Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/To-do

The To-do list

Shortcut
  • WP:WPSPAM/TODO

Regular sources of spam-removal tasks

Some articles that need external links trimmed

  • The previous revision of Oil: the top picture was a blatant product placement for Mobil. History shows it's been repeatedly removed and put back since at least 2006, which means Mobil has a solid ownership of this article. 62.147.36.65 (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I have replaced the pic with an equivalent Commons one sans ad, see how long it sticks. 62.147.36.65 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The picture seems to be staying, and I don't see any new extlinks so far...--Anon126 (talk - contribs) 21:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peak oil: I did a major removal of links on here, adding DMOZ in favor of most of them, and got reverted (Note, if you check the history, I'm not talking about the recentchanges bot, but later on a user re-added all the links). I still resolutely maintain that MASSIVE numbers of those links are illegitimate or noncompliant, but someone else should take a look it and give an unbiased opinion (Or just go ahead and clean it). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried bringing this up on the Template_talk:ICD9 page for the Template:ICD9, but the powers that be seem intent on defending large-scale spamming by the company Alkaline Software, Inc., on the grounds that removing spam should not be done at all unless there is general Wikipedia consensus on the topic... Unfortunately, Alkaline Software has now put in place literally thousands of Wikipedia links pointing to its reflector (http://icd9data.com) for World Health Organization data. You can see how many other reflectors for ICD9 data are out there on the ICD page, which itself notes that it is need of a spam cleanup. ICD9 data are a magnet for spammers all over the world, because the World Health Organization provides the data free of restrictions. However, that does not make some software company's reflector site a useful contribution to thousands of Wikipedia pages. It would be great if someone out there with the clout to overcome the "oh no we have to protect the spam unless there is a consensus against it" stonewalling could change the ICD9 template to point to something authoritative, like the actual author, the World Health Organization (which is where the ICD10 template points).
The "actual author" doesn't have the ICD9 online. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much could be improved as some links there can be used as references, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think all the links on Ukranians are legitamate; most are for references for the "Regions with significant populations" section. (also: I apologize if the next item runs on the side of my signature)

Anon126|talk|contribs

06:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Light brown apple moth might benefit from a once-over by someone else. There's a current scandal(?) in California, and the article is turning into a magnet for external links to anti-pesticide groups. I and several other editors have deleted them, but they keep reappearing, and the talk page discussion is just frustrating to me right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sites that need investigating

  • www.eoearth.org Encyclopedia of Earth; this is another encyclopedia website launched several months ago that has articles similar to WP. A group of users (mostly anonymous) are adding external links en masse to the corresponding pages in their encyclopedia on WP (nearly 100 at last count). Many have been warned User talk:128.197.34.220, User talk:KonaScout. They appear to be using WP to promote their new website. A number of other editors and I have removed some of these links, but there are plenty others out there. Calltech 23:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another anonymous user User_talk:69.182.174.152 joined in today to add a number of links to eoearth.org. Removed these links and placed a message on talk page but I'm sure they'll simply use another IP or identifier. Calltech 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed a few more today. -- Satori Son 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a decent site. I would keep these links if they are references or if they link to an article which is significantly better than Wikipedia's. Otherwise, we can delete them. These links shouldn't be deleted simply because they link to a competitor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this site uses Creative Commons, not the GFDL, so we can't simply put their articles on Wikipedia. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this is about several users who were systematically adding links to EoE, using WP as a promotional platform to this site. Bulk additions of links violate WP guidelines and adding links to a site where there is an affiliation is a conflict of interest. All links to EoE were not removed, just those added in the manner described above. The site has not been blacklisted; it is simply being watched to ensure the link spamming does not continue. Calltech 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this aggressively defensive policy really oversteps the mark, and that the use of the term spamming in this context is actually quite offensive. Adding relevant links to well-written external articles is a service to all WP readers. Surely there are far more important concerns than worrying about whether another decent, scholarly, non-commercial site gets some additional traffic from this one. And no, I don't have any connection whatsoever to the Encyclopedia of Earth. Although having now discovered it, I will be consulting it quite frequently from this point onwards. Rubywine 01:12, 16 May 2007
  • Dozens of extlinks to David Pietrusza's site which has linkdirs on various subjects. I've removed some of them but am not sure of the best way to handle this. Also I removed several dozen inappropriate links to dorothyparker.com mostly promoting "walking tours" of Dorothy Parker's old literary hangouts, that were in many articles related to Parker's literary circle. I left in a few which were outside article space or arguably met WP:EL guidelines, but the owner of that site (K72ndst (talk · contribs)) restored a bunch of them and there was a reversion contest (he's backed off for now), so someone might want to keep an eye on it (linksearch). Note that dorothyparker.com is not Parker's personal site (she is dead). The owner claims it's an "official" site but this strikes me as dubious--her entire estate went to the NAACP. I removed the link from Parker's biographical page and (after K72ndst reverted the removal) I removed it again and left K72ndst a talk message asking him to supply documentation before restoring the link. 67.117.130.181 04:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.emedicine.com seems to be popping up everywhere. The unobtrusive ads are not bad in and of themselves, but it fails WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #1 in most articles it is linked from. -Selket Talk 08:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.chabad.org The Chabad-Lubavitch organisation has some provable authority and chabad.org does appear to have an editorial policy so is suitable as an attributable source for their views, but the Lubavitchers are a very small group within Judaism, certainly well short of the level of influence that would justify nearly 650 links in mainspace. These need a careful review and some pretty ruthless pruning. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon.com. Yup, you read that right. There are literally thousands of links to amazon.com, almost all of which should not be there. either we should be using the ISBN syntax or they are links to book cover images, which are being used as references for trivial facts (which is original research). The major problem is that these links can be subverted with referral ids. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they shouldn't be here. But often not spam as much as people who have no idea how to write a citation and link to the amazon page for the book instead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that amazon.com is spam. Amazon is not worse than imdb. Of course, it is better to use ISBN for many reasons, but amazon is not inherently evil. The very fact that there are thousands of them should speak for itself. Do you really think that amazon guyz sit there and push these links into wikipedia? On the contrary, thousands of wikipedians think these links are a Good Thing, and a couple of spam warriors hardly have rights to outvote the rest of us. And on the contrary, I find that links to amazon author search are quite useful in articles about authors, since I have to regretfully say that amazon beats wikipedia in terms of lists of publications: way more up-to-date and comprehensive. `'Míkka 22:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presser.com, 28 links; discovered from contributions by Presser. Valid as official page on Theodore Presser Company, but on the various artist pages, just another commercial link. I've already removed many of them, but another editor has been reverting me without discussion but otherwise in good faith on Peter Schickele and Daniel Asia. -- JHunterJ 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagreed. Presser is a significant publisher in music, and a reliable source in this area. `'Míkka 22:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.wisegeek.com, 94 links. Possibly being added innocently in a lot of cases, but this appears just to be a keyword-spam site where random editors write unsourced articles about "What is X?" so that they can be plastered with Google ads, so would fail WP:EL and WP:RS in every case. --McGeddon 17:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.chortle.co.uk. Lisachortle (talk · contribs) has added a couple of hundred links over the last couple of days. Site seems to definitely fall into the "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" basket of "Links normally to be avoided", and has a fair few ads on it. Worth a look from someone more involved in dealing with spam. --Stormie 23:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • www.atariage.com Added to many videogame articles, question the utility of the link to Wikipedia. Many of the links contain fake-out summaries, like "link to such and such a game profile at atariage.com", but in fact only link to the front page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users to check out

