incubus-adnan connection. hmmm October 8, 2001 12:38 AM   Subscribe

Inspired by incubus's Bin Laden-McVeigh connection post, curious minds wants to explore the incubus-adnan connection. (More inside)
posted by tamim to Etiquette/Policy at 12:38 AM (28 comments total)

Yeah, how did you (or who ever came up with it) come to the conclusion that they were connected? Another default of the IP?
posted by Katy Action at 12:50 AM on October 8, 2001

::sorry:: I see that the sites are the same, the one on adnan's site, and the one that was linked to. But is it against policy here to post links to your own home page?
posted by Katy Action at 12:54 AM on October 8, 2001

In a word: yes.
posted by darukaru at 12:59 AM on October 8, 2001

May 19, 2001: Adnan Arif joins MeFi with the user-name adnan
May 20, 2001: Adnan makes his first comment in MeFi.
May 22, 2001: Adnan makes his first self link in MeTa, a week before his first post in MeFi.

July 21, 2001: Adnan makes his last comment in MeFi.

August 29, 2001: Adnan makes his last known post at MeFi.
August 31, 2001: "Adnan Arif" joins MeFi with the user-name incubus.
August 31, 2001: incubus makes his first comment in a thread started by adnan. This maybe where the batton was passed on to the new username.

September 14, 2001: incubus links to referring to the site as "a weblogger."
October 7, 2001: incubus again links to referring to the site as "this weblogger." had been linked at MeFi four times up to now. On May 22 and on June 26 by the user-name adnan and on September 14 and on October 7 by the user-name incubus. User-name adnan has not posted anything since August 31.

User Moz can independently verify that both incubus and adnan had identical user information and email address posted on their profile page when last checked on Saturday, October 6, 2001.

While he indeed may have something interesting to say, Adnan/Incubus seems to be flirting with questionable ethics when it comes to his eagerness to capitalize on any current crisis or issues. This person self-linked at the height of the Kaycee crisis. And again self-linked at the height of this current crisis. He even took out banner ads on Blog-spot with the text: "I am Kashmiri/Pakistani Muslim. Click here to send me hate mail." I can not fault him for trying to raise concerns for an issue, or even generating traffic for his own website, but the ethical issues involved must be addressed.

Final Notes:
This was all done without any access to IP logs.
And Katy, sometimes you may want to wait before an original poster adds more after saying "more inside" to read the complete story.
posted by tamim at 2:05 AM on October 8, 2001

Two hours is a long time to wait.

The large article on's front page reads like an Onion article.

Mr. Arif also added that he is also [sic] a descendant of war-torn Kashmir, Pakistan, and grew up in the United Arab Emirates, which "pretty much seals his fate".
posted by gleemax at 2:44 AM on October 8, 2001

Ah, I suppose it's not real. Heh. I'll go back in my hole now.
posted by gleemax at 3:11 AM on October 8, 2001

The very least self-linkers could do(and it has been done)is to admit in in their posts. The same goes for name-changers. Self-linking name-changers who refer to themselves in the third person, i.e. "a weblogger" are pitiful and insulting, to themselves and all of us. They want to be found out; enjoy the attention; get off on the brouhaha they cause. Otherwise, why would they be so brazen about it?
What's sad is that adnan/incubus uses serious issues to do this. Sadder even is that he doesn't need to. He's an enthusiastic debater, brings a minority perspective to discussions and obviously enjoys being part of this community.
Imho he should be given one last chance to show a minimum of respect to other members' time, patience and good will. If he doesn't take it he should thereafter be ignored.
Perhaps that would give him some time to improve that frail, diconnected website of his, whose only merit is not being, according to him, in need of any traffic...

posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:35 AM on October 8, 2001

Let's not go overboard on the psychological motivations of the self-linker. It's just a cheesy ploy to spike traffic.

This MetaFilter user loves the ones who are so intent on fucking with the site that they refer to themselves in the third person when self-linking. Sneaky, Adnan!
posted by rcade at 5:51 AM on October 8, 2001

Man, that STWonderChicken guy is a real crap-bandit....


posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:00 AM on October 8, 2001

tamim is right. we were talking on saturday and he brought up the adnan/incubus connection, and at that time the contact information for both users was the same; they both pointed to adnan's site (no link to reference it, since he isn't going to get any direct traffic from anything i write). in fact, i asked tam last night if he'd posted anything to metatalk about it yet (which obviously he hadn't). i was a bit exasperated at seeing adnan post a link to his site again, and more so at seeing the contact information change; i had to say something.
posted by moz at 8:35 AM on October 8, 2001

I vote to pull the post from the front page (even though there's a conversation going on in the thread) and blocking his IP. not only did he try to deliberately mislead the community, but it's a clear pattern of abuse.

he doesn't care about the community.
posted by rebeccablood at 9:19 AM on October 8, 2001

so, look, I propose that the automatic consequence of self-linking (and I'm sure there will be exceptions to this), but self-linking that is designed to drive traffic to a person's site, is that matt block that URL so that no one will ever be able to link to that site from metafilter again.

you can do that, right matt?

that should put a stop to it right quick.
posted by rebeccablood at 10:26 AM on October 8, 2001

probably. set up a table of self-link domains, and if the host portion of the URL matches one of the domains in the table, the link is rejected. off the top of my head, anyway.
posted by moz at 10:38 AM on October 8, 2001

