Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.bellaonline.com
One of the Suite101 writers also writes for this site. Few ads, but 98 Wikipedia links. (Then again, some sites' the linked-to pages can be OK with all the other pages highly spammy) No time left today to investigate if it's as abusive as Suite101 -- it may not be. Freelance writers may be writing for Time magazine one week, Suite101 the next. One's professionally edited and supervised, meeting WP:RS, the other totally fails. So Bellaonline may be OK -- just no time to check it out. 
Thanks for the help. --A. B. 17:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another candidate.  Found in a pagelist in an article for an author who also writes for suite101. We have lots of links, and the site prominently features "Times Read" counters and author profiles. Femto 12:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bellaonline dot com -- similar to Suite101 or not? 

message: ... it might be nice to have a half-day workshop by folks from Google, Yahoo, etc. about spamdexing. We're all self-taught amateurs and they probably have people that can teach us a lot. It's in their interest to improve our effectiveness. --A. B. 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd start with learning from your "opponents", take a look at what techniques they use, and feel free to ask :) --Jdevalk 20:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like so many of yours, Jdevalk, that's an interesting idea -- what are your suggestions? --A. B. 00:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every once in a while, you guys see a weblog coming by, like you did mine, talking about adding links to wikipedia, now if some of you would check technorati for that, you could get to some more of those. If you read their blogs, you can learn about their techniques... Ofcourse, SEO's want links for two reasons: traffic, and linkbuilding / PageRank building. Traffic links need to be on pages that people actually might visit, whereas linkbuilding can be done from less interesting pages, since Google seems to like these just as much. --Jdevalk 12:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If there's a [[Wikipedia:Meetup|Wikipedia meetup]] some time ... 

message: 79 links -- came across it while warning Suite101 linkers -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.knowledgeoflondon.com 
--A. B. 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looks spammy, i'd remove them, if i had a tool to do it all at once :), is there such a thing for Mac OS? :) --Jdevalk 14:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed all the links I found from the main namespace except for List of London bombings where I couldn't find another source to back up what was said in the article. Also see User:Knowledgeoflondon and User talk:Knowledgeoflondon. I don't know of a tool for removing them automatically - I do it all manually and I think it's more interesting that way. Just tonight I went on a diversionary trip rescuing some high-quality history links to the BBC and rescued the statues article, all because I was forced to read at least the external links section of each article. Graham87 14:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  knowledgeoflondon dot com 

message: 189 links at the time of writing link search; as far as I can see, all hotel/restaurant etc lists or non-english pages, lots of pop-ups.  Mr Stephen 22:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All gone.  Mr Stephen 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 23 links readded by Limboo (talk • contribs).  Spam1 message given, will strip out links.  Mr Stephen 14:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another added after this (cleaned up and spam2 left).  Worth keeping an eye on.  Since only one this time s/he may be beginning to get the message.  -- Siobhan Hansa 16:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  uitinlimburg.nl 

message: IMHO, the external link section for the E-mail_spam page could be loads smaller, and most of the links there don't add any info... What do others think of this? --Jdevalk 11:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much in the way of advertising there, but I do wonder how many links we need to sites on how to fight spam and to anti-spam orgs. There are links to a couple of forums in there that should probably go. -- Donald Albury 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[E-mail_spam]] EL section needs rework 

message: There are 232 links to  which need to be sorted through. I haven't detected a spamming campaign, but only checked who added the links to a couple of articles. The /reveiw/* links may be OK. The  almost certainly have no value. The links to the main page are probably off topic in most articles. Thoughts? JonHarder 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what's it's worth, dpreview is perhaps the best-known (and thorough) digital camera review site (I've been using it for years to pick out cameras). I could easily see random folks adding those links versus the owner of the site.  I agree that the forum links and main page links are probably not appropriate, but a review link for an article on a particular camera model would be OK in my book...that is, assuming that it's not mass campaign on the part of the site's owners. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dpreview 

message: On one hand we have a clear spammer in . On the other hand, it's not like the links being added are completely useless as they are listing existing reviews of various rock albums. What should we do with this? Pascal.Tesson 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spam of the worst possible sort - they're just trying to get folk to click on the "buy from" links so they get a referral fee. It's also inappropriate for an external ink due to a number of concerns on WP:EL (for starters it's not a reliable source and perhaps "Sites that violate the copyrights of others"), Thanks/wangi 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, going through the list. I noticed that  is also spamming... Pascal.Tesson 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... if you want to start at the top, i'll start at the bottom! Thanks/wangi 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All done. Thx for the help. Pascal.Tesson 21:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more just removed added by  two days ago. --Chocolatepizza 03:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion requested - album reviews 

message: FYI, this discussion on the village pump should interest people active here. Pascal.Tesson 21:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should, but I hope that people have a look at the archived discussion starting at  before wading it. Many people regard nofollow as a much wider issue than the spam one. Perhaps they are misguided, but reading previous discussion is never a bad thing --BozMo talk 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nofollow at the village pump. 

message: Can someone please take a look at the contributions of ?  It looks like its simply promotional to me, but I don't know enough about the topics to be sure.  Thanks.  Deli nk 22:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly spam in my book. JonHarder 22:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion 

message: How does one deal with the insertion into numerous articles of a large template with channel listings to XM radio?  See  for an example.  It's not linkspam; its the insertion of a table. 
User contributions page is at .  Kablammo 00:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is such a thing as internal content spamming. I'll assume good faith and gave my €0.02. Femto 13:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply.  I have also posted a comment at User talk:TravKoolBreeze.  Kablammo 14:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insertion of XM Radio template into unrelated articles

message: See what you think of this one:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.creativeinvest.com
I just deleted some of their links. --A. B. 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: creativeinvest dot com

message: Is  editing for clients? The CommodiCast website states ... solving complex technical and business problems across [the government entities, energy, pharmaceutical, manufacturing, automobile, financial services, biotech, lumber] industries ... The goal: to help clients sustain and maintain competitive advantages. I removed substantial copyvio material from Pharmaceutical company. (It is unfortunate that  good faith editors will comment on but not confront this type of behavior.) This user has entangled numerous links in similar articles, more than I have time to sort out right now. The more normal edits appear to be cut and paste jobs without a lot of thought if they are appropriate or benificial to a particular article. A related user is . Should the added links all be removed as highly probably confict of interest? JonHarder 16:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CommodiCast 

message: I took a fire axe to the best bad example that I've seen. I would appreciate people keeping an eye on it to make sure it doesn't get out of hand again. --GraemeL (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: Hi all. In the past week or so, the article Logo has been targetted by spammers whose intent is to increase the Google ranking of buypillz.com. However, instead of advertising this link, they advertise links that redirect to that domain, and moreover nest it in a div with a -10000px offset, so that it's not seen on the page. Even worse, this comes from open proxies with only one edit per IP (examples: , , ,  etc.)
Could I request that:
#We blacklist all the redirect domains immediately.
#We blacklist the target domain immediately.
#Perhaps someone can run a bot to find articles using similar spamming techniques.
Any comments? Mindmatrix 00:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See these two threads that mention this as well Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive119#Hidden_div_tag_spam and []. --71.249.72.21 00:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the IPs seems to be registered to Fairfax Public Schools see  so perhaps we ought to use the abuse process in place for that IP. --BozMo talk 10:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One other comment. Don't rely on blacklists. See Domain Kiting. People can easily run off new domains for free and use autodirects to build up the target domain. --BozMo talk 10:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh and one other thing you probably know but the syntax to check if these particular links (as opposed to the technique) are anywhere else is just Special:Linksearch/. As far as I can see these particular links aren't anywhere else. --BozMo talk 11:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spam redirection, and hidden spamlinks

message: :While you're handling requests, can someone take a look at the links being added by Davetabler (talk • contribs)? I'd hate to see another newbie escalate to spam4 warnings + a block -- perhaps someone else can talk him out of his current direction. I gave him a spam1; he's since added back some of the links. He's been adding links to his own book plus a number of theispot.com pages. Thanks, --A. B. 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Davetabler|Davetabler]]

message: was adding lots of links earlier this year to articles like Guatemala and History of Guatemala. They linked to adless articles with decent content -- not good enough to justify a link, but still, from his pattern of edits and warnings he was clearly a spammer. What was his angle? Out of curiosity, I opened the source code for zimbab.net, one of his sites.
That was an eye-opener -- embedded in the html but not displayed on the page were over 1000 links to porn sites, many really ...well ... pretty bad and some probably illegal (child porn) from the names of the domains (actualincest.97s3a.org, etc.). 
Other browsers may access the source code with some menu bar item with a name such as "Source" or "Page Source". 
Articles:
:*croatiahis.com
:**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.croatiahis.com
:*zimbab.net
:**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.zimbab.net
:*xz5.org
:**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.xz5.org
:*belarusnewsblog.com
:**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.belarusnewsblog.com
:*namibianhistory.com
:**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.namibianhistory.com
:*guatemalahist.com
:**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.guatemalahist.com
--A. B. 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, good catch. This is another instance of a spammer copying text from a legitimate source , and using it to mask page rank spam. This is an example of what I meant earlier when I said that I thought spam was getting worse. ScottW 00:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well I've been reading this page for a bit since making the comment and I can see what you mean. I won't quite eat my words on wanting nofollow at least taken off wikipedia: space but I think getting a proper whitelist or similar working is fairly urgent. Talk pages I have already conceded (anyway Google hardly visits talk namespace any more).--BozMo talk 02:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would a whitelist work? Before adding a link, you'd have to go through an approval process? ScottW 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innocent looking site but suspicious anyway? -- see the source code 

message: * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.whaleofatime.com    http://whaleofatime.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.1gbbandwidth.com    http://1gbbandwidth.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.1gbwebhosting.com    http://1gbwebhosting.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.aidfortsunami.com    http://aidfortsunami.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.alerttsunami.com    http://alerttsunami.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.aquariumspecies.com    http://aquariumspecies.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.aviatress.com    http://aviatress.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.baba-nyonya.com    http://baba-nyonya.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.bubblier.com    http://bubblier.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.bahasa-melayu.com    http://bahasa-melayu.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.beanworldwide.com    http://beanworldwide.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.bearingpains.com    http://bearingpains.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.bugsies.com    http://bugsies.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.cetacean.biz    http://cetacean.biz
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.clockings.com    http://clockings.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.concepthybrids.com    http://concepthybrids.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.discuses.com    http://discuses.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.doggonline.com    http://doggonline.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.domainfare.com    http://domainfare.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.east-malaysia.com    http://east-malaysia.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.eastersundays.com    http://eastersundays.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.ejrs-professionalized.blogspot.com    http://ejrs-professionalized.blogspot.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.ejrs.biz    http://ejrs.biz
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.ejrs.com    http://ejrs.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.ejrs.community.everyone.net    http://ejrs.community.everyone.net
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.ejrs.info    http://ejrs.info
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.ejrs.instantposition.com    http://ejrs.instantposition.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.ejrs.net    http://ejrs.net
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.ejrs.org    http://ejrs.org
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.ejrs.us    http://ejrs.us
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.eye-2i.com    http://eye-2i.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.fathersguesthouse.com    http://fathersguesthouse.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.felinegreat.com    http://felinegreat.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.fish-hooked.com    http://fish-hooked.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.fishily.com    http://fishily.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.fishy.us    http://fishy.us
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.flagof.com    http://flagof.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.guidancerequired.blogspot.com    http://guidancerequired.blogspot.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.helpformarriages.com    http://helpformarriages.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.harlotries.com    http://harlotries.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.helpformarriages.com    http://helpformarriages.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.hybridmart.com    http://hybridmart.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.iceicebaby.biz    http://iceicebaby.biz
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.immolated.com    http://immolated.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.immoveable.com    http://immoveable.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.jalfrazi.com    http://jalfrazi.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.jrsmusic.com    http://jrsmusic.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.kebab.biz    http://kebab.biz
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.lensed.com    http://lensed.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.malaysiamotels.com    http://malaysiamotels.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.malaysiana.biz    http://malaysiana.biz
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.malaysianblues.com    http://malaysianblues.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.malaysianclassical.com    http://malaysianclassical.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.malaysianelectronica.com    http://malaysianelectronica.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.malaysianjazz.com    http://malaysianjazz.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.malaysianmusician.com    http://malaysianmusician.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.malaysianpolitics.com    http://malaysianpolitics.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.malaysiawebsite.com    http://malaysiawebsite.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.mudshop.net    http://mudshop.net
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.my-malaysia.info    http://my-malaysia.info
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.optimises.com    http://optimises.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.optimizes.com    http://optimizes.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.professionalized.com    http://professionalized.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.parakeets.us    http://parakeets.us
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.penguinspot.com    http://penguinspot.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.pet-projects.info    http://pet-projects.info
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.pirateevent.com/forum    http://pirateevent.com/forum
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.positive-feedback.info    http://positive-feedback.info
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.preconceivedideas.com    http://preconceivedideas.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.reelinthefish.net    http://reelinthefish.net
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.revenuepilot.com    http://revenuepilot.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.seapulse.com    http://seapulse.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.searchability.info    http://searchability.info
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.seoleo.com    http://seoleo.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.sobered.com    http://sobered.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.squirreling.com    http://squirreling.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.surfandturf.biz    http://surfandturf.biz
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.tibetanautonomousregion.com    http://tibetanautonomousregion.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.tibetar.com    http://tibetar.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.travelandlifestyle.com    http://travelandlifestyle.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.unspeakably.com/forum    http://unspeakably.com/forum
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.vexillography.com    http://vexillography.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&;;;limit=500&target=*.west-malaysia.com    http://west-malaysia.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.wifi-hifi.com    http://wifi-hifi.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.wolfdown.com    http://wolfdown.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.yministries.com    http://yministries.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.yummytummy.info    http://yummytummy.info
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.zebra-crossing.com    http://zebra-crossing.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.g-hostfish.com   http://g-hostfish.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.my-floorball.info   http://my-floorball.info
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.my-malaysia.biz   http://my-malaysia.biz
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.my-malaysia.info   http://my-malaysia.info
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.skateboarders.us   http://skateboarders.us
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.zebras.biz   http://zebras.biz
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.worldmusicinternational.com  http://worldmusicinternational.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.penangstate.com  http://penangstate.com 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.hipmarket.com  http://hipmarket.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.recordingartistes.com  http://recordingartistes.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.hardrockforums.com  http://hardrockforums.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=special:linksearch&limit=500&target=*.anthemsoftheworld.com  http://anthemsoftheworld.com
I'm only partway through warning and reversing -- any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
--A. B. 04:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're all caught up -- thanks for all the help! --A. B. 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linked-to sites:

message: AB has asked me to join the discussion, but since minds are already made up what more is there or me to do here?There is a whole lot of bias and personal vendetta here on what can and cannot be posted. I make educational sites for friends and anyone else.  I added a link to a site on the Vexillology page yet I'm accused of spam.  I helped the a guy who does a lot of the flags on the official f.o.t.w website (with their approval and blessings) with design and free hosting.  That link is gone now.  My image of the girl playing shamisen is up and so is the spider, yet the mangosteen is removed with a note that it does not conform to standards, yet I posted it in the same manner as the image of the girl, and the spider.  I posted a cannonball image which I drew specially for wikipedia in the same manner as other images to enhance the article there.  It is gone. The "handkerchief dance" photo is gone even though it's a type of cultural dance to help viewers learn more.
I have 2000 .COM domains of which 200 are sites proper.  So now you have taken the liberty of harvesting my url list to blacklist me.  I started these projects for my friends who needed help in getting info, and extended it to anyone else as a free tool.  I have never sought money of them.  All money I use on domains come from sales of webhosting and design.  I have always given much of the profit of Adsense back to help people through charitable projects.  I have no interest of profiting from you as webhosting adequately meets and goes beyond my needs so I can help others in need. 
I only post my own pics and articles here on wikipedia, or because I work with people who are knowledgable in their field, I have been given rights to publish material they personally send me. I am familiar with copyrighting as my stuff is copyrighted at a copyrights office here.  So if you see ANY content posted by me then it is 100% guaranteed. Upon the need to post an article that is not by me, I check with the person and when I get the thumbs up I post it then contact the author to show him where it's located.
EJRS 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "You can get another list here: http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fejrs.com%2F&fr=FP-tab-web-t340&ei=UTF-8&meta=vc%3D"
That in turn leads to several pages of new domain names registered:
* http://ejrs.com/domains.html
* http://ejrs.com/domains-2.html
* http://ejrs.com/domains-3.html
* http://domainfare.com/domains.html
* http://domainfare.com/hyphenated-domains.html
--A. B. 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In response to the accusations 

message: I just received an e-mail from EJRS requesting that we reconsider the blacklisting of his domains. He's made his case earlier immediately above. 
Can some others read what he's written and respond. I've also asked him to add some additional information that he had in his e-mail.
My personal belief is that EJRS has not just inappropriately linked but downright spammed Wikipedia at times. At the same time, he's made many positive contributions and I think we at least owe him a hearing.
Perhaps there's some intermediate step short of the blacklist to enforce our linking rules with EJRS. Please look at what he's written and at the contribution histories of the accounts used (noting both the spam and the real edits). 
I'd like some additional opinions and I think EJRS needs to hear them as well.
--A. B. (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 19 December 2006: Second opinion wanted re EJRS.com

message: BozMo gave me this alternate search on Yahoo which turns up even more:
:"You can get another list here: http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?p=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fejrs.com%2F&fr=FP-tab-web-t340&ei=UTF-8&meta=vc%3D"
That in turn leads to several pages of new domain names registered:
* http://ejrs.com/domains.html
* http://ejrs.com/domains-2.html
* http://ejrs.com/domains-3.html
* http://domainfare.com/domains.html
* http://domainfare.com/hyphenated-domains.html
--A. B. 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Still more

message: As I was working on the EJRS.com spam campaign, I kept coming across links to other sites "powered by ViNSiGN", another Malaysian web design/hosting/marketing company. Here's a list from Google of sites "powered by ViNSiGN":
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.activesingapore.com    http://activesingapore.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.aforextrust.com    http://aforextrust.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.agroniche.com    http://agroniche.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.allhealths.com    http://allhealths.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.allsabah.com    http://allsabah.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.bengoma.org    http://bengoma.org
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.borneosubsea.com    http://borneosubsea.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.borneoyacht.com    http://borneoyacht.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.centralmarket.com.my    http://centralmarket.com.my
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.dragonraja.com.my    http://dragonraja.com.my
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.enjoysamsung.com    http://enjoysamsung.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.forex2u.com    http://forex2u.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.fpl.com.my    http://fpl.com.my
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.jademediaplatform.com    http://jademediaplatform.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.johornet.com    http://johornet.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.labuan.net    http://labuan.net
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.liberiaclassmates.com    http://liberiaclassmates.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.liberianonline.com    http://liberianonline.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.malaysiawebaward.com    http://malaysiawebaward.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.mfx-ca.com    http://mfx-ca.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.pjnet.com.my    http://pjnet.com.my
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.sammyaonline.com    http://sammyaonline.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.smartmachines.com.my    http://smartmachines.com.my
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.studysphere.com    http://studysphere.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.talkmalaysia.com    http://talkmalaysia.com
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.tam.org.my    http://tam.org.my
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.teamrevo.com.my    http://teamrevo.com.my
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.uptownace.com.my    http://uptownace.com.my
Caveat: Some links were campaigned (see 219.95.227.128 (talk • contribs)) but for all I know, these are mostly legit, high quality sites. I think any links to them should be checked out, but beyond that, I think "assume good faith" applies until proven otherwise. For all I know, ViNSiGN, like Earthlink or Yahoo, may be purely a host and not associated with these sites beyond that.
Also, 219.95.227.128 also added links to:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.galawatches.com    http://galawatches.com
I don't know if it's a ViNSiGN site or not.
I can't put much time into this for a while. --A. B. 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. When I tried to save edit above, it triggered the spam blacklist filters. I had xoomer.alice .it   on my list of ViNSiGN sites and it's already blacklisted. --A. B. 17:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another big one? 

message: I rewrote the opening to the Assume Good Faith section to note that WP:AGF is policy not a guideline. I don't think that it makes a big difference in the general point of the paragraph, but the distinction is an important distinction to make. ScottW 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AGF 

message: I noticed quite a few links to Squidoo.  It seems similar to Suite101, except that it doesn't declare it's writers as paid experts (or experts), just folks who are enthusiastic about a topic.  While some of the writeups are comprehensive and interesting, I'm having trouble seeing how it can meet WP:Reliable sources criteria, and wondering if a spam-campaign is afoot. Any opinions?  OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a interesting model and any reference to it should be taken with a grain of salt. Some pages are very good, others are not. Each page is maintained by ONE Editor. Think about it as if the person who starts an Article at Wikipedia is the only one who can maintain it. You end up with some good once and a real expert in the topic provides real value and a lot of bad ones and the rest somewhere in between the two. Note also that each article at Squidoo has AdSense and allows the integration of products (Books, DVDs, Furniture, Clothing you name it). Those are all linked to the merchants via Affiliate Links. Some of the revenue goes to Squidoo to pay for the site and some goes to the "owner" of the page. The Page Owner can decide to get the earned commission paid in cash or to donate it for a good cause (charity). He can also break it up and say xx% charity and yy% payout in cash. The creator of Squidoo is Seth Godin. He is a A-list blogger, Author of several best selling books about Marketing and an renowned Industry expert and speaker at Conferences like Ad-Tech, eComXpo, you name it. I hope this clarifies what it is and what it is not. Not allowing any reference to a Squidoo article would be wrong, but I would expect that most references are either self promotion, over confidence (some people actually believe that their article is the best thing since sliced bread) or simply a proxy for the actual source (copied from, linked to etc.). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Squidoo]] links

message: #
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.ferrari-cars.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.waterfishing.info
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.ferrariworld.com
Hu12 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think maybe canoe.ca is sort of like Canada's Yahoo, but I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure I've heard of it before and that it's big. --A. B. 04:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this guy just likes wrestling. The canoe articles I saw were written by newspaper sportswriters (such as from the Calgary Sun). I think the canoe edits may be good faith edits, not spamming. --A. B. 04:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Canoe is a canadian news thing, so it is possible that most of that stuff is in good faith.  They don't really have anything origional, but are often rather high in google news serches.  I think you would have to track stuff by user to pick up on any spaming. --T-rex 04:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good to know, never heard of canoe.ca so wasn't sure...thanks for the heads up Hu12 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirming: Canoe.ca is run by a big news/cable über-company in Canada. Individual links may or may not be relevant but they're big enough that there's 0% chance that they would launch a spam-campaign on Wikipedia. Most likely, all these links were added in good faith. Pascal.Tesson 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more recent spam campaigns 

message: A lot of spam holes also have a quackwatch.org link:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.quackwatch.org
Something about quackish topics seems to draw spam. I see there are 472 quackwatch.org links -- probably 200 of those articles have excessive, spammy links.
In some countries, medicine is closely regulated and there are legal barriers to entry along with restrictions on marketing practices. In those countries, herbal remedies, alternative remedies, etc are not restricted, making those markets fair game for many entrepreneurs. Perhaps that's what's going on here.
As for the suitability of the Quackwatch links themselves, the question is whether they meet the requirements of WP:V. The organization's Wikipedia article talks about scientific advisers and reviewers watching over the non-profit's shoulder -- the key is how involved they are in reviewing individual article quality. If quackwatch is good enough for WP:V, it will meet WP:EL and WP:RS.
Whatever the suitability of the quackwatch links themselves, their presence often flags a site prone to spam. 
Good hunting, --A. B. 21:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quackwatch is published by a reasonably reputable doctor (from what I've seen, most of his vocal critics are alternative medicine peddlers). I'd accept Quackwatch as a reliable source, though in many cases it would be fair to present an alternative view on some of those topics. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with itsJamie but better mention the ongoing war at Stephen Barrett.  67.117.130.181 12:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quackwatch.org links as red flags for spam holes 

message: Basically that, we need more people on this IRC channel. If you need help with getting on please contact me —— Eagle (ask me for help). Some of the things that the channel is useful for is: 
# Seeing every link added to mainspace pages on wikipedia.
# Tracking serial spammers, the bot on there does that for us. We know we have problems when we are allowing spammers to add in excess of 50 links before noticing them.
# Tracking the actual link domains being added, and alerting people in the channel when the link is added in sufficient quantity. The bot will then tell people in the channel the link that was added excessively, and the users doing it.
Any help is appreciated. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that for Eagle, #wikipedia-spam could use the help. #wikipedia-spam-t This is the channel talk if you'd like to ask about the ropes. JoeSmack Talk 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded; help is really appreciated. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam #wikipedia-spam] --- help needed 

message: Technically not link spamming, but it appears virtually all some of the articles contained on nature.com links in WP require one-time payment or paid subscription.  I found reference to over 1300 links in WP and checked the first page - all most required payment.  Calltech 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised it's so few.  Nature is a hugely influential scientific journal and is likely to be well represented in sources for many articles.  You'll probably find similar numbers for the New York Times' subscription articles.  While we shouldn't have links to a paid subscription site in the external links section, a convenience link in a citation (which should be fully detailed to allow looking up at the library too) is generally accepted by editors as a service, not abuse.  As I recall, they had a rep here at one point who wanted to post articles to relevant pages, but stopped when asked to by the community.  Do you think this may have changed? --Siobhan Hansa 19:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to watch out for scientific publishing companies, I suppose. There was the iop.org spammer,  for IOP Publishing (Institute of Physics. He even used one of their IP addresses. Then there was Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., a major publisher of scientific journals -- the owner, a VP and an anon added a ton of links; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Oct#Need help with Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.. What made these both tricky to clean-up was that there were also important links added by good faith editors to papers in these journals that were serving as key references for various science articles; we had to be carefull with what we deleted. --A. B. 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info and the historical context.  It appears that most of the recent links are to paid articles that probably should be removed from the External Links.  Checking with some of the older ones, I found many were not paid article links and were valuable references, so I corrected my original statement above.  Looks like it will have to be reviewed on an article by article basis. Calltech 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature.com Paid Articles

message: I thought the rule was to use the best available source? In scientific articles it will usually be a paid one, unfortunately. I would say you are inviting loss of good refs in eliminating links to articles, which are in no sense spam. Most of them are available free to anyone with a university connection. Others can almost always see the abstract, which at least is some help.  
It is extremely unfortunate that this limitation on the many WP non-university users is the case, and I have devoted much of my RW career to changing this. If you would like to do something about it, see the suggestions at Open access. 
BTW, MAL is a problem in several respects, which I can detail offline, but I know her personally & can try to help. Nature is another matter--especially since most of the content is also in print, and every college library & many large public libraries have it. DGG 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: paid articles and spam

message: Mzilla works on multiple Wikipedias and handles many of our blacklist requests on meta-wiki. See:
* m:User talk:Mzlla#Spamstar
* fi:Keskustelu käyttäjästä:Mzlla#Spamstar -- hopefully I hit the correct Finnish editing buttons!
* en: User talk:Mzlla#Spamstar
--A. B. 19:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-wiki spamstar for all Mzilla's support of the blacklist 

message: Created catagory Category:WikiProject Spam Members , wondered how project members felt about having our own... Hu12 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the current contents of the category, I feel... alone... Pascal.Tesson 03:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: mabey someone could do some more work on it like an include for the boxes, like a 
. not sure how to do it correctly.. its lonely in there.. Hu12 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added 
Spam
 to the templates..spam 2 and spam. not sure if this is right. Hu12 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  looks as if its starting to populate Hu12 05:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Spam_Members Category:WikiProject Spam Members] 

message: Lots of spam has been added over the last year by a Dallas area user using these accounts:
*
*
*
*
*
* added 11 December 2006
These are sites that he owns or spams for:
* 10dollarwine.com:
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.10dollarwine.com
*adcentercode.net:
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.adcentercode.net
*africanhousesnake.blogspot.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.africanhousesnake.blogspot.com
*broad-band-phone.com:
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.broad-band-phone.com
*broadband-phone-future.blogspot.com:
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.broadband-phone-future.blogspot.com
*broadband-phone-info.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.broadband-phone-info.com
*broadbandphoneservices.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.broadbandphoneservices.com
*carefreecom.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.carefreecom.com
*celestineview.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.celestineview.com
*chrishdaughtryfans.com:
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.chrishdaughtryfans.com
*comtechnews.net
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.comtechnews.net
*cutthatbill.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.cutthatbill.com
*dishnetworkordirectv.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.dishnetworkordirectv.com
*gethd.tv
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.gethd.tv
*infinitephone.net
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.infinitephone.net
*internetpro.ws
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.internetpro.ws
*jackspirko.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.jackspirko.com
*MarketingPitBull.net
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.MarketingPitBull.net
*magnumsandbass.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.magnumsandbass.com
*mamasmarketplace.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.mamasmarketplace.com
*marketingpitbull.net 
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.marketingpitbull.net 
*nflipod.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.nflipod.com
*pagenetagent.com 
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.pagenetagent.com 
*providetechnology.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.providetechnology.com
*sagelocalphone.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.sagelocalphone.com
*search-engine-positioning-experts.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.search-engine-positioning-experts.com
*shopfort1.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.shopfort1.com
*squidoo.com/inexpensive-wine
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.squidoo.com/inexpensive-wine
*squidoo.com/localphoneservice
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.squidoo.com/localphoneservice
*telebay.com/jspirko
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.telebay.com/jspirko
*t1quotes.net
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.t1quotes.net
*voipblogs.blogspot.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.voipblogs.blogspot.com
*voiphunt.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.voiphunt.com
*wine-everyday.kewlestsites.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.wine-everyday.kewlestsites.com
There are other sites he does not control but is an affiliate of:
*sagetelecom.net
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.sagetelecom.net
*ld.net
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.ld.net
*myld.net
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.myld.net
*cognigen.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.cognigen.com
Finally, he linked to his account at Commission Junction. Any site with this domain will have a commission code for the person adding the link. His links were reverted earlier, however, I found links add by other editors (each with their own unique code). If you ever see one of these, it's hard core spam:
*tkqlhce.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.tkqlhce.com
--A. B. 03:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spammed again. One account blocked for a month -- I've requested blocks on the others. --A. B. (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocks declined; referred to m:Spam blacklist. --A. B. (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  providetechnology.com 