  • This anonymous user has almost 100% spam contributions for FHM and the IP itself originates from the FHM office in NYC. -- Tomlouie | talk 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special:Contributions/Tangelise - all "contributions" are for promoting FBi Radio. Camillus (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:193.122.103.201, the chemistry lab SPAMmer! 68.39.174.238 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Cada2 linking to http://www.magistermusicae.com/magister-musicae/frontpage.html in pages he is creating, many of which seem probably inclusion worthy, but the link probably isn't. GRBerry 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, he's doing the same thing in eS Cada (talk • contribs • page moves • block log) Local: User:Cada, where it has been shown that his additions are copyright violations! 68.39.174.238 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special:Contributions/82.40.60.100 - Likes to add links to autograph site, particularly to Bruce Lee, Brandon Lee and autograph. Has been blocked once but still spamming. Belovedfreak 22:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • cfherbert (talk · contribs)
    • mainly authored a single document Car dealer auctions and spread wiki-links to this document throughout relevant articles. ** no talk page or user page
    • I recently nominated this doc for WP:copyvio and if that fails will still need to remove the spam link because the main content is 'copied' or 'sourced' from a single blog entry (or visa versa), and when you go there it prominently links to a specific car auction website named Motobidia.com
    • user has resisted several attempts by other users to remove or modify this particular link or add other links that appear relevant to the topic (reason was that the link was not used inline, but none of the pages references are used inline). In defense, perhaps these were vandalism that he was reverting.
    • I'm relatively new, so I'd just like someone with more experience to take a look before I put my foot in my mouth too deep. Thanks! JetheroTalk 03:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:89.213.73.15 and User:216.27.176.192 keep adding links to the Hairstyle article which either requires registration or sells goods. THE evil fluffyface 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pvara 99 (talk · contribs) spams this link around -> http://letlifein.com/letlife/... Sometimes arguably appropriate. Not a troublemaker, just someone pushing a certain website a little too much. - Rocket000 05:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Larsvegas43 (talk · contribs) adding spam links redbullmusicacademy site to various musician articles. Keb25 12:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jamjahal (talk · contribs) - I'm not sure, but this editor seems to be adding and editing public relations WP:SPAM. All of his edits have been to Owl Studios or artists that are signed to Owl. That, and because the user name might stand for Jammin' J. Allan Hall, the studios' founder, I'm a little suspicious. --Evb-wiki 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Pputter _ I told him: "I think you are adding these inappropriately, and may well be in breach of WP:SPAM. The one I first saw was completely the wrong person, plus you are adding them at the top of what ever section you add them too, which is usually wrong. You should not add things to References sections that have not actually been used to write the article, but all your recent edits seem just to add this link en masse. If you are found to be spamming, ALL these links will be reverted by bot." All his edits appear to be links to famousamericans.net which carries ads (online ed of C19 biographical encyclopedia) Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Culturenut too much for one person to handle - see [1]. MikeHobday (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encyclopedia Mike and at least two IP addresses with similar edit histories (72.90.103.99 and 96.225.204.36) - Conflict of interest concerns previously reported at WP:COIN regarding numerous edits promoting Gamers: The Movie and its director, Chris Folino, in articles with non-notable connections. Examples here, here, here, here, here and here. —Whoville (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • user:98.199.57.71 - keeps adding links to http://www.radarreviews.net/forums, despite repeated warnings. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlists

Lists of popular articles:

These are also frequently vandalized.

Technology articles are often prone to spam, as are lists, both stand-alone and embedded.

Informal watchlists:

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/To-do&oldid=1146378856"