The MeFi death penalty!
posted by jpoulos at 12:33 PM on October 8, 2001


I think that means Matt would have to have a few people at different keyboards blindfolded and each of them hits enter without knowing if they were the one.
posted by john at 12:51 PM on October 8, 2001

I'm sure we could find plenty of volunteers to throw the switch. :-)
posted by jpoulos at 1:10 PM on October 8, 2001

well, look, if you make it so that once you self link, *no one* will be able to link you from metafilter, you'd have to be an idiot to do it once.

also, it will solve the problem at the root, it won't matter how many logins someone has, they still won't be able to self-promote.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:11 PM on October 8, 2001

But is it against policy to have more than one user name? I forgot my password for my other user name, and I don't have AOL anymore so it couldn't be sent to me. I wanted to comment during that fake-cancer girl, but I couldn't. I never use my old user name any more, and it might as well be cancelled. Am I breaking policy? Or is this just a mistake on my part for not updating the user info when I changed servers?
posted by Katy Action at 1:41 PM on October 8, 2001

no, the point would be people who get busted for self-linking and then create a new user profile that doesn't identify their website as their own, who then link to that website in an effort to self-link and not get caught. rinse, repeat.

unless the URL was permanently blocked.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:52 PM on October 8, 2001

Permanently blocking the URL wouldn't work.

There are hundreds of redirection services which would sufficiently route around the blockage. Furthermore, obsfucation by using an IP address (or six) would render such action useless.
posted by fooljay at 2:44 PM on October 8, 2001

well, it might not be foolproof, but it would at least *help*. I don't know what your second sentence means, exactly, but, sure, we might not catch every guy, every time. but without much trying, we notice it often enough already. the ones that are invisible to us now will still be invisible to us then, but these guys mostly don't seem to be at the height of sophistication. it would solve the obvious problems, I would think.
posted by rebeccablood at 2:51 PM on October 8, 2001

fooljay has a point; however, i feel that URL blocking would stop most except the determined. being that those who punch through may be few in number, i think the plan rebecca outlined should still be implemented.

obfuscating through IP address is simple to fix: simply store both the domain and the IP address in a table, rather than one or the other, and match either/or. i would not consider multiple IPs to be much of a threat, because you would need to have a lot of resources available to you to do switch IPs all the time. and, still, we would have the domain to match against; now if the domain changes, we may be sunk.

however, i think most self-linkers are going to be people like adnan -- people with just one or two sites that they want to promote. we'll deal with the special cases as they come. changing their domain names or registering many different new ones all the time seem impractical for most of these guys.
posted by moz at 2:57 PM on October 8, 2001

I hate second guessing myself -- now I feel bad for apologizing to Adnan the last time we chastised him for the shameless self linking.
posted by norm at 3:21 PM on October 8, 2001

As far as the second sentance, I'm talking about things like, where you get a link which redirects to a more permanent home for the content.

Hence, I could point to via Go.To with

All that said, I agree, that it can't hurt to have a table opf banned sites with IP addresses....
posted by fooljay at 5:27 PM on October 8, 2001

well, I don't think we need IP addresses (do we?). probably just blocking a URL from ever being posted here would be disincentive enough for most people.
posted by rebeccablood at 5:47 PM on October 8, 2001

Completely banning a site over one self-link seems a tad harsh.

I feel like a dummy trying to make this argument, but I do feel that newbies should have the right to one fierce warning before their site may no longer be appreciated (at MeFi) by unrelated MeFi members. Although I had been reading MeFi for months, when I first joined it was to post a promotional self-link. This was wrong, but it was also ignorance and immaturity (in the context of familiarizing myself with the community). I would advocate that the penalty not be akin to excommunication.

(Of course, following the first incident, I self-linked another two times over the course of 6 months. This, I agree, should justify a permanent moratorium on said site. Cruel, but efficient, and if it was preceded by a very serious warning, there would be absolutely no excuse.)

As for that self-link fiasco, it was complete abuse, and it's not really excusable. (Though I will say, in defense of the iota of personal integrity I hope to maintain, that had I known about the nifty MeFi-Projects list, I almost certainly would not have let my ambition get ahead of good [obeisant] sense.) I regret having done it very much - as someone who has matured, I hope, into a responsible (?) community-member, I now understand the impact such selfishness has. So, for what it's worth -- sorry.
posted by Marquis at 9:54 PM on October 8, 2001

i think that it's not at all asking too much that you read the rules before you post. i don't care if you're a newbie or not. the guidelines are directly accessible from the post-a-link page.
posted by moz at 8:20 AM on October 9, 2001

has it occurred to anyone else that as time goes on the apparent main activity/function of metafilter is to investigate/question/suspect posting to metafilter? discussion/paranoia about metafilter posting/commenting generates almost as much posting/commenting as posting/commenting does. ultimately will there be noone left but a small group of secret police posters/commenters all regarding EACH OTHERS posts/comments with suspicion/disdain/nitpicking. and what a valuable internet resource THAT will be.
posted by quonsar at 12:40 PM on October 9, 2001 [1 favorite]

« Older spam harvester posted for discussion   |   Is there a trend towards subscription-required... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments