, I'm likely to go attempt to expunge any fanlistings I can track down.  As near as I can tell, they never provide information.  The only reason someone would put them here would be to attract traffic to the fanlisting, I think. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean these sites which are merely lists of people who self-identify as fans of "whatever"? I can't see how they're ever encyclopedic. They don't provide any information. Frankly, I don't even see the appeal of them. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the kind of sites I meant.  I've never understood what the appeal or purpose was, either.  Which was why I wanted to ask around so someone could say, "Oh, no, all these fanlistings have detailed episode summaries (or whatever) that you've missed, jdavidb!"  If such be the case, which I doubt. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanlistings 

message: User:69.234.231.238 has recently added a bunch of external links mainly to one site which I won't name here, some of which are blatant affilliate links, e.g.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JDate&oldid=37730501 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBay&oldid=37730251 , others link to more innocuous, but not particularly original content; the bunch of edits taken as a whole (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.234.231.238) smacks of an SEO operation. I've now deleted all the links from this user regardless of content. Ianb 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How come, Ianb, you didn't tag then with ?  I highly recommend this step whenever you mass-revert the linkspam of someone. --Perfecto  02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ah, will do next time, thanks for the tip. Ianb 07:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:69.234.231.238]] 

message: a user has now been given spam1, spam2, and spam3 message on userpage after repeated daily spams. 
User talk:132.198.165.245
if he spams again, how do i get him blocked? the block pages only seem to apply to "vandalism". Zzzzz 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Run to an admin and he or she can give .  The fastest wiki way to hail one is a very short note at WP:ANI.  Another wiki way is to message any admin you might recognize in Special:Recentchanges.  Thanks for your help combatting spam. --Perfecto  18:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The IP seems to be a young person who is missing the point.  A friendly explanation replying to the note at Talk:Zombie will usually suffice.  Can you reply?  Invite the IP to create an account, too. --Perfecto  18:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: how to block spammer?

message: FYI, while editing Roosevelt Campobello International Park I noticed a user at IP User:156.34.85.241 (contributions) seems to have placed a questionably relevant link to http://www.nblighthouses.com/ on a few dozen articles.  I suppose there could also be similar spammings using a different IP address.  I do not have time right now to revert these myself. — Eoghanacht talk 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that it's a user enthusiastically telling us about their own "almost-relevant-but-not-very-notable-site" because they don't know anything about Wikipedia policies. It doesn't look malicious to me. I suggest the initial tactic should be: contact them, be nice, explain "notability", and perhaps they might even remove the links themselves. Caravaca 07:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:156.34.85.241 

message: See here. The links all go to www.cmt.com. So are they spam or not? My feeling is that CMT is a valid site (as per IMDB) and the editor has made quite a few proper edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like spam to me. CMT = Country Music Television and it's a large information site for people that way inclined. It makes sense to link Wikipedia articles about country music singers to that site. But thanks for your vigilance! Caravaca 06:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Opinion

message: * 
* 
* 
* 
* 
The above IP addresses appear to be inserting links to the same web sites (mostly just the same one) on anything turkish related. Every edit by the first user over the last month has to be insert a link. the latter IP has inserted the same link, but not as often. Many of the insertions are on talk pages, sometimes on articles that have no main page, sometimes just a link, sometimes surrounded by padding which isn't related to the talk page.
What I've done to date: warned with spam/spam3. Speedied the talk pages that were orphans. Reverted all articles (and am doing the same for talk pages, including the padding - I was a little wary of reverting talk pages, but as someone replied to me at the villiage pump, link spam is link spam.) I don't know if any other IP address are doing the same thing. Does this all seem okay? MartinRe 22:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work on this MartinRe.  I'm in agreement with your method.  Reviewing his edits they seem borderline vandalism rather than just spamming.   Monkeyman 22:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers. Added two more IP addresses inserting the same link. I did review the edits before starting, but anything that wasn't a link seemed to be padding (is that what you mean by being borderlink vandalism?) So, even assuming good faith at the beginnbing, by the end of the edits, I thought it was clear enough to be confident reverting all of the edit that included a link, and not just the link itself. MartinRe 23:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added another IP address with the same actions (rewrote all vandal form) User is also recreating orphan talk pages that were previously deleted. Bar watching the pages, reverting, and adding to WP:AIV again and again, what else can be done? MartinRe 18:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi MartinRe.  You can ask a meta sysop to add his spam link to the site-wide spam blacklist referenced here under External Link spamming.  Monkeyman 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiya, thank for that info, I thought I had read something like that, but couldn't find where. MartinRe 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that info, it's good to know. For the moment, I'll see if the IP blocks have any effect, but it's a relief to know there's something else if that fails. I don't really want to add the site without checking with someone who speaks turkish what the advertised site is about. MartinRe 18:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish spam

message: i just noticed the following articles all mostly written by the same user:
* Barcoding Inc.
* PSC Inc.
* IntelliTrack
* Argox
* Virtutech
* DAP Technologies
* SunRocket
edits like this  and this one look pretty bad. What's the next step? EricR 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they don't meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) you can nominate them for AfD. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see quite a few red flags with this guy.  His user page says only "More about me at JE Hochman & Associates - Internet Marketing".  That website proudly displays the tagline: "Online business promotion since 1994".  My gut feeling is that he's getting paid to place these articles in Wikipedia, something that should probably be ruled as improper.  It's nice to have the content but these read like sales brochures.  How about rewriting them and toning down the corporate-speak?  Monkeyman 23:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, and several of them need aggressive cleanup, but the ones I've looked at are genuinely major players and meet WP:CORP, at least one has already survived VfD. Tricky.  Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  23:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do?