Comments on: Wikipedia Spam Resulting in Google & Yahoo Penalties

By: Matt (Yes Me)

Matt (Yes Me) — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:52:39 +0000

Wikipedia has crossed the line in two many way I’m affraid. The abuse of power by admins and editors has triggered an alert amongst all search engine leaders and is being disscused in secretive meetings at round tables at Google headquarters. The more experienced Admin’s seem to be babysitting the abusive editors more than preventing spam, which means their system is not only counterproductive but failing as a whole. If Wikipedia dosen’t go back and re-address all the Blacklist complaints and mistakes, they will be destroying their own concept by 2012 – Bet on it!

By: PLEASE I NEED YOU GUYS TO TELL ME EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT SPAM.THANKS

PLEASE I NEED YOU GUYS TO TELL ME EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT SPAM.THANKS — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:56:54 +0000

AM A STUDENT IN MY FINAL YEAR,AND IT HAPPENS TO BE MY TOPIC FOR MY PROJECT,SO I NEED YOUR SUPPORT.THANKS AND GOD BLESS

By: On

On — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:14:12 +0000

Please disregard my comments above, my mistake and misunderstanding. A._B. is doing a good job and WP needs him.

By: On

On — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:56:36 +0000

Here is evidence provided by A._B. himself for his very own abuse of admin tools, no need to say anymore:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B.#Admin_power_abuse
(in case this is deleted from his talk page, please check history there).

[edit] Admin power abuse

WP:ANI#Admin power abuse, illegal activity and sockpuppet- Request for arbitration/action…. seicer | talk | contribs 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
.

……………A._B.:
I must admit that admin abuse is something I occasionally fantasize about; there have been some trying characters that I have wished I could have abused.

I expect this will continue for a while. –A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC) ,

Needless to mention that the admin informing A._B. about his case has 3 personal pages from his userpage, did anyone mention spam?

Just one more example of why Wikipedia should consider major changes aqnd get rid of this biased system that is nothing but giving freedom to small kids abusing admin tools to take revenge, I guess it something like a “space wars” for them.

By: Not A._B. (a power abusing wikipedia admin)

Not A._B. (a power abusing wikipedia admin) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:47:13 +0000

I would laugh if this was not so tragic.

To above poster, better known as Wikipedia admin, A._B. why don’t you joing the rest of the wikipedia well known wikipedia admin tools abusers in digg.com and see how no one cares about your lies.

If you are so sure that you are right, you are hereby challenged to undelete the abuse complaint against it and stop blocking those who complaint against your abuse, according to the noticeboard, web-app.net is only one of many who complained against your abuse.

Until then, you are nothing but a funny guy telling funny stories in a place where you can NO longer abuse your admin tools.

By: Not Chung

Not Chung — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:27:41 +0000

Web-app.net was thoroughly investigated including a edit-by-edit analysis of all 400+ edits made involving web-app.net spam. This included traceroutes on anonymous IPs and checks on domain registrations, etc. There may or may not have been a little “joe jobbing” involved, but even of you exclude all the different user accounts involved except for the two the domain owner acknowledged were his, there was more than enough spam (plus page defacing and personla attacks) to meet the threshold for blacklisting.

By: AC_UC

AC_UC — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:54:02 +0000

I agree with Chung, there is a need for major cleaning in wikipedia, they seem to let small kids play power games there.

This spam tech. wikipedia is using will also not work in cases where a competing site would want to blacklist its competitors, all they need is a couple of proxies and 1 hour work and bingo their competitors would get blacklisted.

whitelisting will not work in this case. Ask wikipedia admins they would tell you: “we don’t care who placed the links, it is spam…”.

Wikipedia has just opened new doors for abuse.

By: Chung

Chung — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:18:24 +0000

Wikipedia has long way to go before even dreaming of providing unbiased spam lists.

The way sites get blacklisted on Wikipedia is often done by WP admins to revenge on sites or users they came into personal disputes with.

Example: site at http://www.web-app.net which for example provides free, open source, CMS script has ended on this list after script fans argued that WP lacks an article about this script. There is a long distance from blacklisting such a script then just refusing to write an article about it. All attempts to stop this pathetic blacklisting ended by WebAPP users being banned and even having their own talk pages edited (!) by some psychopathic WP admin.

It is tragic, but as long as WP allows psychos to serve as admins there, they would not be able to provide any reliable spam lists or any other reliable information.

My advice to WP, get real and get rid of your power abusing or psycho admins before going any further, you are damaging others and your self too.

Chung

By: pozycjonowanie stron

pozycjonowanie stron — Mon, 26 May 2008 20:31:43 +0000

Hi. You know what guys? I think this is very good idea, but I am affraid but not for me :|

By: Matt Earle

Matt Earle — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:23:33 +0000

Like most things on wikipedia, if you are wrongly placed on the Blacklist, it can be appealed and will be dealt with in the same democratic process as the rest of the site’s decision making. I appealed a site today through this page and expect to have my whitelisting accepted as I was genuinely not spamming (of course) . White list -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist