Jump to content

Talk:Spam blacklist: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Eagle 101 in topic Proposed additions
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Nixeagle (talk | contribs)
2,903 edits
this has been done
Shadow1 (talk | contribs)
70 edits
Archiving
Line 626: Line 626:
Should the myspace accounts be treated like insureme.com accounts?
Should the myspace accounts be treated like insureme.com accounts?



=== viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ ===
{{closed2|Not done, constructive discussion ended long ago. [[User:MaxSem|Max<font size="+1">''S''</font>em]] 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)}}
Under what circumstances can a web site be spam blacklisted ?

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ is an information web site concerning Parkinson's Disease. It is the most comprehensive web site on Parkinson's Disease - far more comprehensive than the Wikipedia article. Consequently, it appears on all of the Parkinson's Disease web sites including National Parkinson's Disease organisations and Parkinson's Disease patient forums. However, it does not appear on Wikipedia at all solely because it is blacklisted. Consequently, when anybody adds the web site to the relevant Wikipedia articles it is immediately removed.

The web site is not spam. It contains no pornography, racism, or politics. It does not contain any adverts at all. It does not sell anything. It does not promote or represent any company or individual. It does not mention any individuals. The only reason it was blacklisted is that the first person to add it was banned during conflict with other editors. Is that reason for spam blacklisting within Wikipedia guidelines ? Please let me know the original source for the guidelines concerning this matter, and under what circumstances the web site would be removed from the blacklist. --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:Here is the reason your site was blacklisted ([http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpam_blacklist&diff=410692&oldid=410596#viartis.net see here]). Basically there were many new accounts trying to add this link. I will ask the person who did the blacklisting to comment. [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 16:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It can bee seen using a domain check, that the web site is not owned by an individual. Viartis Limited is a medical research organisation that is part of one of the major Universities. I know, because I work for the University. If any individual has previously claimed to own the web site, they are either an imposter at worst or only a lowly employee at best.

Are different people, or people in different guises being the first to add a web site grounds within the Wikipedia regulations for a permanent ban of that web site ? Please refer me to the relevant regulations on Wikipedia, because, even if that was the reason for the blacklisting, this does not appear to be one of the reasons allowed by the regulations for imposing a permanent ban. The imposition of the blacklisting presently doesnot appear to have been imposed within the regulations. All I see from the link provided is evidence of one person on one occasion adding one web site to one article relevant to that web site. If this were grounds for a permanent ban, hundreds of thousands of web sites would have to be removed and permamnetly banned. Under what circumstances would such a ban be lifted. --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:We are not a court of law here, the regulations are plain and simple, can we deal with the spam in any other way? If not it goes on here. Normal canidates are when people spam a site across wikis. (adding the same site to english, french, german, ect wikipedias). The second primary reason is if multiple accounts are adding the link, (or multiple IP ranges normally), and all admin attempts to stop it don't work. Again, I'm asking the person who did the original blacklist to comment, I know they are still active. Regards. [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to officious. It's just that, whatever the history, making useful information available seems to have been the real victim. The only Wikipedia article really involved is Parkinson's Disease. Whitelisting the site (if that's the correct term) would not mean that the site would appear on that article. The editors and administrators on that article appear to very resistant to alterations, and may not then enable anyone to list the web site anyway. However, consensus is able to prevail on all articles. Majority rule is well within the principles of Wikipedia, but blacklisting a good web site solely because the first person to add it was subsequently banned does not appear to be. There is no inherent fault at all with the web site in itself. If the web site was whitelisted it could easily be reversed if necessary. --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think it has to do with "the first person to add it was subsequently banned", I think it has to do with a more widespread spam issue. Anyway I'm contacting the person who added this to the blacklist. Also just note, at least the english wikipedia considers itself as not a democracy. ;). In any case I am going to notify who did the blacklist. [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::Mmm looks like they are not around, I will think about removing it myself, let me dig up some stuff first (see if I can find a further reason for the blacklist). [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I assume that whitelisting can be readily reversed if necessary. Given that this site appears on all the other Parkinson's Disease Forum and Organisation web sites, the issue is otherwise likely to come up again. --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::See [[en:Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/General Tojo]]. --[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 05:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The above details an individual, and discusses the removal of a Parkinson's Disease Forum that is not a viartis.net web site. Judging from the details, it looks like the viartis.net web site, which is ultimately owned by a University and not by the individual, has been inadvertently included with a site that may have been owned by the individual. There is not actually anything on the page referred to that gives good reason for removal of the viartis.net web site. The discussion solely concerns reasons for removal of a forumforfree web site. The two web sites are independent of each other. --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 12:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is the only discussion and consideration of the blacklisting :

1. This is from an editor who was referring to a forumforfree site, and NOT viartis.net : My take on Bridgeman's sites is that it is a literature review with an end to support a particular point of view. Nothing unusual in that; you see people doing that in the peer-reviewed literature fairly often. They usually do more in the way of critiquing than Bridgeman does; his sites are pretty much cut-and-paste. The citations themselves are okay, but what's bothersome is Bridgeman's bombast about the authoritativeness and exhaustiveness of his site.

The viartis.net site does not have "peer-reviewed literature". He was referring to a forumforfree site that consists of "peer-reviewed literature".

2. This is from an administrator who in response then asked about viartis.net and NOT the forumforfree site : So do you think viartis.net should continue to be blacklisted?

3. The response was from an editor who responded regarding the forumforfree site INSTEAD OF viartis.net.
Yes, I do - it's nothing unique and is indeed a slanted presentation.

The two web sites got mixed up in the exchange. Ironically, the forumforfree web site owned by the banned member was NOT blacklisted, and the web site ultimately owned by a University WAS inadevertently blacklisted. --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 14:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::A disguised (using urlsnip.com), blacklisted viartis link was recently removed from an article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dopamine&diff=next&oldid=108769826] --[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::[http: //www.aboutus.org/Viartis.net# Viartis.net] on AboutUs --[[User:ESamuels|ESamuels]] 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Um? what? [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 21:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

::[http:// www.aboutus.org/Viartis.net# Viartis.net] on AboutUs --[[User:ESamuels|ESamuels]] 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Why that link? I don't think this is relevent to the discussion. [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1. viartis.net was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes, on the 13th August 2006.

2. The brief addition was directly relevant to the article, which concerned Parkinson's Disease, and was added merely as a reference to further detail concerning that subject.

3. According to Wikipedia's definition of spam, it did not fulfill any of the definitions of spam. See[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam Wikipedia spam].

4. Rather than the viartis.net site being checked to see if it constituted spam, which it didn't, it's maintenance on the blacklist was due to merely asking the opinion of somebody who described himself as a minor editor, who had a personal grievance against the editor. When asked his opinion of viartis.net, he confused the issue by responding instead about a different web site.

There are no grounds for maintaining viartis.net on the spam blacklist because it plainly does not fulfill the definition of spam.

--[[User:XX7|XX7]] 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:{{not done}}, clearly used for spam, no discussion for two weeks. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of Spam ? As yet you have provided no evidence in support of your position. All the evidence contradicts you. More particularly, please address the follow points that you have so far completely failed to address :

1. Viartis.net was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes, on the 13th August 2006. The brief addition was directly relevant to the article, which concerned Parkinson's Disease, and was added merely as a reference to further detail concerning that subject.

2. According to Wikipedia's definition of spam, it does not fulfill any of the definitions of spam. See[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam Wikipedia spam].

On February 17th, [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] informed you that he intended removing the web site from the blacklist. Since then we have seen no opposing evidence from you.

According to the edit history, it was you that wrongly added the web site to the blacklist. You have provided no evidence in support of your position. You have not contradicted the evidence at all yet have inexplicably claimed that there is "clear evidence". You are now attempting to thwart discussion of it.

Therefore, discussion concerning your actions will be opened up amongst other Administrators on the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard and elsewhere so that more senior Administrators can their give opinions and judgements concerning the total inconsistency and lack of substantiation of your failure to remove the web site from the spam blacklist.

--[[User:XX7|XX7]] 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
:Please do so. I fully stand behind keeping this on the blacklist. If a site is being spammed, it will be placed on the blacklist regardless of who is doing the spamming and will not be removed unless there is a strong need for a link to the site. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You've dodged the two questions I asked. It can be assumed that this is because you can't answer them. You have provided not a shred of evidence in support of your opinion. So it can also be assumed that this is because you haven't any. What are the answers to the two questions I asked ? Where is your evidence ?

You have written that "if a site is being spammed it will be placed on the blacklist regardless of who is doing the spamming and will not be removed unless there is a strong need for a link to the site." What has this to do with this web site ? What you have written is irrelevant. According to the Wikipedia guidelines It does not fulfill any of the requirements of spam. So why are you suggesting that it does ? There is also nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that requires that there be a "strong need for a link to the site". You are trying to impose your own made up rules. An arguement can be made against there being a strong need for any web site. Yet, hundreds of web sites have been removed from the black list without there being any need for them.

Whether or not the web site is actually added to any article is a completely different question, and is up to the consensus of the editors. This discussion solely concerns whether or not the web site is spam and be blacklisted. Jimbo Wales and the various Adminsitrators that will be asked to check this discussion and your actions are going to be wondering what you're up to ! --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

* On the other hand, we will be left in no doubt as to what ''you'' are up to... [[en:User Talk:JzG|Just zis Guy, you know?]] 15:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
**Given your total lack of a cogent contribution I don't think that even you know what '''you''' are up to. I'm sure that nobody else does. --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
</div>

'''WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MAINTAINING viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ ON THE SPAM BLACKLIST ??? WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY YET. OR ISN'T EVIDENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE HERE. IS DISCUSSION JUST A FARCE THAT GOES IN ORDER TO FALSELY TRY TO MAKE OUT THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY SOME REASONING BEHIND THE DECISIONS HERE WHEN CLEARLY THERE ISN'T ANY AT ALL ? --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)'''



[[en:User Talk:JzG|Just zis Guy, you know?]] it is obvious as to what [[User:XX7|XX7]] is up to. Getting this site whitelisted. How come you keep asking this obvious question. I don't see any evidence of a blacklist here. I have a lot of respect for eagles and he choose to have it whitelisted, so that is that. It should be whitelisted for having given no warnings about spam. Any user could insert a link and have a site blacklisted. Let us know when you have a website and what is so we can show you how easy it is to have it blacklisted. There is clearly good informative information on this site and could become useful to wiki at some poing. As for You have written that "if a site is being spammed it will be placed on the blacklist regardless of who is doing the spamming and will not be removed unless there is a strong need for a link to the site." '''this is not our policy'''. We give our editors a warning on a first violation. This will be to help them understand our guidelines and understand wikipedia.org is not for spam. If we blacklist any site regardless of spam, all webmasters could add there competitors website and have it blacklisted. We need to research and share our thoughts with other editors and users.

: See, here's the problem: if someone asks why a site should be removed from the blacklist, variations on "it's not fair" or "it's not within the letter of subsection 3 para 4 subpara 9 of the blacklist policy" is just so much Wikilawyering. Meta admins are not stupid, and Wikipedia admins are not either. Things tend to be blacklisted for good reason, and tend to need a better reason for removal than vague arm-waving about how it might one day be a good source for something and we can't ''prove'' it was spammed. Which we can, incidentally, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dopamine&diff=next&oldid=108769826]. So: you are General Tojo and I claim my five pounds. [[en:User Talk:JzG|Just zis Guy, you know?]] 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just guy this is the English verison of meta.wikimedia.org. You are in the wrong place, we can't understand your comments, currency, spellings or generals.

Please only place content relavent to the discussion. Editors aren't stupid but you can't spell and your content looks stupid to Americans. What does dopamine have to do with this site being blacklisted or whitelisted? If you can't take harsh messages, quit editing.

JustGuy, that's right "Things TEND TO BE blacklisted for good reason". They are not always blacklisted for good reason, as is very obvious. That's the whole reason for this discussion page. If blacklisting is always completely infallible as you claim, then you should be suggesting the ridding of the entire page and requesting that there never be any questioning of blacklisting because it was always justified. Nobody has written anything like "subsection 3 para 4 subpara 9 of the blacklist policy" as you have claimed, or done any "vague arm-waving" as you have claimed. The edit history of this web site is well established. It was blacklisted after being added to only one relevant article on only one occasion for fifteen minutes ! That is not merely being unable to ''prove'' that it was spammed, that is ''indisputable'' evidence that it wasn't. The web site itself contains not a single advert and sells nothing whatsoever. If we used your criteria for blacklisting every single web site on Wikipedia would be blacklisted. Nobody would ever be able to dispute it, and having been added only once or twice would be hard evidence of it being spammed ! --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 11:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
: As I have pointed out, my user page indicates that I can spell perfectly well. I venture to suggest that my command of the English language, both British and US usage, is better than yours. My ''typing'' is inaccurate, due to the bone-deep burn scars on the fingers of my left hand, but my spelling is generally pretty good. The evidence that this site was spammed by GeneralTojo, a long-term Wikipedia abuser, is compelling. Your argumentation, on the other hand, is not. [[User:80.176.82.42|80.176.82.42]] 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Compelling to you, but not to anybody else. It was blacklisted after being added to only one article to which it was relevant, on only one occasion, and for only fifteen minutes ! If that was enough to get a web site blacklisted then every single web site ever added to Wikipedia would have to be blacklisted ! As has already been stated by one of the Administrators, it doesn't matter who might or might not have added a web site. Each web site is judged on its own merits. This web site has not a single advert and sells nothings whatsoever. For it to be blacklisted completely defies logic and certain facts. --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 12:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to object to every web site regardless of whether or not the facts support you. This is except of course to your own web site http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ which is in breach of Wikipedia guidelines, as it promotes an individual, which is you ! Should I add it to the proposed sites for blacklisting, because self promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia ? It is considered as SPAM according to Wikipedia rules. --[[User:XX7|XX7]] 12:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

* I don't recall ever having linked my website in a Wikipedia article. I could be wrong, of course - I was a newbie once after all. This is, in any case, irrelevant - the site listed above ''was'' spammed, and you have yet to detail a way in which it might be of provable value in a named article. As a spammed site, it's unlikely to be delisted unless there is compelling evidence that inability to link is damaging the project in some way. OWW, which I advocate removing from the blacklist, falls into precisely this category. It also helps that those asking for delisting of OWW are not self-evidently connected to the site. [[en:User Talk:JzG|Just zis Guy, you know?]] 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

1. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that self promotion is against Wikipedia rules anywhere on Wikipedia. It is considered spamming. So you are spamming your own web site, yet at the same time trying to keep every other web site on the balcklist even when it has no reason to be there. I am adding your personal web site to the blacklist proposals in order to find out what the position is.

2. Adding a completely advertless web site once to one relevant article on one occasion is not spam according to any definition. So the viartis.net web site obviously was not spammed. Your statement defies logic and the facts. Your claim is ridiculously wrong. It suggests that you have no idea of what spam is.

3. The web site is the best there is concerning Parkinson's Disease. It is on all the Parkinson's Disease patient forums, and on national Parkinson's Disease web sites. If you claim that the article is no better than others, I challenge you to find a better web site concerning Parkinson's Disease - one that includes all of the information that the viartis.net web site includes. I know in advance that you won't find one, because no web site even comes close.

4. Your claim that "it's unlikely to be delisted unless there is compelling evidence that inability to link is damaging the project in some way." is also false. That has nothing to do with removing web sites from the spam blacklist. If it was then no site would ever be taken off the blacklist. No article would be "damaged" if a web site wasn't added to it. You are trying to add impossible reasons against removal that instead of being in the guidelines you just make up.

5. I can't comment on what you have written about OWW, because I don't have a clue what OWW is.

Unfortunately you make all sorts of negative remarks on the spam blacklist about various web sites that have no factual basis at all. You are not making any useful contribution based on reasoning and facts, and are instead distracting attention away from genuine issues.

--[[User:XX7|XX7]] 14:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


===Langmaker.com===
===Langmaker.com===
Line 760: Line 642:





=== www.ruswar.com ===
Why is this one black listed? It seems like someone's personal website with notable photos of the afghan war.-[[User:66.74.234.167|66.74.234.167]] 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=534633#ruswar.com here] is why. I will leave this up to another meta admin to choose whether removing this is a good idea. [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::Ok, let me re-phrase. '''Can we unblacklist this site?''' The argument for blacklisting is weak. Posting relevate photos in different language wikipedias in their respective relevate article is not spamming. I think admins need to do some research in the definition of spam if this falls in that category.
:::Actually no its not, it was done to prevent cross wiki spam, Exactly what this list is for. Again as I said above I'm leaving it up to another admin. Regards [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:{{not done}}, spammed across multiple wikis. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Once, I decided to do something for people without benefits for myself. I created the website of Afghanistan War Photography and Documentary. Few times I was ready to quit it, but emails I received from people encourage me to go on. I added links to Wikipedia for puplic usage. Have it! People like it. But, it turned out, few terrorist-oriantated individuals designated as "meta-admin" did like my website and what I do on it. Using lame excuse like "spam across wiki" they removed the links from very relevant pages. Despite the whole world struggle agains terrorism they took opposite side by deleting access to anti-terrorist website. At this difficult time in fighting for peace, such activity should be reported to some relevant agencies which may take appropriate steps and maybe resolve what seems to be a problem.
:Err, I'm a terrorist? No I think it was blacklisted due to spam problems, nothing else. In any case if you want the link in the english wikipedia, I would suggest that you ask on the spam whitelist. ([[en:WP:WHITELIST|here]]). Thanks. [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 07:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Mr.Eagle 101, I do not have any personal problem with you, we have never met each other. I can see that you do your work good by removing all spam from Wiki. But, recently you removed very right link without substantial reason. Sometime people make mistakes, I understand. But, why you don't want to admit it? Is your pride or you have specific political reason for this? I do Afghanistan War
Photography site for people - not for me. Today I added documentary on Google Video (Afghanistan Soviet War), again, for people - not for my financial profit. I need you understand, that my work should be accessible for more audience, as educational source. Thank you
for your attention.
: While posting links in English to interwikis is clearly incorrect behavior, I doubt very much this was ''spam''. There ''nothing commercial'' on that web site. Would it be possible to remove it from this blacklist, please?



===www.animals-pictures-dictionary.com===
I was asked to give a specific page that can be linked from wikipedia, so in my opinion the main page for example can appear
in "Animals" article. anyone agree with me?
:Strongly against. These photos are not uncommon, are not free and the site has ads. --[[User:Jollyroger|Jollyroger]] 11:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
::{{not done}}, use local whitelisting. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:What is loacal whitelisting?
:: Something this will not get on the English Wikipedia. Too spammy, poorly spelled and copyedited, image copyright issues. [[en:User Talk:JzG|Just zis Guy, you know?]] 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
::: If you want the english wiki, please see [[en:WP:WHITELIST]]. Thanks [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 07:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
::::(P.S. We really really need to get a meta article on what a local whitelist is, I will work on that in a few days :) ) [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 07:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

===anarkismo.net===
The fact that pages on this site were used in ''one'' incident of spamming (which looks more like an overzealous user trying to add links she considers relevant to the topic, than spam proper), does not invalidate its use as a source on many other pages (see e.g. [[Wikipedia:Anarchism]], [[Wikipedia:Platformism]] and, indeed [[Wikipedia:Anarkismo.net]]). [[User:67.180.234.15|67.180.234.15]] 06:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:One of the purposes of this list is to counter spam, someone spammed a link across wikis, and if it were not for keeping a sharp eye out, we would not have caught that spam. (one link per wiki is very hard to catch). In a few weeks, I might consider removing this (if another meta admin does not before then, as I did the blacklisting I will leave it up to another admin). For now I would suggest requesting certian parts of this site to be whitelisted. The english whitelist can be found at [[:en:WP:WHITELIST]] [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::{{not done}}, use local whitelisting. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

===nefac.net===
The fact that pages on this site were used in ''one'' incident of spamming (which looks more like an overzealous user trying to add links she considers relevant to the topic, than spam proper), does not invalidate its use as a source on many pages. The site hosts, among other things, Northeastern Anarchist magazine, a fairly significant and well-respected American anarchist publication. (see also [[Wikipedia:Especifismo]], [[Wikipedia:Platformism]], [[Wikipedia:NEFAC]]). [[User:67.180.234.15|67.180.234.15]] 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:One of the purposes of this list is to counter spam, someone spammed a link across wikis, and if it were not for keeping a sharp eye out, we would not have caught that spam. (one link per wiki is very hard to catch). In a few weeks, I might consider removing this (if another meta admin does not before then, as I did the blacklisting I will leave it up to another admin). For now I would suggest requesting certian parts of this site to be whitelisted. The english whitelist can be found at [[:en:WP:WHITELIST]] [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::Be that as it may, nefac is a respectable site, used as a reference in a number of articles. It strikes me as absurd, and damaging to Wikipedia's ability to function, to blacklist it simply because, on one occasion, it was added inappropriately to a number of articles across wikis. I couldn't find a statement of policy on adding sites to the blacklist; perhaps you could point me to one, because I don't understand by what criteria you are arguing this should stay on the blacklist. [[User:67.180.234.15|67.180.234.15]] 08:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:::{{not done}}, use local whitelisting. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
::Why is this link blacklisted exactly? Because once someone used it to spam? It is an essential source for anarchist related articles. Please de-list. [[User:212.106.68.32|212.106.68.32]] 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

===ainfos.ca===
An anarchist newsgroup, it hasn't been used to spam, and I just had to delete a referenced claim from the [[w:Jaggi Singh]] article because Wiki wouldn't let me make any edits to the page until the properly-cited reference was removed. [[User:74.100.73.245|74.100.73.245]] 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=535949#ainfos.ca here] is why the site is on the blacklist. I suggest requesting specific links whitelisted. [[w:WP:WHITELIST]]. I will leave this up to another meta admin to review. [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::{{not done}}, use local whitelisting. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Again, this seems like a sppurious reason to de-list yet another anarchist resource. If this was CNN, would it be de-listed? What kind of criteria is being used here? Please de-list. [[User:212.106.68.32|212.106.68.32]] 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
:::This is the alleged spam entry for ainfos.ca:
ca:Antifeixisme diff ca:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 12:59 UTC
hr:Antifašizam diff hr:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:14 UTC
nl:Antifascisme diff nl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:18 UTC
no:Antifascisme diff no:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:20 UTC
pl:Antyfaszyzm diff pl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:22 UTC
sl:Antifašizem diff sl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:24 UTC
sv:Antifascism diff sv:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:28 UTC
Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This does not look like spam. It looks like the addition of a valuable Canadian anarchist website as an external link in related articles on anti-fascism in different languages. Please de-list. [[User:212.106.68.32|212.106.68.32]] 14:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to make a reference in an article and I can't. It´s not spam, I think like User:212.106.68.32. --[[User:81.33.72.150|81.33.72.150]] 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
:no that is cross wiki spam, there is no need for you to link one site to multiple languages. Sources are best if they are in the proper language to start with. Doing that rubs off as spam. Request [[Local whitelist|local whitelisting]], and if the wikis agree to your link by discussion, then they will whitelist it for use on one language. :) [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

===in.geocities.com/medhahari===
One particular link in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html was wrongly blacklisted in [[Bharatanatyam]] by some unscrupulous users, and has to be restored. There are numerous arguments (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#Medha_Hari_spam_on_Wikipedia ) for this link to be placed in [[Bharatanatyam]] .
[[User:Tamilselvam|Tamilselvam]] 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=536776#Medha_Hari_spam_on_Wikipedia here] is why it is blacklisted, I leave this open to arguments, but I would prefer arguments to remove be stated here clearly and concisely. Unless another meta admin wants to remove before arguments are put here, I am going to wait, as it is not my place to try to gauge what appears to be a dispute. Regards. [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:: The arguments for removal (please address each of them explicitly):http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogout&returnto=Talk:Spam_blacklist
# relevancy: the link has been placed in the relevant category, is highly valuable and extends info on Wiki's article
# the linked page has nothing to do with Medha Hari, even though somewhere it contains some inactive links to her pages (as well as dozens of other pages, including Wikipedia!!!)
# the link does not contain any promotion of any commercial product
# [[en:User talk:A. B.|User:A. B.]]'s argument that <i>a link must be blacklisted as long as a sockpuppet submits it</i> is irrelevant, since <b>this particular link was submitted by numerous non-sockpuppets</b>.
::In addition, please explain the why [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] chose this particular link to be removed while he left some other, obviously irrelevant and commercial links (<b>that's what is real SPAM!</b>), there. I see that there indeed a very strangely selective (abusive) application of Wikipedia's guidelines.[[User:Bharathathatha|Bharathathatha]] 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Relevant data and links:
::::Multiple admins and editors were involved in dealing with problems and all independently reached the same conclusions:
::::*[[:en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Santap]]
::::*[[en:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sselvakumar]]
::::*[[en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive172#Sock Puppetry, Vandalism & SPAM on Bharatanatyam page]]
::::*[[en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#in.geocities.com/medhahari]]
::::*[[en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#Bharatanatyam]]
::::*[[en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam"]] <small>(permanent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=112963514#Vandalizing_Wikipedia_under_the_pretence_of_cleaning_the_.22spam.22 link])

::::Cross-wiki spam:
::::* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=*.geocities.com%2Fmedhahari English]
::::* [http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.geocities.com%2Fmedhahari German]
::::* [http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.geocities.com%2Fmedhahari Polish]
::::* [http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.geocities.com%2Fmedhahari Italian]
::::* [http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=*.geocities.com%2Fmedhahari French]

::::Policies and guidelines violated by various Medha Hari accounts:
::::* [[en:WP:SPAM]]
::::* [[en:WP:NOT#SOAP]]
::::* [[en:WP:COI]]
::::* [[en:WP:VAND]]
::::* [[en:WP:EL]]
::::* [[en:WP:SOCK]]
::::* [[en:WP:CIVIL]]
::::* [[en:WP:NPA]]

::::The Medha Hari web site is self-published and does not meet the requirements of:
::::* [[en:WP:EL]]
::::* [[en:WP:RS]]

:::The users complaining about this domains' blacklisting are all new editors using accounts created ''after '' [[en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Santap|numerous]] sockpuppets [[en:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sselvakumar|were banned]] in January:
::::*Bharathathatha: <small>[[en:Special:Contributions/Bharathathatha|en. contribs]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bharathathatha|Meta contribs]]</small>
::::*Tamilselvam: <small>[[en:Special:Contributions/Tamilselvam|en. contribs]] • [[Special:Contributions/Tamilselvam|Meta contribs]]</small>
::::*Jag Ju: <small>[[en:Special:Contributions/Jag Ju|en. contribs]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jag Ju|Meta contribs]]
::::*Sethumadhavan33: <small>[[en:Special:Contributions/Sethumadhavan33|en. contribs]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sethumadhavan33|Meta contribs]]</small>
::::*121.247.44.14: <small>[[en:Special:Contributions/121.247.44.14|en. contribs]] • [[Special:Contributions/121.247.44.14|Meta contribs]]</small>
::::*121.247.52.39: <small>[[en:Special:Contributions/121.247.52.39|en. contribs]] • [[Special:Contributions/121.247.52.39|Meta contribs]]</small>
::::**Note also that 121.247.52.39 is [http://www.completewhois.com/cgi-bin/rbl_lookup.cgi?query=121.247.52.39&display=webtable listed] on multiple major blacklists as an abusive IP address:
::::***xbl.spamhaus.org:
::::****<small>"'eXploits Block List': proxies, virus infected computers, other exploitable sources http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=121.247.52.39"</small>
::::***bl.spamcop.net:
::::****<small>"'SpamCop Blocking List': list of ip sources recently reported to spamcop by various users. Blocked - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?121.247.52.39"</small>
::::***cbl.abuseseat.org:
::::****<small> "'Composite Block List': proxies and infected systems (data part of Spamhaus XBL). Blocked - see http://cbl.abuseat.org/lookup.cgi?ip=121.247.52.39"</small>
:::--[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::I really doubt this is coming off, it has simply been abused too much, too recently, but I will leave this up to another meta admin to have a look see. [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{not done}}, [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


===medrapid.info===
===medrapid.info===
Why did this site get blacklisted? There has only been a short description of the medrapid research project in wikipedia. Is wikimedia against research projects accessible for free?
Why did this site get blacklisted? There has only been a short description of the medrapid research project in wikipedia. Is wikimedia against research projects accessible for free?
:Ok, the admin who originally added this does not seem to be around anymore, but a bit of digging in the archives yeilds [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/05#medrapid.info this]. It looks like the german wikipedia got spammed with that link multiple times by multiple IPs. Minding the logical fallacy above (no we are not against research projects), I will think about taking this off, give me a few days. In the meantime you can show me where it might be useful to have this site? I welcome some comments from any passerby. Thanks. [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
:Ok, the admin who originally added this does not seem to be around anymore, but a bit of digging in the archives yeilds [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/05#medrapid.info this]. It looks like the german wikipedia got spammed with that link multiple times by multiple IPs. Minding the logical fallacy above (no we are not against research projects), I will think about taking this off, give me a few days. In the meantime you can show me where it might be useful to have this site? I welcome some comments from any passerby. Thanks. [[User:Eagle 101|Eagle 101]] 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

===oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com===
I request that this site be removed from the blacklist. If this is not the appropriate place to request a world-wide removal, please treat this as simply a request to remove the site from the blacklist of the English Wikipedia.

There was an earlier discussion of the site here in Talk:Spam_blacklist [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/02#oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com here] in which other editors felt the site added value to Art articles and should not be blacklisted. I hope I have not screwed anything up by pursuing the issue for a time over in Whitelist Talk instead of here because I didn't really understand the relationship between the two lists.
Now I am back here based on a suggestion made in Talk:Spam-whitelist, where there has been a separate discussion of the site [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com here]. Taken together, the two discussions are rather lengthy, but to summarize, from my viewpoint:

*An over-enthuiastic site owner added links to his collection of fine art images, by artist, to several art articles (not sure how many, but maybe 20 or 30 in the English Wikipedia, not an outrageous number IMO)
*These were correctly identified as spam because of the way they were added
*However, the site houses a broad and rich collection of artwork images for famous and respected artists, with many works that are unfamiliar (at least to me)
*The links add value to Wikipedia by greatly extending the number of available examples of each linked artist's work
*The site has no ads and is not selling anything
*Several legitimate editors support de-blacklisting the site.
I have absolutely no affiliation with this site or its owner, I am just an admirer of the collection. Thank you for considering this request. --[[User:CliffC|CliffC]] 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

*'''Endorse this''' I think I commented in a previous discussion here. Images are good, site is not commercial. I've never added it myself, but have found it on several articles in en (many now have taken it off). [[User:87.194.23.18|87.194.23.18]] 18:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (Johnbod from en)
::{{not done}}, used for cross-wiki spam. Request whitelisting on your local project. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


===www.zorpia.com===
===www.zorpia.com===
Line 972: Line 720:


:I would like to add, the first time I encountered the link, I actually looked where it went. That stalled my browser (Opera), which is not supported by the site (I could not even use my back-button to get back to the wikipedia), see [http://www.theeuropeanlibrary.org/portal/browserSupport.html here]. The addition was in the external link section, where [[en:WP:EL]] fully applies (though I would consider it also suitable for external links in the text, and even in the references), and that guideline states that sites should accessible for all/most browsers. In that light we could remove ''all'' external links to this site (yesterday I did have the same trouble with the homepage of theeuropeanlibrary). The site is new, and it might become a good information site, but for now, it does not comply with wikipedia rules (and it gets spammed under a COI). I am sorry. --[[User:Beetstra|Beetstra]] 10:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:I would like to add, the first time I encountered the link, I actually looked where it went. That stalled my browser (Opera), which is not supported by the site (I could not even use my back-button to get back to the wikipedia), see [http://www.theeuropeanlibrary.org/portal/browserSupport.html here]. The addition was in the external link section, where [[en:WP:EL]] fully applies (though I would consider it also suitable for external links in the text, and even in the references), and that guideline states that sites should accessible for all/most browsers. In that light we could remove ''all'' external links to this site (yesterday I did have the same trouble with the homepage of theeuropeanlibrary). The site is new, and it might become a good information site, but for now, it does not comply with wikipedia rules (and it gets spammed under a COI). I am sorry. --[[User:Beetstra|Beetstra]] 10:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

=== isbn-check.com + books-by-isbn.com + isbn-check.de ===
These are not spam links, they have been added by WP editors to their user pages and to booksouces. They are useful tools, please remove from spam list. [[User:213.48.182.7|213.48.182.7]]
:{{not done}}, these sites contain amazon affiliate links. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to ask that the removal be reconsidered. The problem is that, without this site, we can't offer any ISBN-checking facility to our readers on the [[Special:Booksources]] page of the English Wikipedia. The site can also be used to check International Standard Serial Numbers, and is the only known way of doing that, since www.issn.org will no longer check these numbers without a paid subscription.

It is also used by the group of ISBN-fixers on the English Wikipedia when debugging invalid ISBNs. The operator of the site, Tomas Schild, has an account on English WP at [[en:User:Tschild]], and at our request he added the ISBN-13 checking capability. I have opened a discussion among the ISBN-fixers on [[en:User_talk:Rich Farmbrough#Spam blacklist]]. The money earned by Schild's site is surely trivial compared to the value he provides to Wikipedia readers and editors. You only open his link (from [[Special:Booksources]]) if you are doing ISBN-checking, so you probably are already having trouble and are trying to debug it. If there were a site that would provide the checking without any Amazon affiliate tie-in, we could certainly change, but I'm not aware of any. Even meta.wikimedia.org's version of Special:Booksources still uses this link. Rich Farmbrough's robot, SmackBot, can check ISBNs but it does so using a large set of regular expressions that can only be run by a client-side program. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

:We link to Amazon, who take a much larger percentage of profit (i.e. all of it) than Schild. We don't have a prohibition against commercial sites. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 19:30 [[17 March]] [[2007]] (GMT).

* http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp does not contain amazon links, why is it blacklisted? --[[User:Bejnar|Bejnar]] 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
:My mistake, I tried to add the above isbn.org link to my user page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bejnar], and I got a ''link-blocked as spam'' message. Apparently what is being blocked is my pre-existing link to isbn-check.com, which has been on there since 17 February 2007. I looked at ''isbn-check.com'', and I could not find the commercialization that [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] mentioned. --[[User:Bejnar|Bejnar]] 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)





===PWInsider.com===

*pwinsider.com is a credible wrestling news site that has its news articles cited as references on many Wikipedia pages. Although it does contain many pop-ups, it is not a spam website. [[User:68.233.38.54|68.233.38.54]] 03:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{not done}}, site was spammed many times in the past few days on en.wiki. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::So why aren't you banning the people that are spamming the link? The URL has nothing to do with the problem. [[User:68.233.38.54|68.233.38.54]] 05:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:::We are doing both. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::::This is ridiculous though. The site is a good source for info for wrestling related articles. Would you ban a site like cnn.com just because some people spammed it? [[User:TJ Spyke|TJ Spyke]] 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

===Touegypt.net===
Dear Betacommand,
I notice today that you did not bother to respond--'''and justify'''--to your own WikiMedia blacklist discussion regarding TourEgypt.net here.[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#touregypt.net] You never informed your own official Wikipedia editors on [[Egyptology]] such as Thanatosimi[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thanatosimii], Captmondo[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Captmondo] or Llywrich that you were about to blacklist TourEgypt.net even though they have carried the burden of wikiproofing Egyptology on Wikipedia. The impression I have of you is someone who doesn't value or care about archaeology or our world's ancient history like so many members of the Egyptological Wikipedia community do. You never commented on the fact that TourEgypt.net was contracted by the Egyptian government to run the Egyptian Department of Antiquities and Tourism web pages in the past. TourEgypt is not a spammer who uses Wikipedia to sell their wares when any search on Google can turn up an Egypt-related article by this firm. You just decided suddenly to ban this invaluable web site WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING OR DISCUSSION and undermine the efforts of good people like Thanataosmi, Llywrych and Captmondo whose article on king [[Ahmose I]], the founder of Egypt's New Kingdom, was so good in terms of quality, that it was featured ond day on the front pages of Wikipedia this January or February. When there is an attempt to remove an article on Wikipedia, a talk forum is first created so that contributors can weigh the pros or cons of removing a particular article ''but you did not try to do this''.

'''How can you be so crass and insensitive towards people who have worked to improve Egyptological articles on Wikipedia for years--especially when they are your own Wikipedia editors.''' Is it your goal to undermine the reliability of Wikipedia more than the editors of Encyclopaedia Brittanica who despise us? Because if that is your goal, you are close to achieving it by angering so many people who care about Ancient Egypt and Ancient history on Wikipedia with your '''arbitary''' decision here. Regards, [[User:Leoboudv|Leoboudv]] 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
::Im sorry I have more important issues today, I am currently in Saint Petersburg, Florida, at a conference with the WikiMedia board Sorry I didnt take time out today to address your complaint of blocking a spam site. I was meeting with Danny, Kat, Brion, Florence and the other Board members excluding Jimbo (he's in Japan). I was in meetings all day. touregypt is spam over half the fucking page is spam if you cant cite the article without using a tourism booking service I think you have a more important issue than I thought, you have to use a site designed to sell product as a source? this fails WP:EL WP:SPAM what else is needed to explain it? [[User:Betacommand|Betacommand]] <sup>([[User talk:Betacommand|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Betacommand|contribs]] • [[User:BetacommandBot|Bot]])</sup> 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Dear Betacommand, judging from this post of yours I'm not sure you are the most qualified person to decide what should be on the block list and what not. Do you think ads on, for example, www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ramessesi.htm are really that intrusive?
:::Also, name-dropping will get you nowhere. Guess what, I also met Jimbo, I bet thousands of Wikipedians met him since he is kind enough to take time to talk with Wikipedians whenever he can. regards, [[User:Alensha|Alensha]] 15:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

:{{not done}}, please keep discussion in the section above. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

===ThePublishingContrarian.com===
http:www.thepublishingcontrarian.com is an international literary blog. I was just updating the "Reference" and "External Links" to appropriate Wikipedia pages like: Judith Regan, James Frey, The Vaginia Monologues, The History Boys (which I do every few months) when I got a message that my link to The History Boys (a review) was deleted and that I was blacklisted as a spammer. In checking my previous additions to Wikipedia,I noticed that they have ALL now been deleted, such as the one I had in "Slush Pile." Could I ask you to reconsider your position on these "References" and "External Links" and reactive them. Thank you. Lynne W Scanlon

This is an international literary blog. I have added links in "Reference" or "External Links" in Wikipedia areas such as Publishing, Slush-Pile, etc., which bring visitors occasionally over to read my full postings on my blog. Today I was adding external links to The History Boys and James Frey, The Vagina Monologues, and Judith Regan, etc., updating my links, when I got a message re The History Boys link being deleted and my URL being on the blacklist. It now looks like you have removed all the links I ever added to Wikipedia! Could I ask you to reconsider your position and activate my links to The Publishing Contrarian. Thank you. LWS
:This site is not blocked on meta, but it is blocked by [[en:user:shadowbot]]. You could try and make your case on [[en:user talk:shadowbot]] to get it unblocked, but it got blocked because you were [[en:WP:SPAM|spamming]] it, and it does not comply with [[en:WP:EL]]. Moreover, I see you have a [[en:WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. Hope this helps. --[[User:Beetstra|Beetstra]] 19:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response--LWS (I'll try and figure out how to get to shadowbot!)
:Just click the blue link I provided you: [[en:user talk:shadowbot]]. --[[User:Beetstra|Beetstra]] 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
::{{not done}}, not blacklisted. [[User:Naconkantari|<font color="red">Nacon</font><font color="gray">'''kantari'''</font>]] 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


===viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ 2nd time===
===viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ 2nd time===

Revision as of 20:57, 30 March 2007

Shortcut:
WM:SPAM
The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, or Other discussions; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. In addition to that, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

snippet for logging: {{/request|551481#section_name}}

If you cannot find your remark below, it has probably been archived at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01 or Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/02.

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 17 years ago96 comments28 people in discussion
This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived.

meatspin

The following discussion is closed: Not added

Shock site, used in vandalism (example). The primary domain is meatspin.com, but others, such as meatspin.net, redirect to it, so anything with "meatspin" in the URL should probably be blacklisted. I could dig up more examples if you want, but I can't think of any legitimate reason to link to the site. --Slowking Man 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there any evidence of this link being spammed into Wikipedia? Are there more then one IP range currently doing this? Or, any evidence of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's a spam site (ad-mungous, bought by someone deliberately to exploit its viral propagation), and there has been endless argumentation about it on the talk of en:Shock site. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Has the argumentation reached consensus? What about other wikis? Eagle 101 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

"wowomg.com" is a direct link to meatspin, just so you know.--71.203.147.175 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It belongs on the en:Shock site article, and cannot be blacklisted because it needs to be on that article. 69.117.252.186 03:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done. The spam blacklist is intended neither to resolve content disputes nor enforce censorship of inappropriate content. It should only be used to counter widespread, disruptive or malicious placement of links where administrator tools are insufficient to easily contain it. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:03:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

reexamine.info

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=www.reexamine.info&limit=500&offset=0 - the site is currently 404 but hosts copies of the Watchtower and other Jehovah's Witnesses publications, without any distinction between those that are in copyright and those that are not. Since copyright goes for a minimum of 50 years from the death of the author, a large number even from the 1920s may contain material still under copyright. We have had at least one OTRS complaint, ticket 2007021310020955, complaining about links to copyright material on that site. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are 287 of these links on en.wikipedia. I suggest maybe leaving a note at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses about the issue. I'm not sure who's going to delete these links; I suspect some deletions may be controversial, especially given that these are pages on religion.--A. B. (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here's a long blog entry from April 2004 about the history of this site:
The reexamine.info homepage consists of one sentence: "Closed for maintenance"
Waybackmachine.org's archives for reexamine.info redirect to reexamine.org:
--A. B. (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just spotchecked one of the links -- notwithstanding the note on the homepage, the link worked (although it loaded at what felt like 14k modem speeds):
  • www.reexamine.info/60s/g68_Oct_8.pdf
    • Note: this is a 1968 publication still under copyright
--A. B. (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Given that it's under a DMCA takedown notice, and it's a dissenter's website being used as reference without explicitly stating that, I think it should be gone. Just zis Guy, you know? 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Has at least the english wikipedia been notified of this? en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. Its not really spam, but yeah it seems to me to be suspect, but this is something that can be fixed just by talking things through and (possibly) removing the links. We have to remember that this list is not only for the english wiki. Eagle 101 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just left a note:
I suggest someone review it and clarify anything I may have misinterpreted. --A. B. (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://*.orkut.com/Community.aspx?* and http://*.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?*

A really large amount of users at Portuguese Wikipedia persists to insert spam links to yours on communities from orkut. This may stop it without block the entire orkut (like personal profiles from orkut at userpages). Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] 555 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, before I blacklist something like this (that may get a bunch of people upset), lets have a bit of discussion if this is a good idea or not... I welcome any input. Eagle 101 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend blacklisting and selective whitelisting Naconkantari 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
In Portuguese Wikipedia these links are prohibited by community policy. Porantim 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


exoticindiaart.com

See this link search: en, de, es, loads of others. The /article links are generally OK, but the /product, /book and /painting ones are straight sales pages. I propose we blacklist /products, /books, /paintings. Or blacklist the whole site and we'll find better, non-commercial sources for the other data. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok JzG, looks like we have the following counts of links on 15 wikis:
Total count: 168 en: 133 de: 5 ja: 0 fr: 1 pl: 0 it: 10 nl: 1 es: 5 pt: 7 zh: 1 ru: 0 fi: 1 no: 4 he: 0 sco: 0
Is there an agreement to have this site removed on the following wikis? I would worry about getting agreement from the english, and Italian wiki before moving on with your idea. Eagle 101 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not sure how to contact it: - I will find their amdin noticeboard. 80.176.82.42 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
How are things going with this? —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

e-library.net

Spammed from a few IPs within the same subnet (see en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.1 - blocked on nl:wp, en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.10, en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.130) Diffs: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Sandox 07:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have we tried blocking the IP range? (a short time can often discourage them). Eagle 101 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

We need to block the ips as this sites has some great content wikipedia.org can use.



TehLiqE

I'm not sure if it's possible to blacklist text, but

The sonikmatter wiki and many other wiki's have been vandalized recently with the text "Hacked By TehLiqE". See History 1 and History 2 for examples. I've tried banning the member and going to the extent of protecting the discussion pages is going a bit far (it would mean that proposed changes to the protected content page couldn't be readily done).

This vandal has hit many other wiki's as well. Check the number of individual Mediawiki Wiki's by checking out the google search google search for Hacked By TehLiquE +MediaWiki

This vandal added the single link http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3551/adszjgpyp6.png in the second attack, and some nonsense words in the first attack.

The Puppeteer 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done we can't blacklist text. Eagle 101 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I thought that might be the case. Does anyone have any other suggestions for how I might control this locally? The Puppeteer 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just treat it as normal vandalism. Eagle 101 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

hai2u.com

Shock site. Example. --Slowking Man 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I guess I need to ask this, do we have a standard to blacklist ever shocksite that we come across. As far as I have been thinking, I would just treat it as normal vandalism, unless we are getting multiple IPs or multiple wikis. I'm not sure though on what is appropriate for this, and I invite others to please comment. Thanks. Eagle 101 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 9

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted February 2007:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[22][23][24]

  • affordable-car-insurance.biz
  • instant-auto-insurance-quote.net

--A. B. (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - this affiliate spamming has to stop. Eagle 101 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
As a side note, I've got an experimental heuristics-based bot looking for these sites, which should hopefully catch any more additions. Shadow1 22:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for blacklisting, Eagle 101, and thanks for your work on your heuristical robot! --A. B. (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A.B. Why do you have to put a link to robomarketplace.com? This is only helping that website out. Please remove this link and place the internal link for wikipedia.org so we can reference the great work eagles did.

Err, I did not make the robot, that is Shadow1. Eagle 101 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ooops --and thanks Shadow1! --A. B. (talk)

gerweck.net

Used to linkspam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GerweckWins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gerweck2 http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/GerweckGilbert http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contributions/GerweckOwns http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contributions/LightGerweck http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/Quotethedrama http://co.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FruitLoopsRule http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci%C3%A1ln%C3%AD:Contributions/ErasterStaed http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci%C3%A1ln%C3%AD:Contributions/Pencilart


Gloryhighbone 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I smell a rat here. gerweck.net is a wrestling site, and there is no real benefit in spamming it in those articles when there's dozens of wrestling articles he could have spammed. What with the recent blacklisting of pwinsider.com, this may be en:User:JB196 spamming to try and get "rival" sites blacklisted. JB196 has already managed to get declarationofindependents.net, geocities.com/xpw5yearslater and obsessedwithwrestling.com (since undone) blacklisted by linking to his own articles on them repeatedly. 81.155.177.63 02:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
start-done-end - clearcut Eagle 101 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC). Lets talk this over a bit. I'd hate to see that we are getting Joe Job'd. But at the same time, if this keeps up I will blacklist. Again, I'm leaning towards blacklisting it. Give me compelling reasons to show me that it is a Joe Job. If it is another Obessed with wrestling thing, with one columnist spamming, we might end up just trying to blacklist that one column, but if we can't figure out which one it is, I don't mind blacklisting the whole site and contacting the site owner either. Eagle 101 03:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Right, I'll try and make this as clear and comprehensive as possible. The sites above - DOI, OWW and the geocities site were all blacklisted because they contained articles written by banned editor JB196, who has repeatedly spammed them onto four articles on the English wiki since being banned. I'm not sure what caused pwinsider to be blacklisted, I know it was recent but I've looked at the archives (including the yet to be linked 2007/03) and I can't see why it's been done. JB196 has a long term abuse report here, and part of his extensive MO is to delete links to rival sites. JB196 is aware that his sites are blacklisted, and will know of this page due to it being linked on the {{Uw-spam4}} final warning which he's received many of with his many socks and open proxies he's been using.
The spamming done made absolutely no sense. Surely if you're spamming a wrestling site you'd spam the wrestling articles, or maybe some other popular culture articles? You wouldn't spam en:Finnish People's Blue-whites like the spammer did.
  • The first account was created at 23:21 on 23 March, and spammed 4 times until 23:23 but wasn't warned as can be seen by the talk page history.
  • It's therefore puzzling that the second account was created at 23:25 on 23 March, and spammed 3 times ending at 23:25. Why create a second account when the first one hasn't even received a warning?
  • The third account was created on the Corsican wiki at 00:23 on 24 March, and spammed 6 times until 00:28. With all due respect to the Corsican wiki, if I was a spammer it wouldn't be somewhere I'd hope to gain anything by spamming.
  • The fourth account was created at 00:27 on the Czech wiki on 24 March and hasn't made a single edit according to contribs, so how did User:Gloryhighbone know that person was a spammer? Perhaps because User:Gloryhighbone is the spammer?
  • The fifth account was created at 01:24 on the Italian wiki on 24 March and spammed 4 times until 01:28 (ignoring the talk page message at 03:16).
  • The sixth account was created at 01:31 on the Spanish wiki on 24 March, and spammed 3 times until 01:32.
  • The seventh account was created at 01:33 on the Spanish wiki on 24 March and hasn't made a single edit according to contribs, so again how did User:Gloryhighbone know that person was a spammer, apart from seeing a new user account with a name including Gerweck admittedly for this account.
  • The eighth account was created at 02:10 on the Italian wiki on 24 March, and spammed 6 times until 02:22
  • The ninth account was created at 01:14 on the Czech wiki on 25 March and spammed 3 times ending at 01:15. Although this might seem tenuous the name of the account is Pencilart, and one of JB196's socks was called Penandinkart. It should also be noted that JB196 had spent the 35 minutes leading up to this account being created spamming Extreme Associates and Xtreme Pro Wrestling on the English language wiki until the pages were semi-protected at 01:10 and 01:11 respectively.
The report made here was the first contribution by User:Gloryhighbone and was made at 01:22 on 25 March, and included in the report were details from two accounts with zero contributions, and from multiple language wikis as well.
What it looks like to me is a clear case of looking at this page and seeing what it takes to get a website blacklisted, then spamming by numbers so to speak. JB196 is petty enough to try and get "rival" websites blacklisted, and I believe that is what's happening here. If this gets blacklisted it's absolutely no skin off my nose, but I can only imagine knowing his stubbornness that he'll keep doing it with more sites so it might be something worth keeping an eye on. 81.155.177.63 05:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The spammer does not seem to have learned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Frenchdipper http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posebno:Contributions/Brushwithdeath http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci%C3%A1ln%C3%AD:Contributions/Circlejerk http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contributions/Gerweckpop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Astedscroll http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contributions/GerweckOwnss http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bedtimestory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fckship http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/HiroshimaGerweck http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/WikGerweck http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/Gerweckrules http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posebno:Contributions/Supercrazy http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jkwltape


Gloryhighbone 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Or more accurately, we rumbled your little game Barber and decided not to play along, so you spammed some more. 81.153.10.221 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

3 proxy sites

spysurfing.com used to bypass the blacklist on obsessedwithwrestling.com by:

hidemybrowsing.com used to bypass the blacklist on obsessedwithwrestling.com by:

proxyhole.com used to bypass the blacklist on obsessedwithwrestling.com by:

Both accounts sockpuppets of JB196 who has a long term abuse report, and has spent weeks spamming en:Xtreme Pro Wrestling, en:Rob Zicari and en:Extreme Associates each time the semi-protection wore off. 81.155.177.63 01:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

hidemybrowsing.com and spysurfing.com don't appear to support hotlinking (the posted links returned errors). proxyhole.com did return the site. fwiw --Versageek 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This diff for spysurfing and this diff for hidemybrowsing work fine for me. 81.155.177.63 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


All sedoparking.com redirects

I was going to suggest all sites spamvertised by 198.185.10.2, and the IP itself, but this is a better idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:198.185.10.2 Eagle 101 already banned it for 48 hrs, spam continues. e.g.: myfirstpieceofass.com , Foreignaccentsyndrome.net, pharmparty.net, kebiracrater.com etc. All are sedoparking.com redirects. I can't think of a legit link to a domain that would redirect here. This would perhaps require a bit of coding.

FYI:

 unix% wget kebiracrater.com
--11:12:42--  http://kebiracrater.com/
           => `index.html'
Resolving kebiracrater.com... done.
Connecting to kebiracrater.com[216.104.161.111]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: http://www.sedoparking.com/kebiracrater.com [following]
--11:12:42--  http://www.sedoparking.com/kebiracrater.com
           => `kebiracrater.com'
Resolving www.sedoparking.com... done.
Connecting to www.sedoparking.com[212.227.34.3]:80... ^C

Oh, and http://research.microsoft.com/Typo%2DPatrol/ has a LONG but dated list of blacklist-worthy domains. Yes, the page is not the up-to-date one and yes it's from the evil empire. --Elvey 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sedoparking.com itself is not blacklisted, why all the redirects? Lets just keep blocking that one IP. Looks like it is a static one anyway. Eagle 101 19:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
See www.041906.com for the list of domains this spammer is selling. I suggest just blocking them all. They're parked with sedoparking to get some revenue while parked but this spammer's niche in the spam chain is not driving traffic to sedoparking ads but rather building up the domains' traffic so he can sell them. If you look at this Google search, you'll find some domains not on this list; presumably he's sold them recently. He probably hasn't heard of the nofollow implementation. --A. B. (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
All the domains are also listed at en:User talk:198.185.10.2‎ now. --A. B. (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ah, A. B. I took forever getting a list ready for here!
The full list of domains is: <now listed at en:User talk:198.185.10.2‎ thanks to A. B. :)> I put them here for the simple reason that this page is static, while we don't have control over the other page. I will look into blacklisting all of these. Eagle 101 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It seems like it is from only one IP right now, lets wait a bit and see if they will stop (thanks to A. B.'s warning). Eagle 101 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done - does not seem to be an ongoing problem with this one. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

theigdb.com

Many different users (mostly IPs) have added links to this site on many videogame entries, for many months. Examples of users include [44],[45],[46], [47], and so on. These users seem to have no interest in improving Wikipedia, only to use it for traffic, in some cases even suggesting it is an official site. When I do a linksearch for theigdb.com, I come up with nothing, yet doing a regular search comes up with many articles which presumably have all contained links to the site recently.(Dreaded Walrus on Wikipedia)

"International Myopia Prevention Association"

  • myopia.org
  • nearsightedness.org
  • pinholeglasses.org
  • preventmyopia.org

Uses multiple accounts to spam these links across 4 different articles despite numerous warnings.[48][49][[50][51][52][53]

Note that there's at least one more account that added link to another article -- I just haven't found it yet.

On a POV campaign with the en:Consumers Union and several vision-related articles. --A. B. (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

See also the lengthy discussion at en:Talk:Consumers Union -- it's not as if this guy hasn't had the rules repeatedly explained to him over and above his user page warnings. --A. B. (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done I'm going to go ahead and do this, there are 0 instances of this link, except for those on the english wiki. (I checked the top 15 wikipedias). Eagle 101 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

steelecommerce.com spammer returns

Extensive spamming[54][55][56] of a wide range of telecom and other articles not stopped by blocks and warnings: [57][58]

  • ld.net
  • cheap-online.net
  • myinternetaccess.net
  • myphoneservice.net
  • steelecommerce.com
  • dsl-internet-service.blogspot.com

Back again this month[59] after a 3-month hiatus. --A. B. (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Note: I thought that ld.net was blacklisted in January, but apparently not:
--A. B. (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ld.net was blacklisted on Jan. 31st did someone whitelist this?

  • dsl-internet-service.blogspot.com should be the only site blacklisted here? A.B. can you show us where this user spammed the above sites since you warned him? This is the only edit made by [60] according to wikipedia.org. We don't have reason to blacklist all the other sites. You warned the user and it was stopped. This is 70.133.147.230 first edit and could have inserted this to get the sites blacklisted. We must blacklist on a case by case basis. If any of the other sites add spam, we then blacklist them. However, steelecommerce sure has spammed a lot in the past, if you didn't give a final warning we should consider this on the blacklist as well.

thebestof.co.uk spam

These links were spammed across many British articles last year. In January 2007, we got heartfelt pledges not to add these links anymore without getting permission from other editors on article talk pages:

I guess he forgot; see these subsequent edits:

Short of protecting a bunch of pages and/or blocklisting large IP ranges, I don't see much alternative to blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Eagle 101 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

musiciandictionary.com / celebritydictionary.com

Two IPs belonging to 20th Century Fox (216.205.224.64 and 216.205.244.5) were posting this stuff on practically every big WP-edition in january and were blocked on some projects after not stopping when kindly asked to. Since I just saw that one of them just started again, I think it's time to stop them (the links aren't any good anyway, just a wiki where people can post stuff we'd consider vandalism).

Examples:

--62.224.91.5 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - cross wiki spam, these cases can get real annoying, real quick. Eagle 101 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

German Wikipedia

In the german Wikipedia we have two german lawfirms which write in many lawarticles their hompepagelinks:

and

Can you put them on the spam blacklist. ? 212.95.99.129 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personenstandsgesetz&diff=29764887&oldid=29660370 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bundeserziehungsgeldgesetz&diff=prev&oldid=29764942 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sozialhilfe_%28Deutschland%29&diff=prev&oldid=29765024Reply

(German Wikipedia-user: GLGerman)212.95.99.129 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done - Do you have any evidence of these being spammed in? As far as I can tell these are specific to your wiki, you have 59 instances of this link on de wikipedia. If de deems them linkspam, and we have a continuing pattern of abuse, then I will blacklist. Eagle 101 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Intellectual property dispute / deathcamps.org

The following discussion is closed: Done (blacklisted).

Per en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive219#141.157.161.15 there is a dispute, brought from outside, of quite astonishing bitterness, regarding the ownership of intellectual porperty originally hosted at www.deathcamps.org and now also at www.death-camps.org; links to the latter were unquestionably added by the site owner (who probably does not own the IP); links to the former were added in some cases by the webmaster, and he edit-warred over the changes, and is being exceptionally belligerent on OTRS. All links to both have been removed from mainspace. The death-camps site has been linked, according to a quick search, at numerous other language wikipedias including de, nl, he, fr; ([61] and others), also the deathcamps link has been removed (presumably due to the same dispute) from e.g. [62]. I think it likely that deathcamps is the owner of the IP, but givent hat the claims are incompatible, we have no external judgement on the claims, only the arguments (often hysterically put) of the competing individuals, and the site, while interesting, has no known editorial processes, the best answer is "a plague on both their houses" and purge the links. I want to close the OTRS ticket (ref. 2007031910009401) so an expeditious blacklisting, if you wouldn't mind, would be much appreciated.

for your reviewing pleasure. There are more, I'm sure. I am trying to recruit admins and the clueful on the various language projects. The site owner of deathcamps.org is quite open in his messages to OTRS that it was he and co-owner Chris Webb who added the links to deathcamps.org, and it is patently obvious that the motivation to change these to death-camps.org was the dispute described on the deathcamps website. Let them fight it out elswhere. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are they continuing to spam these, or have they stopped? If they have stopped, I don't see much point to blacklisting. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • The whole thread (archived here) quickly took up 37 kilobytes in less than 24 hours. It appears, as Guy mentioned, to be an intellectual property dispute between the owner of the content and an individual hosting the content at a mirror without permission. This apparently has spilled over onto OTRS and, from what I understand and from my experience in the thread (I removed a significant number of links from both domains overnight), the owner of the content apparently does not want any link to the mirror's site and is being very belligerent about it. While the current issue is not technically that any Wikimedia project is being spammed in a traditional sense (although it may have been at one time), it is such that, I fear, the copyright owner will not stop even short of threatening legal action unless the mirror's sites are all removed from all Wikimedia projects. In order to put out the firestorm, we are asking that both domain be listed on the spam blacklist. Then we can tell whomever is currently corresponding via OTRS that no links from any Wikimedia site can be directed to his or her site or the illegal mirror. It's a bit unorthodox, but it would sincerely appreciated and sorely missed. --Iamunknown 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • I must take issue with your description of that anonymous person as "owner of the content" and "copyright owner". He is neither, even (if one were to accept deathcamps.org owner's claims, of which this person is kind of an unofficial "representative") - he is the new "webmaster" there, nothing else. Your description of death-camps.org as "illegal mirror" is also false, and maliciously so. You have evidence for neither assertion. --Sergey Romanov 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
      • I'm sorry, Sergey. I'm going to assume good faith and assume that you aren't intentionally misrepresenting my views. In fact, I have absolutely no views on the matter. I don't know if what I said was correct at all. Thus I said "It appears." I don't know if deathcamps.org is the copyright owner or if it is an illegal mirror or what it is. I don't know if death-camps.org is the copyright owner or if it is an illegal mirror or what it is either. And I never said that death-camps.org is an illegal mirror. Please provide a direct quotation that says exactly that. Otherwise, do not misrepresent what I said and suggest that I am acting maliciously and in bad faith.
      • What I and others are asking is that this battle be forcibly removed from all of Wikimedia by adding both domains to the spam blacklist. I sincerely hope that this happens. It has already wasted too much time. --Iamunknown 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You did write that "the copyright owner will not stop even short of threatening legal action ". You did not say "alleged copyright owner". You did write "the owner of the content", not "the alleged owner of the content". "It appears" does not cover any of this. As for "illegal mirror" referring to d-c.org, how else one should interpret "Then we can tell whomever is currently corresponding via OTRS that no links from any Wikimedia site can be directed to his or her site or the illegal mirror"? If I misunderstood this particular bit, I apologize. --Sergey Romanov 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Agreed. Their dispute is not worth the problem it's causing here. The information is not so valuable as an external link that we need it that much. - Taxman 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Note to Meta admins: "JzG" is a liar as I am not a "troll". I did replace the links and stand by my (absolutely ethical) actions (replacing the links to an unreliable resource by the links to a reliable resource). (Sorry to everyone, except this guy, for "tough" language, but I am not accustomed to be baselessly insulted on a purportedly authoritative and allegedly civil resource such as this site.) --Sergey Romanov 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - all this is doing is causing a problem, looks like one of the only solutions is to blacklist both. looks like there still is talk. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blacklisted per Template:OTRS ticket, this discussion, and the discussion on the en-Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard (and the second one). To simplify writing about the dispute, I'll refer to the parties involved by their respective websites (note the hyphens).

Death-camps appears to have forked from deathcamps (the former asserted this, the latter did not deny it when it was mentioned in the OTRS discussion), so to whom the intellectual property rights belong to (if either) is unknown. Although it would seem logical to blacklist death-camps (which sparked the debate by changing links to themselves), death-camps asserts that the fork occurred because of false information on deathcamps that they knowingly host. Examples and evidence are provided to back this claim, and they're plausible enough that it's not our place to make such a decision.

Further, both parties have openly stated that they placed the links themselves. This is a bad idea for the reasons described more fully at w:Project:Conflict of interest. Furthermore, deathcamps seems to be guilty of trolling and bad-faith changes from death-camps to deathcamps, even in discussions where death-camps.org is being specifically referred to (see the discussion).

Therefore, our choices are threefold:

  • blacklist death-camps and use deathcamps, and deliberately reference our articles to a website that knowingly hosts content that may be incorrect. The fact that it is registered with a free yahoo.co.uk email address further damages their credibility.
  • blacklist deathcamps and use death-camps, and deliberately reference our articles to a website that may knowingly violate both intellectual property rights and [http://deathcamps.org/Archived.html the copyright] on the deathcamps.org design and formatting.
  • blacklist both, avoid both legal and accuracy problems, and avoid the fighting between the two parties (one of which is sure to be unhappy to be blacklisted if one is, or unhappy that the other is not blacklisted if neither are).

Thus, I have blacklisted both. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • One can see from archive.org that deathcamps.org is the original site since November 2002 or earlier.
  • In fact every mail-address is free. If you have a domain you can use it for mails or not. What's the difference? None.
  • Possible mistakes concerning images etc is not a question of intellectual property.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we need good sources like this one. The original site does not harm any intellectual property rights. There is no reason to loose ones nerves. The holocaust is an important theme and in particular, there is no reason for kicking the references to this site out for all revisionists' delight.
  • Particular in the German wikipedia, I would like to go on to write articles corresponding to this list using the site as source and reference. I do not know a better alternative. -- Simplicius 08:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for blacklisting them. I removed a lot of the death-camp links from German Wikipedia, leaving just talk pages and project space, but I was reverted.[73] I only removed a few of the deathcamp links, and there are still over a hundred.[74] I think that when a site is blacklisted, it's not possible to add that site to a Wikipedia page, but it doesn't seem to have any effect on pages that still have it. Or will the next user be unable to save the page until the link has been removed, regardless of what his or her edit is? ElinorD 11:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ElinorD, first of all, I'm not an admin on either Meta or en.wikipedia, so what I write below is in no way "official". I'm just another editor trying to help:
If someone goes to edit a page that has a blacklisted link, then when they are finished and hit "save", a message flashes up on the screen telling them they have to delete the link before they can save their edit. On de.wikipedia, where you have a forced "preview" of edits, I'm not sure if the message comes up before or after the preview. You can check this out for yourself by going to de:Wikipedia:Sandbox and trying to add some blacklisted link such as tinyurl.com.
If the link is in the External Links section (Weblinks), then the offending link is easy to find. If, however, it's embedded in some footnote or inline citation, then it may take 5 to 10 minutes to find. You are doing your editors a real service to take care of this for them rather than letting them find out the hard way.
At least with the English language blacklist notice, it would be nice if the offending link was highlighted in bold. Also, many editors are surprised and flustered enough that they close the page and lose their edit, rather than copying to a text editor. Or they immediately close the notice page and then forget what it said about saving the problem. If you skim the troubleshooting and removals sections below, you'll find that complaints from frustrated, ignorant, innocent editors trying to figure out how to edit a locked-up page. Many more just give up and don't bother trying to find this page.
As a first step, you'll want to get these links out of the articles. That was done on en.wikipedia. Then I took it on myself to delete the link from user and article talk pages using edit summaries such as this[75]. For user talk pages, I left an additional short note on the page.[76]
I think it's important for German Wikipedians to understand that the Foundation is legally vulnerable to a copyright lawsuit in the U.S. if the potentially infringing links remain in de.wikipedia. The Foundation does not have a lot of money to spend on lawsuits even if they would ultimately win since in the U.S., unlike many countries, the loser in a lawsuit does not usually have to pay the other side's legal fees. So this is not a case of en.wikipedians trying to force an editorial decision on other wikipedias.
If they still want to use deathcamps, I suppose they can do it by adding that domain to the German whitelist (see de:MediaWiki_Diskussion:Spam-whitelist) after it is blacklisted, but please, for the health of all wikipedias, remove the death-camps links. --A. B. (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I whitelisted deathcamps_dot_org at the german wikipedia. If there is a foundation-adjudication to deny this domain, I will delete it. But untill this our user seems to need the domain and we have many articels with that link.
The secound point is, that I think it is not a good thing, that a need of enWP counts more then a need of other project here on meta. --DaB. 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

67.43.4.31

67.43.4.31 redirects to www.theshadowsun.net which is banned.

Done - thats not good, we blacklist the name domain, and now we have to worry about the proxies, and its IP. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 21:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

homejobsite.com

Spammed by multiple IPs to multiple articles: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

*.linksynergy.com

This service allows spammers to get some money (few cents) every time a user clicks on the link. It's used mainly to redirect to iTunes store from en.wiki [84] but it can be used also by the affiliates to Netflix.com to get a "referral profiteering". Add to the blacklist. Thanks. --Madetests 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done redirect site. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

cuba.com.ua

Spammed from multiple IPs many times. Was restored more then 10 times after being deleted. [85]

Not done - Try protecting the page first. That oftentimes stops the spam, as they appear to only want the link on one page. (Do a semi-protect for about 3 days). —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

xfile007.blogspot.com (Munblog) spam on Wikipedia

Spammed 26 articles despite warnings[86] and was blocked[87]. Has since started using dynamically-assigned, shared IPs to slip links back in one edit at a time.[88][89][90] --A. B. (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done, I also found a link on the Italian wiki that matches the exact same pattern of insertion as the problem on English. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Is there an efficient way to linksearch all Wikipedias at once? --A. B. (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, if you join #wikipedia-spam-t :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rfontaine's esperantio.com and survivaltopics.com spam on Wikipedia

U.S. spammer hit 40+ articles on en.wikipedia plus appears to have added his esperantio.com link to other wikipedias as well (I just spot-checked several and found the links on Greek, Esperanto and Estonian wikipedias -- probably other Foundation sites as well).

Used at least 6 accounts on en.wikipedia:

Domains:

  • esperantio.com Total count: 19 en: 6 it: 1 nl: 2 zh: 1
  • americandiscoverytrail.org Total count: 6 en: 6
  • epaleo.com Total count: 6 en: 6
  • northernforestcanoetrail.com Total count: 6 en: 6
  • survivaltopics.com Total count: 11 en: 6 (oddity, if you want a list, let me know)
  • whitemountainsworld.com Total count: 8 en: 6 fr: 1

For further details, see:

--A. B. (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Note, I have modified your comment above to add links to the linksearches. Join #wikipedia-spam-t on the irc.freenode.net network if you want to run some of your own. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 17 years ago98 comments27 people in discussion
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a link is not a vote, please do not bold the first words in statements.

obsessedwithwrestling.com

The following discussion is closed: Not removed

Obsessed with wrestling provides very good information and has many links in the wrestling section of wikipedia. Although not always the best source it does provide enough information and another alternative source. I am not sure why it was blacklisted, but I feel the site is more than good enough to not be blacklisted. Govvy 09:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I concur. Often a good resource and certainly not spam.

If I remember correctly, this website spammed the living shit out of en.wikipedia, hundreds and hundreds of links in very small amounts of time. JoeSmack 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
That was ONE user, who was promoting his columns at the site. The webmaster of OWW has since removed those columns after the user lied about spamming Wikipedia. TJ Spyke 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Do you have evidence that things have changed? We blacklisted in response to constant spam, and it will stay on the blacklist until we are sure the spam issues are gone. Our counter spam folks have enough problems without having to re-chase down spammers again :). Eagle 101 06:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nothing has changed, except he needs to use archive.org to link to his columns now. 81.155.177.63 01:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not removed, the problem has not been resolved. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ya, he just went right back to spamming it as soon as it was unblacklisted. (see the diffs the guy gave above).

Ps - what do you mean, "not removed?" It's already been removed. ==Desperadocujo 05:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, who is spamming it? Show me diffs. Eagle 101 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well I think its probably the same guy as before

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_Associates&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xtreme_Pro_Wrestling&action=history

== Desperadocujo 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re-add

Done Ok, I'm re-adding, this is getting dumb. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 04:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done - back to not done for now, I'm just going to go after the proxies, any new proxies he adds list on the list above, and we will just let him show us proxies. A full block of OBW is pointless, as it appears he can get around it. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 05:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I've now blacklisted 2 proxies. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Let me know if there is any more spam related to that guy. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 06:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

nationwidebillrelief.com and surfquotes.com

The following discussion is closed: not removed

Why did these sites get blacklisted on Jan. 31 They have not made edits in Jan. As soon as they were told they had spam they quit adding it. Do we really want to black list sites like these because someone has problems with an editor. They associated these websites with some DSB web items sites. Check the domain register and you will find no relations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.101.26 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

See:
--A. B. (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is no reason for these 2 sites to be blacklisted. Searchtexoma.com is not a site in question. It is thought A. B. you have something against this IP address and you have good reason to. However, this does not mean we should go off and blacklist any sites this 24.119.101.26 IP spams us with. All I am saying is I oppose these sites being banned. A well respected editor gave the webmaster or user a final warning about the spam. The user or webmaster has not placed either one of these websites in an article or external link after getting the stern warning. Is this fair?
72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)... see also: en:talk • en:contribs

Multiple accounts spammed these links and they were warned multiple times: Accounts adding surfquotes links since mid-2006:

Note that a Surfquotes article was also spammed sometime last year and then in August 2006 nominated for deletion:

Accounts adding nationwidebillrelief.com links since mid-2006:

For the full story, including links to all the involved accounts' talk pages and links to all their edit histories see these links:

Note that some of the other accounts listed in those discussion that added searchtexoma links but not the above links engaged in abusive behavior with regards to making various accusations against ediors as well as spurious claims of copyright violations.

These links add no value to Wikipedia and should be blacklisted. Just the August and September abuse of Wikipedia alone was more than enough to justify blacklisting these domains. Likewise, the November and December spamming of searchtexoma links plus the abusive behavior by itself was more than enough justification to blacklist all the links the searchtexoma spammer has been adding. Any actions by 24.119.101.26 don't really change the fundamental problems with these domains or the reasons they should stay on the blacklist.

As a final note, Wikipedia blacklists domains not as a punitive action but in response to their being abusively added to the encyclopedia in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is done to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. We seldom know who is using a particular IP address and we take no responsibility for trying to figure it out. If the Governor of Texas is adding these links, we don't care -- we just don't want the links and blacklisting them is a defensive response. No one has a "right" to have their links taken off the blacklist so they can be added back to Wikipedia -- especially when they've been added abusively and they link to sites offering no value to our readers. Can you or someone explain how either of these two domains meets the requirements of the applicable policies and guidelines:

If I have overlooked something important, please point it out offering detailed specific information backed up by appropriate links and folks will take a look at it. --A. B. (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A. B. would these sites have been blacklisted if you didn't have a run in or trouble dealing with this24.119.101.26? I don't know the entire situation but according to the history of you and the user I don't believe these sites would be blacklisted if you didn't have a something personal against this user. I think wiki has some of the highest standards in the industry and though we don't like sites that spam, or we have something against someone we don't agree with, doesn't give us a reason to lower our standards. All I am saying about this case is this. The webmaster was giving a final warning and since then dropped the spam and listen to and took the warning of the editor(s) serious. Don't lower our standards to get even. We need to stick behind the word or our fellow editors. This editor gave this user a final warning and until this user goes against the warning with either sites it should not be blacklisted.
Which final warning or block are you talking about? Please refer to the following:
I count 31 warnings or blocks. Normally, you'd be looking at blacklisting after just several warnings. I don't see where 24.119.101.26 fits into any of this. --A. B. (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The talk page went away as soon as the article was deleted from surfquotes.com and nationwidebillrelief.com check out the history on the users. You must admit this is a clear hate crime by A. B. This is only an act to get revenge on the user. You did not make comments or suggest blacklisting until more than 3 months passed since the last article was written or commented on. You would not have seen this article if you wasn't trying to dig up information from the user trying to get searchtexoma.com and other sites banned. I don't agree or dis-agree that this webmaster or user has spammed.

The editors/ administration that removed the content and dealt with this webmaster 3 months ago did't think a ban or blacklisted was needed. They keep in mind are well respected and they was in the thick of all conversations and spam if any the user was doing.

The administration then 3 months ago had a good idea about the user and was up to date on all the information at the time. They did not ban or blacklist it. Instead more than 3 months later you wanted it blacklisted because you didn't agree or like what the user was doing, spamming or whatever this user done to you. Again this was an attempt by you to purposely get revenge on the user. You can't look at something that happened more than 3 months ago and decide against a well respected editor and respected administrator decided was the appropriate action to take at that time.

Again you only dug up this information and decided to blacklist these two sites because of the user and the revenge you was seeking. You didn't comment make any changes or have anything to do with these articles 3 months ago while the events was going on. Therefore how can you decide what action should be taken. Again we hold higher standards as editors and we don't get revenge or get even. We simply make wikimedia.org the most accurate source of information possible.

I would have the same comments for you if another editor or user tried to dispute or disagree with conversations and comments you had with a user in May or June from information you have today. You just don't have all the facts, details and conversations 3 months later. It is impossible as some users, edititors and admin make adjustments to all talk pages of the incident and all people involved. We all know this is impossible.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not done, First off, assuming good faith applies here on meta, please don't throw out accusations against A.B. (such as accusing him of "hate crime" in bold), they are not helping anything. First off this site looks to have been blacklisted because the sites were spammed by multiple IP ranges over a long period of time, and the spam persisted despite warnings to stop. From what I see here, A.B. has demonstrated exactly why this site has been blacklisted, multiple warnings and blocks did not solve the spam issues that these sites posed. Therefore, to stop the issues they were blacklisted. By the way, I don't think January 2007 is 3 months ago anyway. If I'm somehow missing something, let me know, but please do not attack anyone. Regards Eagle 101 20:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is the problem with wiki nobody will take the time to review the information before commenting and writing. Look at you. You said Jan. 7th hasn't been 3 months. The last time this website had posted an external link was Sep. 13th which is well over 3 months. I am not going to sit an argue. I simply know that this user has a history of trying to get sites blacklisted and A.B. had pulled up everything he could find and had them blacklisted. All I am saying is the webmaster has not made any spam attempts for these 2 sites since Sep. 13th or longer. Please help uphold standards. Please look at all the information before commenting. We don't need you making choices without actually reviewing content.

I may have over looked something. When and where did nationwidebillrelief.com or surfquotes.com spam on Jan 13th? I will apologize if I had missed this important information. I have spent at least an hour looking for it with no luck. The last I have seen was Sept. 13th more than 5 months ago. Again this is simply an editor trying to get revenge. I will owe everyone including A.B. an apology if spam was posted on Jan. 13th for nationwidebillrelief.com or surfquotes.com If you can't find it go ahead and proceed whitelisting these 2 sites. If you find it blacklist them forever and inform.

This needs to be documented for the article [[121]] this was written and keeps getting removed. I was even warned. If I get banned yet keep our standards high then this is all worth it.

OPPOSE: A. B. (talk · contribs) has something against women and has made some terrible mistakes in his research. A. B. (talk · contribs) has not followed any of en.wikipedia.org guidelines. In addition he claimed to be inactive for more than 2 months while he was very active. Check logs. All of these edits should be wiped out. A. B. (talk · contribs) also has several editors/ users have said A.B. masked the truth on multiple accounts. Oppose to protect the honesty and integrity of wikipedia.org. Please, please, please spend a minute to look at all of the content before voting. I hope everyone gets a chance to read this before it disappears. All criticism of A.B. vanishes or goes avoided by locking out talk pages.

This is not a vote, and you might want to try to assume good faith, in A. B. Trust me its not a conspiracy. I'm sure he has better things to do then get a link or two on the blacklist. I don't mind if anyone else wants to have a look at this, but perhaps if you paraphrase your arguments, (not 3 paragraphs), and quit making broad assumptions about A. B's intents, and objectives, I or some other meta admin might be able to see what you are getting after. As I said on my talk page, just a few moments ago, I think I've finally got the idea... is it by chance just the two links in a batch that A. B. proposed? He occasionally makes an error in his proposals. Please clarify if thats the case. Just remember, en:brevity is a virtue. (this post is long for me!) Eagle 101 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I prepared this detailed user subpage listing every edit by both searchtexoma and texomaland accounts a while ago and asked 24.119.101.26 to comment on it, letting me know any mistakes. I posted links above to nationwidebillrelief.com and surfquote.com link additions, again asking for specifics if there are any mistakes. So far, no response.
The "has something against women" comment is, well, sort of an odd thing to say under the circumstances.
As for my talk and user pages, if someone wants to unprotect them, by all means do so. They no longer need to be protected. Cheers, --A. B. (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would these two sites be blacklisted if you didn't have something against the above user? You dug up material more than 5 months old. The webmaster was warned and stopped spamming.

As with texomaland and searchtexoma they did spam. It seems as the blacklist was a good find by user a.b. However, I did find material from the above post where one user or webmaster added both sites multiple times. This seems like someone is spamming these sites intentional. Why would a webmaster add there site and a competitor? Doesn't make sense, unless you want a blacklist for both. Please in the future refer to me as a she. I am female and get offended like others when you refer to me as a he. All I ask. A. B. Everyone wants to know two question please. Would nationwidebillrelief.com and surfquotes.com have been blacklisted if you didn't have something against texomaland and searchtexoma spammer? How would you have came across the information to blacklist nationwidebillrelief and surfquotes if not for the above spammer? These sites haven't made an edit in 5 months. Please reply. We need to keep the standards high for wikipedia.org and here the guidelines and trust have been violated.

Eagle 101 I hope this was just an error in his proposals. MAybe A.B.just mixed the 3 links in a batch. In which case I would owe an apology. But, it seems as if this spammer really got to A. B. so he decides to take everything the user wrote and had it blacklisted. Please help as we can't let spammers determine who gets blacklisted. All this user has to do is put a competitor in an external link and user a.b. will have it blacklisted. This user can then come in a place a link once the competition is gone.

What value do surfquotes and nationwidebillrelief bring to Wikipedia? I suggest you explain why Wikipedia needs these links and why you think Wikipedia has an obligation to include them. What's in it for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? --A. B. (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

?

A. B. This is not about needing these two sites. It is about an error on your part. You do keep avoiding this question. How would you have came across the information to blacklist nationwidebillrelief and surfquotes if not for the above spammer? These sites haven't made an edit in 5 months. In the future wikipedia.org wants search engines to recognize our efforts in reducing and fighting spam. Don't we? So these sites could be penalized because you had a problem with 24.119.101.26 or the webmaster. You admitted in earlier post something wasn't correct about the whole situation. You said there was some competition wars had been going on. Now major search engines like google, look at these flaws and errors we have and aren't quite ready to trust the reliability wiki has. If we all work together and improve the great wiki, make it harder for the competition to have sites blacklisted and fix a few minor flaws the search engines will jump on board. Please either admit the mistakes made or answer the questions we have all been waiting for. Then we can all move on to more important issues, errors and corrections.
Can you please humor A. B. and reply to his question. Do the links even have any use on any of the wikimedia foundation projects? Eagle 101 18:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Eagle 101 for having A.B. answer Would these two sites be blacklisted if you didn't have something against the above user? I stated earlier I was female. So please refer to me as a she. Women like wikipedia.org as well. But thank you for taking the time and reading comments Eagle. Waiting to hear from A.B.

  • This is a somewhat surreal conversation. What is the reason for wanting to link these sites? In what article, and to support what content? These things do not exist in a vacuum, having had a credible reason for adding the blacklist entry (which in my view we did - who spammed it is irrelevant, it was spammed), we surely need a credible reason for removing it. You have yet to demonstrate what utility there is in linking these sites, and your rather evasive response to that question, coupled with your aggression towards those who support blacklisting, positively invites speculation about your motives here. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

My motives are to improve wikipedia.org. I see some valuable content on the blog of one which seems to be very unique, original and informational. Many articles and tools that could be valuable to wikipedia.org. This information may not deserve a link at this time but could be useful later on for an editor to link to. This is more about out policies. If I spammed wiki after a warning I should be blocked. If I didn't spam anymore after a warning then I shloudn't be blocked. If I quit spamming, yet you block me 5 months later just because you don't like me. Would this be fair? No, we don't have all the facts and information. The editor at the time has my respect and if he didn't think a blacklist was in order after reviewing all the content. How could I overide him 5 months later without the information? Not Fair! I have seen a lot of cases in which a certain user/editor has tried to go back months and ban sites just out of spike. In fact he has been on this page at least 10 times and failed to answer the above question. Why? He must have been seeking revenge only. He had a site blacklisted that has not made an edit in 5 months prior. We are all trying to keep and gain the respect of major search engines and our customers. We want everyone to think of our guidelines as both fair and honest. If we would like big sites to take our spam list serious we need to follow the guidelines the great wikipedia.org has set for us. These search sites believe it is too easy to spam your competition, adding bogus links and so forth to take us serious at this time. We are not like this and I will do my best to keep wiki the best site in the world. How can you blacklist a site that has not made an edit in more than 5 months? It was simply to harm a user or get revenge. Know does anyone think a site should be blacklisted 5 months after making an edit, without all the information and without the user/editor/webmaster spamming any further? This webmaster/user or editor was given a warning about adding links or the sites would be banned so it was stopped. I think an editor reviewing this site has more information than anyone would in 5 months from now. Don't you? Things get deleted, lost or rewritten. Please anyone inform if you think we should change our policy. Maybe we can change our current policies and keep these sites blacklisted.

Some time back, I spent several hours preparing this detailed user subpage listing every edit by both searchtexoma and texomaland accounts and asked 24.119.101.26/72.24.79.46 to comment on it on that page's talk page, letting me know any mistakes. So far, no response to this invitation -- just a lot of accusations. I have spent hours and hours fooling with all of these accounts. The complainant alleges that Joe jobbing occurred. If this editor decides to own up to and identify the specific edits she or her organization made that I may have mischaracterized as someone else's, I will be happy to to reconsider. Until then, I consider this matter closed on my part. If others wish to pursue this further in the meantime, feel free to do so. --A. B. (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Forgive me, Mr. 24, but to me that reads as "blah blah blah not fair blah blah blah". I asked: what articles do you want to include it in, in support of what facts? If there are no articles and facts for which this provides support, which seems awfully likely given the type of site, then having the blacklisting removed will be a waste of your time because the links will simply be reverted form the articles themselves. So how about saving a lot of bother and actually answering the question, please? If there are specific articles or pages that would support particular facts, we could locally whitelist them, for example. Or maybe you are just a spammer playing the troll-the-admin game? Humour me and let me know the specifics here, eh? Just zis Guy, you know? 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

How am I spamming? Is discussing something on a discussion page spamming? Show me the meta/wikipedia guidelines for this. You don't think acting against a user is wrong? 5 months after making an edit these sites was blacklisted. At this time I have not made any edits ot posted any external links. I am not wanting to help these sites by adding links. I can find some articles, tools or links from these sites that wikipedia.org may benefit if you really want. But why would you want me to do this? I am upholding the law for wikipedia.org against editors who fake claims, blacklist for no reason, harm users or new guest. All I want is for admin/editors ot research the content and look at your edits and proposals before splurting something out. I am here for one reason only to improve wikipedia.org to help our customers find the best resource site in the world. So if you want me to find a link from these sites that could be of use just to prove that they haven't made an edit in 5 months, I will do it. But, it sure seems to be a waste of time. Why do we want to reward editors/users or webmasters for seeking revenge or hate against someone? This is not our policy. Let's work together and make wikipedia.org a better place.


A. B. welcome back. Eagle 101 and I have been waiting for you to answer the above question since Feb. 20. I have gave several reasons for these ywo sites not to be blacklisted. For one they was warned about spamming 5 months ago and they quit. Yet, you penalized them 5 months later. Again, you seem to have a problem with Mr. 24 or whoever so you went and had all the edits this person has ever made and blacklisted them. All I am saying is you didn't have all the facts, pages have been deleted, changed or lost. It was 5 months later. If these or any sites deserve a blacklist for making no edits after being warned, please reply. We need to change our guidelines and I will work on this. I just need the ok and the input from editors like yourself, eagles, Just zis Guy, you know? and others. However, I am glad to see you back A.B.

Here's your next step. This is the page I prepared for you:
Please note on the talk page -- en:User talk:A. B./Sandbox12 -- which of those accounts are yours. It shouldn't take you more than 5 to 10 minutes. Cheers! --A. B. (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
And incidentally, while we're on the subject of things people have been waiting for, I'm waiting to find out which article you consider this to be a reliable source or good link for. Just zis Guy, you know? 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A.B. My ip is recorded on every edit. I get messages at [[122]]. Why do you want me to find articles and place links from meta to benefit these webmasters? I am simply wanting editors/users and webmasters to follow guidelines. Obviously there are many guidelines broken here. Editors don't like it when they get called out for cheating or breaking guidelines. I get the same reaction when I call out a spammer. Both are wrong.

72.24.79.46/24.119.101.26, here's your next step -- that is, if you really want someone here to resolve this issue. This is the page I prepared for you:
Please note on the talk page -- en:User talk:A. B./Sandbox12 -- which of those accounts are yours. That will settle the issue of who added which links when. You should easily be able to tell which account names you or your organization used and which ISPs (for the IPs) that you used. Cheers! --A. B. (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A.B. you now know what account is mine becuase you gave me a warning. [[123]]. What are you asking from me? I don't know or even understand what you have set up *en:User:A. B./Sandbox12. I am only interested in talking about the guidelines you have broken. I uphold the law for wikipedia.org, and my goal is to make sure editors/webmasters/users are treated failr. You created a big no no and broke our guidelines so I am calling you out on the improper blacklist. I though you said this was closed based on your part. If you are going to keep making edits on these sites, you should clear this question up so we can decide for a blacklist or whitelist.

If these or any sites deserve a blacklist for making no edits after being warned, please reply. We need to change our guidelines and I will work on this. I just need the ok and the input from editors like yourself, eagles, Just zis Guy, you know? and others.

How would you have came across the information to blacklist nationwidebillrelief and surfquotes 5 months later? The editor gave this webmaster/user a final warning about spamming, since that warning this editor/webmaster did not include any links from these sites. That is the reason for a whitelist. At wikipedia.org we strive to be honest and truthful. In this case you was not A.B.

Was this revenge on your part or not? What and when was the determining factor for blacklisting these two sites in question?

Not done. These addresses were spammed over a period of five months, August 2006–January 2007, until they were blacklisted[124][125][126]. The users involved were warned repeatedly, and there is no reason to believe that the disruptive behaviour would not have persisted had the sites not been blacklisted. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:03:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Pathoschild for finding the spam posted [[127]] . I do owe A. B. first and foremost. I missed this in my research and apologize to any I critized on this. However, we still haven't found an edit for nationwidebillrelief.com. And unfortunately I still believe A.B. was getting revenge and trying to blacklist all the sites the user has made. If anyone can come up with an edit made by nationwidebillrelief.com since Oct. please post it. This would give great pride and pleasure to me, and I can apologize for the revenge factor on A.B. and others offended.

blogs.myspace.com

The edit where this was added asserts with no evidence that Jimbo requested it. I would like to see at least a diff to where this request was made or it should be removed as out of process. This addition was also not logged. --Random832 13:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest asking jimbo on his talk page, if he indeed did not request it he would say so there. Eagle 101 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
He never answered when this was brought up before, and I think that the burden should be on Raul654 to produce evidence of the claim in his edit summary. We don't know if he specifically requested that they should be added to the blacklist, or if he said he doesn't like their use of sources and was misinterpreted, or even which hat he was wearing. --Random832 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Try sending him (Jimbo) an e-mail (using the special email this user function), and request that Raul provide some proof, perhaps on his talk page. Invite him to comment here perhaps? Eagle 101 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Also, this has already been brought up here. Eagle 101 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Eagle 101 here. But more importantly, I tend to trust Raul, barring any evidence to the contrary, when he acts in ways that suggest that Jimbo asked for things. Just as I tend to trust my other fellow admins when they say that, or when they say (on en:wp) that something is an WP:OFFICE action, I trust them there too rather than getting into revert wars or sparring about it. And when Raul makes a mistake, which is not that often, it's not because he's malicious, it's because, hey, he's human, as are we all. Coming in here and saying things like "the burden is on Raul" isn't very friendly in my view, and may not be the best approach. Better to explain why this really isn't a spam link, and ask politely for a review. On the face of it, it certainly appears to be such a link just by the name. Also, this list ultimately exists to defend the wikis from garbabe and there is not that much harm from having a link on there by mistake. More harm comes from not having links on there by mistake. So I support erring on the side of caution. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hm, doesn't AGF apply on meta?--Doc glasgow 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
See this for Jimbo's reply. Eagle 101 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should start this over, and try not to get into questions of who requested what and who claimed what and when and what burdens should and should not be on whom to do what. The germaine question is: is there reason for this domain to be spam-blacklisted at the present time. As suggested by Lar, I politely request a review. I have read some of the history, and this domain does appear to be causing a great deal of heat on both sides. I think some of the reasons of this are:

  • MySpace offers hosting for blogs, and various notable people (actors, comedians, musicians) as well as bands etc have blogs on this site. Some of these people or groups are discussed in factual and informative ways on wikipedia, and the article contributors feel that a link to the blog maintained by the person or group would be a useful addition to the article.
  • MySpace offers hosting for blogs, and many of the blogs are garbage.
  • There may have been a problem in the past with links to MySpace being spammed on wikipedia. There may indeed be an ongoing problem, but I think this is unclear, and this is why I ask for the review.