message: 68.106.68.114 (talk • contribs), has 90 edits to date. Probably 80% are spam and some of the rest involve edit-warring or deleting other people's stuff. Traceroute and Whois data indicate this spammer is a Cox Cable subscriber in the Abilene, Texas area.
Now user , an AT&T (SBC) DSL account, also in Abilene, Texas, is spamming the same steelcommerce.com links to the same articles:
steelecommerce.com
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.steelecommerce.com
Other domains User:68.106.68.114 has linked to in the past:
myphoneservice.net
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.myphoneservice.net
myinternetaccess.net
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.myinternetaccess.net
cheap-online.net
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.cheap-online.net
*ld.net 
::Note: other, unrelated spammers also add links to this multi-level marketing site with their unique referral codes
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.ld.net
*cognigen.net  Now blacklisted
::Note: other, unrelated spammers also add links to this multi-level marketing site with their unique referral codes
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.cognigen.net
myphoneservice.net
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.myphoneservice.net
*http://www.fhu.com 
::Comment: this Roy Masters meditation site may or may not meet WP:EL when linked to other  articles besides Roy Masters (radio presenter)
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.fhu.com
--A. B. 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could I forget -- another user,  was adding some of the same links a while back, however they tracerouted to China. --A. B. 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  steelecommerce.com and related sites 

message: I'm seeing more of the cognigen.net and ld.net links being spammed by unrelated parties. Each has his own referring code at the end of the URL such as ?796231. Examples we've dealt with just in the last 2 days:
* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#providetechnology.com
* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#steelecommerc.com and related sites
Both spammed a lot of their own, unrelated sites, but both were also spamming Cognigen stuff.
Cognigen (owns both domains) is a multi-level marketing company that once was telecom only but now sells other stuff. Example: ld.net/travel
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.cognigen
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.ld.net
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.myld.net
We've also had spam linking to at least one Cognigen agent site:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.cognigenatl.com
Congigen is publicly traded over the counter. They probably are somewhere on the cusp of corporate notability and growing. If we have an article on them, we'll want to have one link (and just one) from it to the corporate web site. If they are now notable, I suggest we consider starting a stub with a link, then protecting the article and black-listing ld.net, cognigen.net, etc. While I don't like giving spammers articles, we are an encyclopedia and we have rules. That one link will still be there for enccyclopedia purposes. That way someone won't try to unblacklist the domain to get an article. 
Finally, note that there is an unrelated pharmaceutical consulting company, Cognigen Corporation (http://www.cognigencorp.com//content/aboutus/index.html?nav=aboutus&sub=overview). --A. B. 22:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognigen and ld.net 

message: I found this when removing matses-related links: 
*http://rain-tree.com
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.rain-tree.com
I've got to go; time for the next shift. I left a few matses-related links that I was not sure we should delete. There are still 40 junglephotos.com links left.
--A. B. (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the content on rain-tree certainly gets re-used e.g. http://www.google.com/search?q=Bitter+melon+grows+in+tropical+areas,+including+parts+of+the+Amazon,+east+Africa,+Asia,+and+the+Caribbean,+and+is+cultivated+throughout+South+America+as+a+food+and+medicine.+It%27s+a+slender,+climbing+annual+vine+with+long-stalked+leaves+and+yellow,+solitary&hl=en&lr=&rls=RNFA,RNFA:1970--2,RNFA:en&filter=0 
but it does look to me that it might be the original content owner in which case it is arguable. --BozMo talk 21:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion wanted 

message: Another one spotted while working on wildanimalsonline.com links:
*enature.com
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.enature.com 53 links
--A. B. (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  enature.com 

message: Found while working on wildanimalsonline.com cleanup:
*digital-desert.com
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.digital-desert.com 25 links
"Mothership" is Abraxas Engineering Virtual Environments
*.aeve.com
**http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.aeve.com - just 4 links
This may or may not be the tip of an iceberg since at the bottom of each page are many links to Abraxas web sites for different desert locations and towns.
--A. B. (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraxas Engineering Virtual Environments 

message: Another seen while from cleaning up wildanimalsonline.com spam:
* messybeast.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.messybeast.com 106 links
No time to look into this one. The page or two I looked at seemed unencyclopedic but not spammy -- but then there are 106 links which certainly got my attention. --A. B. (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's , a lot of image uploads and good contribs (including to replace previously linked pages with uploaded photos). She's releasing her content under GFDL, appropriate notices gradually appear on messybeast.com. Femto 13:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  messybeast.com -- spam or just inappropriate links? 

message: An anonymous user has been forever adding  links to a small set of related articles. Recently I had PIC16x84 semi-protected which prompted the creation of  which didn't work out very well for the spammer anyway. The links are added and removed almost daily. Is this a good candidate for the spam blacklist or should the slo-mo add and revert just continue indefinitely? JonHarder 02:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend this site be added to the spam blacklist as well.  Numerous attempts today to add this link using multiple IDs. Calltech 03:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have indef blocked User:Cromoser as an abusive sockpuppet.---J.S  (T/C) 03:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous user again spammed Talk:Microcontroller. Calltech 23:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Still at it PIC microcontroller . Calltech 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, this has been going on forever. I added a request to the blacklist some time ago, but no action yet. JonHarder talk 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  geocities.com/nozomsite 

message: I just finished cleaning up puramatrix spam added by  and . What better evidence to present to a venture capitalist of your corp's potential than an "expert" adding it unchallenged all over related articles? Purely speculation, but the edit pattern is interesting. Besides removing the links, one article speedied (gone) and another prodded. JonHarder 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam for venture capital? 

message: if you guys have to do this by blanket banning sites, could you please take the trouble to ensure that the whitelist requests page runs a little faster. while you're engaged in these crusades, some of us are trying to add content & its anoying when we can't source it or can't provide external links  ⇒ bsnowball  17:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which links are giving you a problem? Some editors who work with the blacklist also monitor this page. Remember to reserve your irritation for those individuals and groups who have caused this problem by their concerted effort to abuse Wikipedia for their own personal or corporate gain. JonHarder 17:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Refers to the Jas H. Duke article, first collateral damage from the suite101 removal. Femto 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  whitelist very slow, very annoying 

message: I would like to pass this case off to others who have time. The edits of  involve adding links to , ,  and perhaps others. JonHarder 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book / blog spam 

message: User 67.80.157.43 (talk • contribs) has been adding links to the sites below. They are all very similar, have "ads by google", offer a free newsletter and have hidden links pointing to www.aweber.com, which sells advertising tools.
* www.lancewins.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.lancewins.com
* www.tanningreviews.com
** http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.tanningreviews.com
Although the user have added just a few links, it looks like a careful attempt of spamming without being noticed. This search points to many other related sites. However, I couldn't find any of those links on Wikipedia yet.
—Red Thrush 21:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWeber spam 

message: I've just found another suspicious links:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.home.comcast.net%2F%7Efbui
They were randomly added to X86 assembly language and X86 architecture at 12:43 and 12:41, respectively, on 2005-08-05 by 64.241.37.140.
At 18:54, 2006-05-08 they were added to ThinkPad by 71.253.57.234. That same user added the following link to Skull and Bones some minutes later, which is hosted by the same site:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.home.comcast.net%2F%7Eplutarch
Plinius (contribs) created the pages CTX notebook computers, FrameBuffer UI and Toshiba Satellite and pointed them to the links in the beginning. Also interesting is that most edits of FrameBuffer UI were made by Fbui (contribs), who also mentioned FBUI in other articles. On 2006-10-08, while Fbui edited FrameBuffer UI, 71.224.255.193 made references to FBUI in yet another articles.
Could it be that someone is trying to promote FBUI and/or its site? And what about the "plutarch" link?
—Red Thrush 14:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do a lot of editing in the whole Computing tree and the fbui links aren't that troubling to me. However, I cleaned most of them up by either replacing them with the equivalent internal link or deleting them as an unnecessary how-to manual. Someone should look at the  yet. All of these links seem to be attributed to Zack Smith and are likely added by the author. The links all appear to contain original research and could be deleted on that basis. JonHarder talk 22:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBUI 

message: Seems  is the one who appears to be heading up, maintaining this marketing of essentialy non notable bio profiles from a book called The New Market Wizards. also noticed a history of vote stacking Vote Please(bottom) and Vote Please(top) so expect this if these come up for AfD.
Bill Lipschutz
Randy McKay -- deleted
William Eckhardt
Monroe Trout -- nominated for AFD 
Al Weiss -- deleted
Stanley Druckenmiller
Richard Driehaus
Gil Blake
Victor Sperandeo
Tom Basso -- nominated for AFD 
Linda Bradford Raschke -- nominated for AFD 
Mark Ritchie -- nominated for AFD 
Joe Ritchie -- nominated for AFD 
Blair Hull
Jeff Yass
Charles Faulkner
Robert Krausz
Louis Lukac -- nominated for AFD
opinions? Hu12 05:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute. I think you're waaaay over-reacting. This user has been around for 9 months now and seems to have a number of perfectly decent, constructive, NPOV edits. And even a few anti-spam edits! Ok, so maybe he likes that particular book a bit too much but I suggest you just engage in dialog with him. This is a case where presumption of good-faith seems natural. Pascal.Tesson 05:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Havent done anything to be considered an "overaction", asking for "opinions". Some of these articles have been hitting my radar for months wanted some clarification before presuming anything. please presume of good-faith with my post. Hu12 05:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *note; forgot "?" in title, hope his clears up any further confusion.--Hu12 05:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Amazon.com links don't belong. If possible, they should be replaced with ISBN links. —Wrathchild (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Have a look at Munehisa Homma history Pleclech 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a week since I encouraged further discussion on the purpose for these articles, and have recieved no response. Being mentioned in a book, is this enough to make these bio's notable? AFD; Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy McKay (trader), Al Weiss possible spam: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Major article spam?.--Hu12 11:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated the following for AFD, Toby Crabel, Mark Weinstein, Larry Hite, Brian Gelber, Monroe Trout, Tom Basso, Louis Lukac, Joe Ritchie,Mark Ritchie, Linda Bradford Raschke. Hopefully we can get a broader consensus. Hu12 13:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major article spam? 

message: I found this one after removing an external link added at the same time to multiple gun related articles:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.world.guns.ru 346 links
It deserves attention…
—Red Thrush 12:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise riflesnguns.com should be removed - commercial website linked multiple times by primarily one anonymous user. Not as many links as above and I started removing.  Placed warning on anon users Talk.  Both spam sites generally appear in the same articles and if removing the ones above, might as well remove these while you're on these firearm sites. Calltech 14:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like some of the gun-specific links are actually relevant and useful. this one chosen at random seems relevant to the article it's in. ---J.S  (T/C) 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree J.S. re world.guns.ru.  Red Thrush, it appears to be a personal hobby website from an authority on guns (written several books).  Links (small sample) have been added by different editors, some with a long history of contribution.  Plus the content is extensive.  Riflenguns, on the other hand, is a self proclaimed "social networking" website requesting registration with excessive advertising (need to scroll down past ads to see anything meaningful.  After listing gun specs, there's a "Buy this gun online" message on sampled pages.  Three strikes IMO.  I went ahead and removed these links per WP:EL. Calltech 13:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  world.guns.com 

message: I just found a useful tool, CompleteWhois:
:http://www.completewhois.com/cgi-bin/rbl_lookup.cgi?query=127.0.0.1&display=webtable
Just replace the 127.0.0.1 with the actual IP address and Completewhois will look for open proxy info. If it appears it may be an open proxy, report it at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies where someone will take a closer look and block it indefinitely Wikimedia-wide if necessary.
I'm thinking it might be worth our going back through all the old IP addresses reported here as time allows to see which are open proxies. --A. B. (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open proxies -- worth checking for anon. IP spammers 

message: keeps adding links to band/artist articles for .  The site is an online store that trades CDs it appears.  I'd appreciate if others would keep an eye on this too.  Metros232 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also :Image:Lala2.jpg - It's tagged as PD-Self. ---J.S  (T/C) 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lala.com 

message: I just found links in a couple of articles (Amelia Earhart and Joseph McCarthy) to http://boomp3.com/, a site that allows anyone to upload audio recordings. The IP that added these links only hit 4 articles today (and 2 of them happened to be on my watch list), but I don't know if any other IPs have been adding links. The site has no ads, and the links do seem to be pertinent to the articles, but there may be copyvio problems. This is just a heads up to keep an eye out in case these links become a problem. I don't think this is spam, yet, but it could become so. -- Donald Albury 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are about 12 links from WP to that URL see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.boomp3.com%2F . They look ok but they are being put in suspiciously (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Max_evil ) four or five at a time with different IDs. I have deleted a couple to see if I get a reaction, but I might put them back the audio tracks are quite nice... --BozMo talk 10:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it doesn't need action now, but something to keep an eye on. -- Donald Albury 13:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boomp3.com 

message: An anonymous editor is busy adding links to igottarant.com in various college sports articles.  Worth keeping an eye on and looking out for in the future.  --ElKevbo 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 118 links on user Hu12 16:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I blanked his user page and asked him not to add so many external links next time. I added it to my watchlist as well. ---J.S  (T/C) 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: igottarant.com

message: I have temporarily posted information on the last 250 users warned by Shadowbot on a user subpage at User:A. B./Sandbox3 along with the articles they spammed if anyone is interested or sees any familiar faces. --A. B. (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shadowbot's last 250 warnings 

message: Looking at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#1._WPSpam.27s_mission_2._Good_faith.2Fbad_judgment_edits I wonder if there are two other useful roles which this team could play as well as fighting the most sinister threats I think you (?we) should have an upfront unilateral declaration that you also wish to promote understanding of the issues around spam in the wider WP community and help to produce guidelines. You ought really to have FAQ:Spam pages and the like or if you have someone ought to tell me where to find them. Thoughts? --BozMo talk 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note... we are tracking Category 4 spammers on #wikipedia-spam on the irc.freenode.net network. Feel free to join in on the fun! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 08:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikispam Charter 

message: carsfromitaly.net search results
:This user also changed the link within cite tags from .com (dead site)to .net. the now obsolete citation, was reverted by User:Clawson, claiming " this ref was well-established'. For example carsfromitaly.net which was resored, is low content page with links to ebay, amazon.com, adsense, screensavers, walpapers and a section with stuffed with keywords. Clearly fails the External links policy. Here is internet archive version of the carsfromitaly.com from before it expired . It was a cleaver attempt to subvert the spam policies, by vandalizing an existing link hidden within "cite" tags, and campaign spamming other articles. I would like some input whether these should stay or be removed. --Hu12 16:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having a rather long discussion about this on my talk page. Looking for a second opinion or possible consensus on wether this is realy spam. --Hu12 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  carsfromitaly.net 

message: Wow, look at this edit by  - JonHarder talk 00:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spammer with a conscience? 

message: No conscience at all -- just a sense of humor. I'm sure it's connected to the "CPayscom2 Online Casino" SEO Contest. If you watch, we'll be getting some spam here and there that links to sites that link to sites, etc that will enable winning this contest.
If you're interested, I suggest you put Casino and SEO contest on your watchlist. If you're really feeling zealous, consider also watching every article linked to Casino and everything linked to SEO contest.
But then again, you'll need a sockpuppet account just to manage that big a watchlist.
While you're at it, you may find a few abusive accounts that have been spamming other stuff and/or open proxy accounts.
Enjoy the show. --A. B. (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ... of course not ("CPayscom2 Online Casino")

message: It would be useful a lot of these times for linksearch to show who added each link.  It would just record the info when the link got inserted, so no substantial extra overhead.  Someone want to suggest that to the devs? 67.117.130.181 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm it would be nice, but it seems technicly difficult to impliment. It would be so very helpfull if it's posible. ---J.S  (T/C) 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should not be terribly difficult based on how I think the server works.  I added a feature request at bugzilla.wikimedia.org. 67.117.130.181 08:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linksearch improvement 

message: Got a reply back about boomp3.com from User_talk:Max_evil, see his talk page. --BozMo talk 08:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say this situation will be manageable. Possible copyvios are my main concern. -- Donald Albury 13:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio links 

message: There appears to have been a long running low level campaign to promote this site.  .  Numerous Sydney registered IPs making small flurries of additions over the last year or so: 203.206.163.162, 202.59.25.83, 58.104.229.132, 60.231.129.157, 220.236.27.70, 220.101.67.140.  See my research so far (I'm happy to paste it all here if that's preferred, but it takes up a lot of space.).  --Siobhan Hansa 10:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't have time to finish right now, will come back to it later.  If anyone decides to work on this, please note there appear to be legitimate and good faith uses of the domain on some professional wrestling articles.  --Siobhan Hansa 11:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mediaman.com.au 

message: 195.137.109.177 added this to 10+ pages in the space of about one hour. I removed it, and they're saying that it's legit. On the one hand, it doesn't appear to be an ad site, on the other hand, it was added to a lot of articles fast. Comments? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like some kind of Nirvana fan site under construction.  I left a note on the person's talk page, I don't think the links should stay.  We're not a link directory.  It doesn't matter whether the site is commercial or not, we're not here to promote external sites.  67.117.130.181 17:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided prohibits "Links mainly intended to promote a website," and these links don't add to the quality of the articles. -- Satori Son 19:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a slightly tense exchange with the contributor on his talk page and removed all the links from article space.  I ended up suggesting that he post them to the talk pages of the different articles and leave it up to the other editors whether to put them into the articles.  I noticed there was a somewhat similar situation from livenirvana.com, kind of a similar site.  There were a lot of links to that site's info about individual songs and records and I left those alone, but a lot more links to their main index page (a lot of which were in the "references" section of articles).  I removed the links to the index page.  I also left a note at Talk:Nirvana_%28band%29#sliver.it_links about the matter. 67.117.130.181 20:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that putting it up on Nirvana discography would be perfectly acceptable. Anywhere else, IMHO, isn't. I've added a comment to that effect on the contributor's talkpage. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sliver.it 

message: Man look at that link farm disguised as citations.  The whole article is spam except the Roast Magazine article sort of marginally creates some notability.  I don't know what cleanup is possible but I mention this here as it's the shape of things to come (think of Rosencomet). 67.117.130.181 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugg... pressreleases.  Yuck.  All of those references need to be converted to reference secondary sources. I'll make a note about it on the talk page. ---J.S  (T/C) 19:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Intelligentsia Coffee & Tea]] 

message: Can we mount some kind of effort to reopen that discussion and get rel=nofollow turned back on?  That would solve a heck of a lot of our problems.
Have you all seen this letter from Brad Patrick?   It was on the WP:CSD talk page a while back but I didn't see it here.  Excerpts:
:The volume of corporate vanity/vandalism which is showing up on Wikipedia is overwhelming.  At the office, we are receiving dozens of phone calls *per week* about company, organization, and marketing edits which are reverted, causing the non-notable, but self-aggrandizing authors, to scream bloody murder.  This is as it should be.  However, I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation.  This is simply out of hand, and we need your help. ...
:Some of you might think regular policy and VfD is the way to go.  I am here to tell you it is not enough.  We are losing the battle for encyclopedic content in favor of people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes.  This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy.  We must put a stop to this now.
A little different from what the spam project concentrates on, but relevant.  Some several-month-old discussion is here. 67.117.130.181 20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think nofollow would help much and it would be a heavy price to pay. We've discussed it enough times to be able to roll out the arguments again if needed. However some more aggressive policies on the vanity and fluff pages would cheer everyone up. --BozMo talk 23:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware of the big referendum on it a couple years ago (I don't have the link handy but I read it all the way through).  It was inconclusive then but I think the climate now calls for it much more strongly.  I don't think there's a heavy price and I'd favor it even if we had zero spam problems.  We're supposed to be documenting things, not influencing them, and we shouldn't want our links to confer pagerank on anyone even when they're not spam links.  With the spam we actually have, I can only think of the suddenly stricken expression on Obi-wan Kenobi's face when he sensed the disturbance in the Force after the death star blew up Alderaan.  The minute we turn on rel=nofollow every damn SEO infesting Wikipedia will writhe in agony the exact same way that Obi-wan did.  And that means we'll have done something right. 67.117.130.181 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Count me in when it comes to supporting the re-activation of the nofollow attribute. I made a big argument in March/April here at the WP:SPAM Talk Page. The whole thing which spanned across various user talk pages as well can be found consolidated here. It addresses pretty much every argument against it and shows what you gain by enabling it and what you do not gain. Don't get over-excited. It should help (especially against the bot's), but it will not eliminate the issue. Important is to promote the fact that its on that ever back-woods spammer learns about the fact that there is less benefit for useless spamming and no benefit for spamming for SE ranking. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google is not doing anything special with talk pages.  We serve all Wikipedia pages except English-language article space with rel=nofollow (check the html) and that's why they get no pagerank.  The French, German, etc. wikipedias all have rel=nofollow in article space so I'd be quite interested to know if they get anything like the amount of linkspam that we get. 67.117.130.181 00:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?! I am talking about the english Wikipedia Pages which do not have nofollow enabled for roughly 2 years now. Install the Google Toolbar and enable PageRank display. Go to an english article check the rank, go to the Talk Page, check the rank. Use an article that is well ranked and has an active talk page as well, such as Blog, IRC, Search engine optimization etc. Then check the User pages and the User talk pages. Did you read the blog post I referred to? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did read that article.  Its main observation was that English Wikipedia's article pages generate pagerank but its talk pages do not.  It conjectures that Google is giving some unique special treatment to Wikipedia talk pages.  I'm saying the explanation is different, it's Wikipedia that treats talk pages differently--English Wikipedia serves rel=nofollow with talk pages but not article pages.  See this link to google.com for example--view the HTML of this talk page and search for that link.  The presence of rel=nofollow on talk pages is why they generate no pagerank and I'm supporting doing the same thing with article pages.  Article pages on wikipedias other than English also use rel=nofollow and so if that blog guy had tried the French wikipedia (frwiki), he'd have found that frwiki's articles generate no pagerank just like English talk pages don't. 67.117.130.181 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, when did they enabled the nofollow for english article talk pages? I support that and I agree with you, that it should be extended to ALL pages at Wikipedia, including article pages --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 22:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think at this point this website gets enough trafic that it woudln't make a diffrence. Search rank isn't the only thing they want... they want hits as well, and wikipedia can provide them. ---J.S  (T/C) 00:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of them want hits but the pagerank is much more valuable.  Did you see the spamdexing article?  One thing they like to do is put somewhat useful links into the wiki and let them slowly build pagerank.  Once they've gotten near the top of the search engines, they redirect the url's to their porn sites or whatever.  This guy (link from  here) explicitly says he doesn't care about hits, it's all about pagerank.  That's what got me off on rel=nofollow today. 67.117.130.181 00:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are also often okay with the tiny percentage of people that click on spammy links to junk sites and even convert (buy something from the spammer). However, the benefits of the link for ranking, especially with MSN and even Yahoo who are not as good with detecting junk like Google does (and even Google slips a lot through), is still the most important thing.  Keep in mind, spamming is cheap and only works if you do it in high volume. Anyhow, I think that the bigger benefit is that one motive for adding a link manually to an article will be eliminated. The RC Patrol is sometimes a bit .. mmh.. I would say overly suspicious and quick with judgement. The less "wrong" reasons for a modification of an article exist the easier will it become to see the "right" reasons. Today is it often more like "shoot first and ask later" or "you are a spammer, before you have proven that you are not". I understand why that is and are much less critical about it than I used to be. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW my view is at User_talk:Pascal.Tesson/Archive_4#Nofollow but there are a few factual errors in the above. There have been three debates on WP on nofollow. It used to never be used (there was and earlier version using a google redirect before it came out as "nofollow"). It was adopted as a default by Wikimedia because anyone who couldn't switch it off probably needed it. The proposal to adopt was discussed and rejected twice with a vote involving many editors. It was introduced outside namespace as a "compromise" March this year for the first time. --BozMo talk 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew, I read you post at Pascal's User Talk Page. This page here is already way too big due to the number of discussions done here at the same time. I wrote a very long response at your talk page until a better place is found. There are a lot of things to consider and a lot of different opinions. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind also that Wikipedia has around 5 million articles and roughly 70% are not in English and are served with rel=nofollow.  Only around 30% of Wikipedia articles (i.e. the ones in English) are served without nofollow.  They just happen to be the ones that we deal with as enwiki editors.  I'd sure like to know if the linkspam patterns are different in the non-english wikis than they are here. 67.117.130.181 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rel=nofollow WE NEED THIS 

message: What do you all think of the notion of changing the edit page to notice whenever there are any external links that aren't on a whitelist and don't come from an established user ("established" means "can edit semi-protected articles", say).  If there are any, it goes to a dialog saying "You've listed the following links, are those your own site?"  If they say yes it records that in a table so they can't try again with a different answer, and then refuses to save and suggests proposing the link addition on the article's talk page instead.  There could also be a velocity limit for link insertion, like no more than 3 per day to the same site for new users. 67.117.130.181 20:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, once people start getting wise and saying 'no, this isn't my site', the whole thing becomes useless. Also, adding your own link can be allowed if there is talkpage discussion first... finally, all these ideas would involve a good deal of load on the database. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 21:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not keen on requiring action from the editor.  Hard core spammers are just going to lie about it being their site, so this only gets the naive - it might get a few first timers and stop some of the hobbyists who don't realize they shouldn't, but it's not going to stop the hard core stuff.  More importantly we have to remember that verifiability is a key pillar of Wikipedia.  Anything that adds complexity to the process of providing sources should be strongly avoided. Spam is bad, but lack of sources is a bigger issue (at least so I think).  Maybe just a notice reminding users they should not add links to sites they are connected with whenever there's a URL in the edit? I think that's the sort of thing we'd want to test to see if it actually has the desired impact on behavior though, and doesn't just annoy editors. --Siobhan Hansa 21:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there are a lot of sensible things that could be done to take out the spammers, stopping anyone posting a link to the same site in more than a couple articles would stop a lot of bother, as would forcing the Semi-protected policy on the external links section.  Overall though WP is very much moving to a 1.0 finality.  The immediately viewable page is a stable revision and the immediately editable page is not the first to be seen and is viewed as the unstable page.  That is the end game that WP is moving towards, not least because it holds a pretty high place at the www table at the moment, and the more controversies there are the more the "1.0" solution rises to the top of the pile as the way forward for WP.  In short, WP is no longer a little internet backwater plaything and when the consequences of something going wrong are Jimmy Wales being asked questions in the national and international media then it ain't going to stay that way for too much longer (and frankly I will be happy with that - all too often I revert a bit off vandalism that has existed for hours, days or even weeks without being noticed). SFC9394 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I'm convinced, this was a dumb idea.  Veinor's, Siobhan's and SFC9394's posts all make good sense, and I wasn't thinking of how 1.0 would work.  Sometimes techno fixes can save a lot of trouble but this isn't one of them.  Thanks. 67.117.130.181 21:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A drastic suggestion 

message: Hi. I have gathered a list of about 125 spam domains I've been involved with in the last 3 to 4 weeks, either by warning the spammer or reverting the link. I don't yet have an IRC client -- would somebody mind feeding these to Shadowbot? Please delete the names as you add them. Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking care of it. --A. B. (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:A. B./Shadowbot's Christmas list|Shadowbot's Christmas list]] 

message: I came across this template Template:Datasheet, created on 1 November 2006 by new User:Mhinner.  It links to a website of technical datasheets, anonymous, with Google Adsense ads.  Saw at least one other editor caught this on Xilinx and removed them on the same day.  I removed them from PIC microcontroller today.  I'd like another opinion and then put up a WP:TFD to remove the template.  Appears to be a little more sophisticated link spamming technique.  Any other opinions? Calltech 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the  should be reviewed. It merely hosts a collection of links to the official site(s). If the external link is necessary for the article, it should go directly to that site. JonHarder talk 15:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I see it as well.  Nothing in the form of content itself, simply lots of links back to official sites, with ads on top. Template used by the creator and at least one other anonymous user during the first weeks of November, 2006.  This appeared to fly under the radar because of the "official" looking template IMO. Calltech 16:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%--BozMo talk 16:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Have put TFD on page. Not sure how TFD works: do we just post a discussion paragraph on the page? --BozMo talk 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and completed the WP:TFD per the instructions on that page.  It should now be open for discussion and recommendations can be added (see today's date).  I placed a notice on user page and also put spamming notices on a number of the anonymous IP talk pages as well.  Thanks for helping on the cleanup. Calltech 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Template and Link Spamming? 

message: There are a lot (236) of links to . The content on this website is duplicated across a lot of other websites and I cannot work out if it is ever the original source. Quite a lot seems to be copied off government sites. Haven't gone through when they were all put in. But the links from every city page in Iran for example looks a bit extreme. Thoughts?
Good example by the way of wp clone sites giving link value to our links. Answers.com and algebra.com are straight WP clones. See  
One culprit is Special:Contributions/American2 is it fair to ask him not to add external links under minor edit commenting "citing sources"?
--BozMo talk 15:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mongabay 

message: Special:Contributions/Herbdreyer. I reverted them all and left him a template, but he might be back, who knows. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 00:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, actually I didn't. Undo button doesn't actually work, eh? I'll leave that to someone with rollback rather than doing the whole thing again.--SB_Johnny|talk|books 00:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done.  Hmmmm, now I'm oddly hungry. Kuru talk 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spammer note 

message: I found this site (dailycelebsearch.com) linked to seven articles this morning. Three articles were linked in the last 12 hours or so by an IP with no other edits. I didn't take time to track when and by whom the others were added. I cleaned the links out, but I suspect we will be seeing more links in the near future. -- Donald Albury 13:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just reverted some back out.  Here's the link to check again later. -- Satori Son 19:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ding!  67.117.130.181 21:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Four more today.  We need to stay on top of this one. -- Satori Son 05:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two more. Same articles --PTSE 17:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Time to blacklist? I don't see how this site can ever be acceptable; it seems to be designed to let users upload rumors and gossip. -- Donald Albury 18:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: dailycelebsearch.com is now blacklisted after more links were added. --A. B. (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dailycelebsearch.com 

message: User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard Don't know if this fits within the defintion of this section, which is mostly sales, but this article, in the opinion of User:Striver, is a "vote soliciting board". 
As Jimbo Wales himself opined : "Using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." What can I not have on my userpage 
User:Derex wrote: 
:"The Conspiracy Noticeboard ... strikes me as quite counter to the ideal collaborative and neutral spirit of AFD. I doubt, for example, that we would permit a WP:AFD noticeboard on topic X. Isn't that what AFD itself is for? So, I personally take issue with a user-space page which is serving the same role of co-ordinating editors with a particular outlook. There seems to be quite a lot of pre-discussion among editors watching that page, almost all of it off the relevant article talk pages. An unwiki lack of transparency, in my opinion." 
There was an AfD over this page, which was incorrectly closed snowball keep one day after a vote of 18-5.  I brought up this here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Snowball_keep.3F, and three editors thought this speedy closing of this AfD was dubious. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if this qualifies as "Spam", per se, but for those interested, its deletion is being debated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). -- Satori Son 19:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this spam?