As with other hosting services, there will almost certainly be problems from time to time with spamming of individual blogs/pages, but these should be dealt with individually not by blacklisting the whole domain. Are there still compelling reasons to blacklist the whole MySpace domain? If so, can these please be stated for the record, with evidence and explanation, and with details of how article contributors can request whitelisting for individual verified blogs if appropriate? I think that should help cool things down in the future. If the reasons for the original blacklisting no longer apply, can it be removed from the list? Mooncow 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good summation. One thing to keep in the mix of course is that whether or not our honorary GodKing requested it originally, he does approve of keeping it on for now per the diff given. He's a reasonable fellow though, I hear, so if the case can be made, it should be, and he'll no doubt change his mind. That said, my thinking at this point is informed by a hypothetical... Suppose 99.9% of the subdomains/pages of a site are something that only get spammed, and 0.1% are good... In that case it would be reasonable to spamblock it, and whitelist exception the 0.1% good, wouldn't it? whitelist exceptions are harder though. If it were the other way around, and 0.1% of the subdomains/pages were spam and 99.9% good, no one would argue that we should spamblacklist the exceptions. Now, somewhere there's a point of balance. Given that it's harder to whitelist than blacklist it's probably not at the 50/50 point, it skews. But what is it, and what are the numbers in this case? I have no opinion because I have no more data, but I think this analysis might be a reasonable way to get cost/benefit understanding? ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Could we at least unban myspace blogs from Talk pages? I need to cite a fact from a musiacian's myspace blog to counter a claim of original research. 128.122.226.112 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The blacklist extension does not work selectively. Its an all or nothing deal. The easy way around this is to simply do http://blogs.myspace.com/blah (in wikitext it is <nowiki>http://blogs.myspace.com/blah</nowiki>). That will allow another person to find the link. Eagle 101 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
My comment here is another example of the problem, if any were needed. The only people that can resolve this are the people who understand the technicalities behind the blacklisting/whitelisting process and I'm happy for them to act as they see fit. The only thing I would add is to question whether it is unfriendly program code that has lead to the situation where whitelisting is considered 'difficult' and that more subtle code could perhaps be made to filter on the FriendID= Daytona2 19:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Mmm elaborate, I don't understand what you are getting at at all :) If it is a proposed change in the regex I can do something, otherwise I have to refer it to bugzilla and the devs :) Eagle 101 06:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand what you don't understand :-) Lar said that whitelisting is harder. Is this the case, if so why ?. If it weren't so I'd say blacklisting myspace.com but allowing only specified entries through (if that's the way it works) would be the way to go. You don't need to add program code to interrogate the FriendID= property in the URL if you just add URLs to a database, but if, in future, they change the URL sufficiently it may cause problems. Daytona2 13:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

My Blog URL blog.myspace.com/aesirwuotan]This is blacklisted in my user space; I did not find any rules restricting blog address in user space and I think it is permitted in talk space as well, if I'm wrong about that tell me. Blog links certainly should be permitted in talk and its vandalism to delete links in my user space. I will try the above mentioned "easy way around this", though it does not seem believable that they can't distinguish between article, talk and user space in the blacklisting. 69.81.123.56 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should the myspace accounts be treated like insureme.com accounts?


Langmaker.com

Please remove this domain from the blacklist! I don't see the point why this harmless site should be regarded as spam. I personally find it the most important reference in things concerning constructed languages. --primordial 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is the reason why this was added to the blacklist. If it is useful, I would suggest requesting whitelisting of a particular page of that website (whatever page it is that you need). Eagle 101 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't see the role Langmaker.com is playing here. Only because some troll in fr:wp is spamming about a languague called 'latin moderne', everyone has to 'renounce' the information given on this site? in de:wp we have a portal about conlangs. in the section 'weblinks', the first one is langmaker.com -- thus making it impossible to edit the entire page. --primordial 14:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ('user:primordial' on de:wp)Reply
Mmmm... let me look into this... though a potential solution for now would be to whitelist it on de... Again give me a few hours to a day. Eagle 101 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, lets at least notify the French that we are considering taking this link off the blacklist, as it was them that took the primary brunt of the spam. Eagle 101 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your help. But as far as I can see, the only object of spamming is the subsite http://www.blangmaker.com/db/Modern_Latin. Where can I ask the french to recall their request for blacklisting, or is this an admin issue? --primordial 08:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ?? --primordial 09:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend not removing this site from the blacklist due to the amount of evidence presented here Naconkantari 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Which evidence?! Have you looked through this at all? Give me only one reference where langmaker.com is used for spamming except its subsite "Modern Latin"! I just can't understand why this incidence can block a site for more than three weeks now. Please do something, or give me a hint what to do, for this issue is sooner or later getting annoying. --primordial 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry if I failed to show patience, you guys sure have a lot of resentment about people like me. Please answer me just one question: Would it be possible to reduce the blacklisting to the subdomain "langmaker.com/db/Modern_Latin"? --Primordial 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is possible, let me think on it, and please do realize that I am a volunteer, and we are quite busy at this page, and to be honest your reply has slipped by our notice (the one you gave on the 13th). Eagle 101 07:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Primordial. Please remove this domain from the blacklist! Hill



medrapid.info

Why did this site get blacklisted? There has only been a short description of the medrapid research project in wikipedia. Is wikimedia against research projects accessible for free?

Ok, the admin who originally added this does not seem to be around anymore, but a bit of digging in the archives yeilds this. It looks like the german wikipedia got spammed with that link multiple times by multiple IPs. Minding the logical fallacy above (no we are not against research projects), I will think about taking this off, give me a few days. In the meantime you can show me where it might be useful to have this site? I welcome some comments from any passerby. Thanks. Eagle 101 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.zorpia.com

Hi Eagle, Could you please remove Zorpia.com from the blacklist? We(Zorpia members) are so sad and worried about this decision. We tried to comunicate with you, we posted a lot of comments on almost all your pages. We need some answers. Hope you can help us. Thanks

The following was copied from [[128]] (sorry, there was a little confusion on the correct place to post):

Hi Eagle. I want to ask you specifically about zorpia.com's inclusion in the blacklist. There have been specific allegations that Zorpia is some kind of drug related spam/scam site. In particular I would like to draw your attention to A.B's talk page at [[129]]. Although on the face of it, his comments and links look fair enough, scrutiny reveals an odd methodology. Close inspection of the links given, reveal that many of the search results start from item 700 onwards.

1) By using the same method, we can find that many reputable web sites (including wikipedia) can be shown to have 'lots of references to drugs'

2) A regular search of 'Zorpia' on Google such as [[130]] only reveals that it is what it claims to be, a social networking site. How many pages of the Google search do you have to page through to find references to drugs? I got bored trying.

3) With 5 million member pages at Zorpia, Wikipedia is blocking a worldwide resource of potential quotes and links to images.

4) Currently, searching for 'Zorpia' on Wikipedia (en)[[131]], leads the user to links such as this [[132]] - search result where the number one result is A.B's talk. This means that Wikipedia does a good job of directing people to its own source, which through faulty methodology and assertions/insinuations, makes false claims about a genuine Social Networking Site. I have to stress, that in itself is a serious matter. I have to say, although A.B is obviously not familiar with Zorpia, 5 million other people from around the world (at least) have heard it, and know it to be a genuine site, rather than a drug spamming site.

5) Zorpia has in the past (like many Social Networking Sites) been a victim of drug companies trying to use it as a vehicle to deliver spam. Wikipedia has itself suffered from the same fate (and similar) hence the existence of the blacklist. Wikipedia tries (understandably) to use systems to reduce this and protect its integrity. Zorpia, over several months, has done the same. Primarily, it imposed a daily message limit of 50 messages on its users, virtually making it useless to spammers and scammers. In addition, it employs a full time team to detect and delete accounts associated with these activities.

Having Zorpia on this blacklist, is the equivalent, of Zorpia, MySpace, Friendster, Hi5 etc placing WIKIPEDIA on their own blacklists, because it also has been a vehicle for spamming in the past.

6) Nobody wants to see spam on wikipedia, neither do Zorpia members want to see spam on Zorpia which is spread to wikipedia. However, on this occasion, wikipedia is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. It is going too far to blacklist the whole domain of 'zorpia.com'. I would suggest, that if a link is seen to be referring to drug company etc (e.g www.zorpia.com/drugscam), then that URL be blacklisted, rather than the whole domain. If these types of problems persisted, then I would suggest editors can contact support@zorpia.com. --203.59.139.206 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would recommend not removing this from the blacklist. A google search for zorpia and one of the "pharma" (cialis, viagra, etc.) words returns over 100,000 results, most of them automated spam. Until the zorpia community can crack down on spammers, I would not remove this from the blacklist. Naconkantari 06:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


Why was Zorpia being blacklisted? I cannot find history and log about why Zorpia was blacklisted at the first place. The blacklisting of zorpia.com didn't seem to have gone through any voting or discussions. Can I see proofs that show someone has used zorpia.com to spam wikipedia?

I know many people have requested to remove zorpia.com from the blacklist in the past. I am not asking about that. I am not asking why zorpia.com is not removed from the blacklist, i am asking why zorpia.com was added to the blacklist. It will be great if someone have an answer for that.

VChang 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was blacklisted because it is being used for spam. Please see the results of this Google search. Naconkantari 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is Not done, was mentioned somewhere below, zorpia links have been spammed in to promote various pharma apparently. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

bonsaimenorca.com

I’m the director of the bonsai School of Menorca, I was told by my webmaster that bonsaimenorca.com was blacklisted in Wikipedia, it seems that we have something called Cross-wiki , I don’t know who did that, probably one of our students. We are one of the oldest Bonsai Schools in Europe and we don’t want to be in any type of blacklist. I don’t know the way to remove the links and get our domain whitelisted.

Thanks for your attention

I am a bit on the fence with this one, on one hand we did get whacked with this about a month ago (here), but on the other hand this site may have some good sources, not any that I've personally found though. Eagle 101 05:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org

This has pretty recently been blacklisted. The site itself is highly respectable, and non-commercial; a joint site for the European National Collections of Rare Books, from the British Library on. Each library selects a few items in a standard formula (including images), & maintains it's own site. Many libraries are adding their full catalogues (see the about us page). Funded by the European Union, this replaces a previous gateway. It is likely to become a major scholarly rescource, and is already one of some significance.

The site has been added to many articles on en:Wiki rather crudely - mostly in 2005 by en User:CristianChirita - in fact he started new articles by just cutting and pasting the details table from the site. I have cleaned some of these up. All the new articles were certainly notable - most of the existing featured content, at only 4 items per country, will be so by definition. Many of the treasures from the smaller countries are not available online otherwise - of course the big Western countries have their own bigger sites.

This site should be whitelisted. Any "spamming" must, I think be well-intentioned, and usually valid. Needed links to images are being removed. Please remove from list, Thanks. 87.194.23.18 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (Johnbod on en). PS This is a VERY hard page to find. Took me 20 minutes on Wikimedia. Is this deliberate? If not some mention of Spam on the main page would be an improvement.Reply

Please read what spam is. Thanks. Eagle 101 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, done that (once again). Now please will you explain how that relates to this site? I have only ever seen fewer than ten links to it on en Wiki, which is perfectly legitimate for an official site covering twenty-whatever nations in the EU. How many links does WP have to the Library of Congress? Did you actually read what I wrote above? 87.194.23.18 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
For as far as I know is the site not blacklisted on meta, but 'theeuropeanlibrary\.org' is blacklisted under en:user:shadowbot on en.wikipedia. As an explanation: the site does not comply with WP:EL (it is not accesible from all browsers, the site does not work in e.g. Opera), and was spammed (the definition of spam on en.wikipedia does not judge the contents of the site, just the way they are added) by several accounts connected to the a.o. en:Dutch Royal Library (which have a conflict of interest). These additions have been cleaned, indeed resulting in only about 10 occurances being left on the site.
When the site works with all browsers the site would indeed be a good and notable site, and would comply when used as a reference, i.e. when not being spammed to external links sections, or added by users with a conflict of interest. Hope this explains. --Beetstra 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
To make editing here even less accessible, the edit link at right is not coordinated with this section of text: open "edit" two sections down! so, how could blacklisting be defended for the shared site of the EU's national libraries? The blacklisting process is whimsical, open to any "administrator" who elects to add a site, which is then methodically deleted throughout Wikipedia by followers who have not reviewed the material. A serious abuse, among many. 162.84.242.92 01:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (User:Wetman).Reply
Beetstra, thanks, that is helpful. i will follow up on en 87.194.23.18 04:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Re Wetman: The blacklisting was performed on en.wikipedia only after discussion with several people, and we all have this site on our monitor now. We are not happy with this site being blackisted, but the current situation (spamming under a conflict of interest) needed to be addressed. I have explained the reason why it was blacklisted and have repeatedly tried to explain the situation to the accounts in question. Only links were removed that were added by the spammers (which ALL have a conflict of interest). I did not even remove all of their links, I removed the links that were added by them and only had a tangential link to the subject they were added to, and/or were they were added to the external link sections. --Beetstra 09:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I must say I first became aware of the issue when I could not edit a page on an MS (I've now forgotten which) without removing the link to the only available picture of that MS. My recollection is that this had been added in 2005, but I might be wrong. 87.194.23.18 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would like to add, the first time I encountered the link, I actually looked where it went. That stalled my browser (Opera), which is not supported by the site (I could not even use my back-button to get back to the wikipedia), see here. The addition was in the external link section, where en:WP:EL fully applies (though I would consider it also suitable for external links in the text, and even in the references), and that guideline states that sites should accessible for all/most browsers. In that light we could remove all external links to this site (yesterday I did have the same trouble with the homepage of theeuropeanlibrary). The site is new, and it might become a good information site, but for now, it does not comply with wikipedia rules (and it gets spammed under a COI). I am sorry. --Beetstra 10:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ 2nd time

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ is an information web site concerning Parkinson's Disease. It is the most comprehensive web site on Parkinson's Disease - far more comprehensive than the Wikipedia article. Consequently, it appears on all of the Parkinson's Disease web sites including National Parkinson's Disease organisations and Parkinson's Disease patient forums.

1. viartis.net was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes, on the 13th August 2006.

2. The brief addition was directly relevant to the article, which concerned Parkinson's Disease, and was added merely as a reference to further detail concerning that subject.

3. There is not even one advert on the entire web site.

4. According to Wikipedia's definition of spam, it did not fulfill any of the definitions of spam. SeeWikipedia spam.

5. Rather than the viartis.net site being checked to see if it constituted spam, which it didn't, it's maintenance on the blacklist was due to merely asking the opinion of somebody who described himself as a minor editor, who had a personal grievance against the editor. When asked his opinion of viartis.net, he confused the issue by responding instead about a different web site.

There are no grounds for maintaining viartis.net on the spam blacklist because it plainly does not fulfill the definition of spam. Nobody has been able to contradict that fact. --XX7 22:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, we just did this once above. If you can get agreement to add this link to that article, I will take it off of the blacklist, though I think that the whitelist is better suited for this. P.S. I'm sure I can find a similar source elsewhere as well :) Eagle 101 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The request has already also gone on to the Whitelist. If approval for removing from the blacklist is needed on a particular article then any two editors on any article could unreasonably ensure without any reason whatsover that any article is blacklisted and remain that way. There are half a dozen related articles. So that would mean approaching editors of half a dozen articles with a web site that was blacklisted - a bit like somebody trying to get a job who first has to admit he's a criminal even though he's committed no crime. The decision should be with the Administrator of the SPAM blacklist based on facts and reasoning, rather than the arbitrary decision of what could be two anonymous editors. Whether or not it is added to any particular article after it is removed from the SPAM blacklist (where it clearly should never have been) is a later separate matter. If editors then object to its inclusion then so be it, as that would then be up to them, as it is on any Wikipedia article. If you are sure that you can find a similar source elsewhere that covers all of the content of ALL the pages, I challenge you or anyone else to do so, as I know in advance that you could not even come close. --XX7 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend not removing this site as it has clearly been used for spam. Naconkantari 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
What you have just written is ridiculous. You bring this discussion process on the spam blacklist in to contempt by your continuous failure, not only with this site, but all sites, to come to conclusions without there being any evidence to support you. You have provided no evidence at all in support of what you have written. "Clearly spam" is utter utter nonsense. The web site was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia relevant article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes. It contains not a single advert, it is entirely non-commercial, and it does not promote anything. I have already requested elsewhere that you no longer are able to have anything to do with the spam blacklist because your attitude to what are supposed to be reasoned and factual assessments is instead one of arrogance and a complete disregard for consistency, reasoning and facts. --XX7 09:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Show me that other editors want it by linking to a discussion on the english wiki, talking about this link, preferably on the talk page of one of the articles that you want to add this site. Eagle 101 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have followed your previous suggestion by taking it over to the whitelist, where it has started to be discussed and has so far gained a favourable response. I will leave it there for a while. --XX7 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

cosplay-world.com

This website is one of the most important in my area and has a lot of historical archives from the past 10 years. I don't even know why I'm blacklisted! It is rather unfair to have to justify myself for being blacklisted for no apparent reason. Please remove my website from the blacklist.

It's not up to me, but out of curiosity, what is cosplay ? --XX7 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

People dressed like weird anime characters pretending to be some manga superhero --Jollyroger 08:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplay

When I first saw this site I thought that it was very informative, although I wasn't sure what it was informative about because I didn't know what cosplay was. Now that other editors have kindly informed me about what cosplay is, it seems a bit odd, but then so are a lot of things. However, how it can possibly be on the blacklist is baffling. It provides detailed information about cosplay events, and does not have any adverts that I can find. For those people interested it would be a useful site. It's not up to me as I am not an Administrator here, but it really should be removed from the blacklist. It has no reason at all being there. --XX7 11:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=536776#cosplay-world.com is why it is on the spam blacklist. I will think about if taking it off if a good idea or not. Comments are welcome, but please realize that this is not a vote, so please don't use bold words infront of your comments. Thanks. Eagle 101 22:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can a web site not be added to different language Wikipedias ? What if for example, there was an article on The White House on numerous Wikipedias. Could the White House web site not be added to all of the different language Wikipedias rather than just English Wikipedia ? Regarding cosplay-world.com I doubt if there is any better in other languages, so it seems reasonable that they add the web site to different language Wikipedias. --XX7 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Its reasonable to a point, but after you spam it to multiple languages like here, we start to have problems. One it is very hard to track this activity, as most users tend to stay to their home wikis. If the site is in only one langauge I fail to see the benifit of adding this link to multiple wikimedia sites. This is a case where the site benefits more then wikimedia does. I'm willing to remove this in a month or so, and try again, but for now I recommend that we do not remove this site. Eagle 101 05:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A lot of web sites are on many different language Wikipedias, such as The White House, Manchester United, Real Madrid, Michael J.Fox Foundation. This is despite all of these sites being in English. Why are they not blacklisted ? Why is Cosplay.com subjected to blacklisting when it has been added to different language Wikipedias in precisely the same way that these other sites have been added ? Cosplay.com appears to have been added to the relevant Wikipedia articles. If it had been added to a lot of articles on foreign language Wikipedias to which it was not related I could understand the objections. There presently appears to be one standard inconsistently applied to Cosplay.com that is not applied to many other web sites.--XX7 11:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is only some of the Wikipedias that the Real Madrid web site has been added :

Azeri Catalan Czech Danish German Estonian Spanish Esperanto French Croatian Korean English

As the Real Madrid web site can be added to Wikipedia in different languages, so should cosplay.com be able to. There are many other web sites besides this that appear on Wikipedias in many different languages. There is an obvious inconsistency in the treatment that cosplay.com is getting here. --XX7 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Err yeah, but that website was not spammed. There is a difference between insertions all at one time, and a gradual build up, as various people find a site a good site. Arguments on how other links are being "treated" don't make much sense to me. Justify this link, the existance or non-existance of other links means nothing to me. As far as applying standards, no I'm not applying standards, I simply saw it get spammed one day and added it. Give me a day to figure out if there were any other spam insertions other then the that I mentioned. If not, I'm willing to take it off and give it a second try. Eagle 101 10:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Real Madrid is one of the biggest sports clubs in the world, with daily tv and newspare coverage in many countries. It is therefore likely that there would be a gradual build up of its web site on different language Wikipedias. However, cosplay is a little known, obscure and unpublicised subject. It would therefore probably only end on different language Wikipedias if somebody made a concerted effort. I assume that an enthusiast or somebody with an interest in the web site merely did a thorough job of making it available. Without their effort, and left to chance it, realistically would not have ended up on the various Wikipedias. Simultaneoulsy adding to a lot of Wikipedias is the sort of thing that conmmercial spammers do, which is why it no doubt resembled spamming. Added to this is the fact that few people, myself included, would have a clue what it was all about. However, this site doesn't appear to have any adverts. I may be wrong, but it merely looks like a list of forthcoming events - a bit like a calendar of forthcoming sporting events. At present, unless there is more that I don't know about, it doesn't appear to be spam. --XX7 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

petrophoto.net

This site offers well-sorted galleries with photos of relevant places all around the world. Sure, they are rather small, but if equivalent photos are not available on Commons, a link to petrophoto might serve as a temporary substitute. --Langec 14:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=535949#petrophoto.net here is why it is on the spam blacklist. We got spammed across multiple wikis with this. I am going to note that you could possibly contact the owner of the site for permission, or if the images fall under public domain you can use that. I will consider taking it off, give me a day or two. Comments are welcome here. :) Eagle 101 22:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well as I added the site, I won't say no for sure, but I recommend against removal. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 05:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ppstream.com

It's the official site of PPStream, a popular P2P streaming video software. I have no idea why it's included in the blacklist. -- scchiang

That article has already been deleted once. see this. Are we even sure that the community wants that article? Eagle 101 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


outrate.net

The following discussion is closed: not removed

I'd like to request my site, Outrate.net be removed from the blacklist.

Though I was warned about adding too many links in one go, and though some of these links may have been inappropriate, I feel that some other links, such as our site's interview with Billy Hayes (Of Midnight Express) and Camille Paglia are content rich pages that are worthwhile external references. We would only reinstall such external links, if we were to be reinstated.

Mark Adnum, Outrate.net

I recommend highly against taking this off. What happened here was a classic case of spamming with multiple user accounts to be harder to detect. On the english wikipedia we also have guidelines on conflicts of interest, which would include site owners adding links to their sites. Eagle 101 23:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not removed; this request is a conflict of interest by the requester. Please show a consensus on several pages among established editors that the link is beneficial, and let them add it if it is unblacklisted in the future. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for taking the time to investigate my request. Is there anything I can do to assist, or will the editors decide which links are acceptable for re-inclusion on the Wikipedia database?

www.lost.eu

I'm trying to create a userbox for people who play the game Lost, to be used on Userpages, which as far as I know is quite allowed. I understand why it's blacklisted, but I'm trying to use it legitimately. Is there any way to blacklist the website only in the article namespace, or is there some way to get around the block? If not, can we remove it? -- Robert See Hear Speak 00:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nope, and here is why it is on the spam blacklist. They have a contest going on, and people are spamming it from everywhere. Its probably not going to be removed until the contest is over. I recommend against removal. As far as whitelisting, I doubt they will do it for the same reasons. Just use a wikilink in the template. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 05:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


unitedfutures.com

Don't understand why this site is banned. Never received any type of warning. There was an article that pointed to a very useful quote page. This site never posted anything that was not useful. Never did or tried to spam anything. Can this be removed from the list? And I suppose warning is noted if thats the case. RunnerD 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reference:
--A. B. (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't even know who posted those things except the quote page. Why should we be punished for someone else's postings? It doesn't even look like it was spam. RunnerD 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done - see, this. 16 socks, this was the only way to make it stop. Perhaps in a few months, but if the site has anything relevant you can request local whitelisting. Regards. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

pavelnedved.110mb.com

Hi! This site is blacklisted for spamming. There was a problem with some users in the forum but now is all ok. Please can be removed from the list?

I did the original blacklisting here. I'm neutral as to if it should be removed or not. All I will say is it has been spammed. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.citronpaper.it

I tried to fix fix a small inacurracy in the article about the Citroën GS (a specific model of cars). I was told I could not change the article unless I remove the link to www.citronpaper.it. Since I am a quite unexperienced wikipedia user and the link seems quite useful to me (it provides a lot of historic original material about citroen) I am reluctant to delete it. Could someone experienced check if there is a good reason for blacklisting this site or else remove the link so that I as a new user don't have to take the responsibility to remove stuff that I cannot find anything wrong about. Thanks!

Not done The link was used in a massive spam attack on Itailian wiki as far as I understand. You can request local whitelisting though. Try to give them a deep link to a specific page on the site. (such as "www.citronpaper.it/something". —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).

republica.com

The block in republica.com is also blocking republica.com.br, an important Brazilian website dedicated to political analysis. Dantadd 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

On what wiki, just request whitelisting, unfortunatly we cannot restrict the regex to prevent matches on .br. I will double check in time and see if perhaps I can come up with an advanced regex that might do the trick, but for now just simply request whitelisting on en:WP:WHITELIST (assuming the english wiki). Eagle 101 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
there is now a more advanced regex in place. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

blog.myspace.com

Please help.

I try to edit the en:Galactus page, but it keep saying that "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: h**p blog.myspace.com".

I have no idea where this link comes from. I have not added, and I had no problem editing the page before it all of suddenly showed up. - DCincarnate

DoneI assumed you were referring to the english wiki, and I found the link. The problem is now fixed :). Eagle 101 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

PressArchive.net

I keep getting an error of a blacklisted site, and it's preventing me from saving my work. I don't know what it's talking about because I'm not adding any links, and it will give me the error when I'm just reverting vandalism too. Bignole 12:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right what article are you trying to save? Just find what the link is (the blacklist message will tell you) and remove it. The article should save afterwards. If you have problems with this, just tell me the article, then I will help you out. Eagle 101 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Other discussions

Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments11 people in discussion

Referral Profiteering

Please consider a list of referral affiliate syntax to filter/substitute. The idea is to prevent people adding links to articles which they profit from. Typically this would mean linking to a relevant book on amazon instead of an isbn number. Spiral Staircase 18:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any ideas are welcome ;) Eagle 101 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the less knowledgeable amongst us please explain what is meant by a "list of referral affiliate syntax to filter/substitute". I guess that it is something to do with links to book web sites. At present can a book that is relevant to an artcile include a link to the publisher's web site that gives more details about the contents of the book, which would be useful, or to online books retailer's sites for that book such as those on Amazon ? --XX7 15:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong with linking to the details of a book on Amazon or elsewhere, which will provide detailed information about that book, rather than an ISBN, which doesn't supply any information about the book. With the ISBN, somebody would then have to go and look it up on Amazon anyway. The diversion is pointless. --XX7 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Details about a book are fine, as long as the link doesn't include a personal referral number that will allow the person who posted the link to profit if whoever clicks the link happens to buy that book. --Versageek 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

So does that mean that Amazon links such as the following are OK that give more details of the book without making money for an editor who has a personal referral number for it : Puccini : a biography. I added an Amazon link that merely gave more details of a book, yet it was immediately removed. --XX7 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You did this on the english wiki right? If so, you might want to ask over there if its 'ok'. Try asking at en:WT:EL, thats a pretty active page, and editors there know quite a bit about the external link guidelines. Cheers! Eagle 101 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou, I'll check it out. It does seem to be a subject that causes people to differ in their opinions. Some see links to book details on publishers and online retailers web sites as useful information. Others see it as advertising. Most less experienced editors don't seem to know what Wikipedia policy is on this. --XX7 12:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Just put the ISBN, it it translated automagically into a link which can be used to get to the book from one of a large number of booksellers (also I think finds the Library of Congress catalogue and other details). No need even to use Wikisyntax, ISBN xxxxxxxx in plain text works. Links to Amazon or any other bookseller are strongly discouraged. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


artnet.de/artist

Hi! I just got "Spam protection filter"-ed trying to edit w:Joseph Finnemore for a link to "http://www.artnet.de/artist". (I didn't put it in, it was there in the original!? Can't even put in this msg.) The link seems to be legit, to an old print. (There are some very* interesting items on the blocked list, though). What's the prob with this link? Are there any workarounds for this site? Thanks, --Saintrain 17:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

(* Reminds me of the quandry the old missionaries faced: How do you tell them what "sin" is but not give them ideas.)

Ask de:Benutzer:Hedwig in Washington in English/German and de:Benutzer:MaxSem please, they are responsible. see: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Hedwig_in_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=26571641
Comment by Hedwig some days before: And now I´m waiting for complaints. Greetings 195.93.60.97 11:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Bullshit, I never said that. It's your personal problem that makes you frustrated. Don't blame your own inability on other user.--Hedwig in Washington 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Is anyone here able - no, not you, Hedwig Troll from Washington - to answer the question of Saintrain and of all people, who will ask the same questions in the next years? Btw: de:artnet is a regular en:joint stock company and not suspected of producing spam (except by Hedwig and MaxSern. Unfortunately he speaks no German :-))
  • Examples: here <-- and and here from 22:34, 16. Dez. 2006 to 22:47, 16. Dez. 2006 . Does anyone find one single spamlink at artnet? You can win 5 Euros!
  • I guess, not the most engaged vandal is able to "produce" such a damage like Hedwig and Max, because these few examples from de can give only an impression to what is happening worldwide in wikipedia 195.93.60.97 09:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here is why the site is currently on the blacklist see here. If you can present good arguemnts on how the original blacklist conditions nolonger apply I will take it off. Regards. Eagle 101 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi it´s unbelievable. Thanks for that link. I planned to wait on the next asker and then to present the next 20 damages on de. But I had no idea, that Hedwig has destroyed 129 articles, only in de. How big is the damage in en? In Germany these people are bestkown as super trolls. (@Hedwig: Das gibt noch ein Nachspiel)
Note: You will not need artnet for illustrations like Da Vinci, Rembrandt or Dürer, but for all these thousands of artists who are only popular (or nearly forgotten even) in their own countries and who have made beautiful stuff like this [[133]. Can´t believe it, honestly. Regards 195.93.60.97 20:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nothing can be destroyed, it's a Wiki! So don't cry and don't accuse others of being super trolls, maybe you shall read the rules of Meta and DE-Wiki before complaining and don't try to threaten me. That's not helping your case either. As I said many times before (my email), convince me or let us try to unblock the site and watch it closely. But no, better complain about the system and Admins that don't speak German on Meta. Oh Lord. --Hedwig in Washington 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I´ve asked you one time, see above, that should be enough. 195.93.60.97 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to remove it. I'm not sure why artnet.de/artist was blacklisted in the first place; there's no evidence of spamming. The argument seems to be that it doesn't provide much information, so it seems they were just concerned with the quality of their references. However, it's better to reference a site with little information than not reference at all. I'll ask mzlla, who blacklisted it, to comment. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

For future reference, the previous discussions were in December 2006 and February 2007. It seems the users involved were concerned with the quality of their references, not spam. Note that widespread placement of a link in good faith to reference an article is not spam, as this quote by one of the requesting user suggests:
"the point is that 129 (see above) links are way too many. Period. That's masslinking and it's not conform with the rules. If it's unblocked, there will be 100 or more within a couple days. I understand the problem the guys have and I really wish it would be different, but unblocking is not the right thing to do IMHO. We should find different ways (websites) to show pictures and the written information is not very useful and doesn't help on the topic."
I'm further inclined to remove it, unless mzlla has another reason I haven't seen. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More problems

I can't add de:Cinderella Story and fr:Comme Cendrillon to this film A Cinderella Story. Thanks. --213.102.117.161 08:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe I fixed this one, if I'm wrong, just let me know below here. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 02:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Problem editing en:Old School (Film)

Under the Old School poster I wanted to add en:Elisha Cuthbert as one of the actresses starring in the movie but was prevented to do so by a Spam Protection Filter. Her name is listed on the movie's IMDB site:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0302886/fullcredits#cast - 218.186.8.13 10:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can't find the article in question. Are you sure you gave me the right link. What happened here is that there is a blacklisted link in the article, and it needs to be removed before you can save the page again. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I had put the link at the title, but here is the article: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_School_%28film%29) When I try to put the name and link of Elisha Cuthbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_cuthbert) as one of the film's stars I was prevented from doing so by a Spam Protection Filter.- 218.186.8.13 13:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done see the edit by —— Eagle101 Need help? if you want to see what I did. (check the history of the page). —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=551481"