Talk:Spam blacklist

←Requests and proposals

Spam blacklist

Archives (current)→

The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may 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. Other discussions related to this last, but that are not a problem with a particular link please see, Spam blacklist policy discussion.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

Information

List of all projects

Overviews

Reports

Wikimedia Embassy

Project portals

Country portals

Tools

Spam blacklist

Title blacklist

Email blacklist

Rename blacklist

Closure of wikis

Interwiki map

Requests

Permissions

Bot flags

New languages

New projects

Username changes

Translations

Speedy deletions

[edit]

snippet for logging: {{/request|577996#section_name}}

If you cannot find your remark below, please do a search for the url (link) in question with this Archive Search tool.

Proposed additions

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.

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)

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)

I would recommend blacklisting and selective whitelisting Naconkantari 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In Portuguese Wikipedia these links are prohibited by community policy. Porantim 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

theigdb.com

Many different users (mostly IPs) have added links to this site on many videogame entries, for many months. Examples of users include [17],[18],[19], [20], 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)

Mmm, let me think on this. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and something I didn't think of trying previously:

A Google search for theigdb.com -wiki has a grand total of 8 results, two of which are the official site, and another of which is thediscworld.co.uk, which appears to be the former location of the site. This number is dwarfed if we search only on Wikipedia, where even with the nofollow on, there are 27 separate results on User:Veinor's Link Count records. --212.139.17.187 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (en:User:Dreaded Walrus)

Oh, and one more thing. I thought I should provide more links to the contributions of the people who have done almost nothing other than inserting those links (rather than just the four above), taken from the Link count pages:

[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]

There could be more, as I didn't look through all of the pages, but that should give the gist of it. --212.139.17.187 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (en:User:Dreaded Walrus)

www.bobobobobobobo.homestead.com

This site has been constantly removed and added, reverted back and forth, for quite some time now on the English Wikipedia. While only 3 users, (2 users and 1 IP, though one user and the IP are sockpuppets by one main user, Jelly Jiggler) it's caused one hell of an edit war for a few months now. He fails to understand that it is spam and fan sites are not really reliable external links (just because it has avatars, chatrooms, forums, fanfiction, fan art, and YouTube links that user feels it is "informational"). I'm determined to stop that user from putting it up again. Examples:

1. User:Jelly Jiggler "pupper master" - [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]
2. As User:Don_Patch5000 "sock puppet" (as seen on Jelly Jiggler's and this one's userpage) - [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]
3. Now as an IP User:63.3.0.2 - [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

And that's about it. Pardon my stupidity, but I've never done this before, so should I link to my talk page on the english wikipedia and confirm it's me over there (like the POTY thing)? For now, I'll only link to my talk page... Thank you all very much for your time. User talk:Tohru Honda13 22:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we still having problems with this one? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

www.retropresse.net

Hello, please block www.retropresse.net which is a commercial site for old issues or reedited issues from people magazines.

• fr:Special:Contributions/82.242.237.48
• fr:Special:Contributions/220.85.228.212

--Gdgourou 09:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we still having a problem with this one? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

anti2ch.blog61.fc2.com, arvel7aico.btblog.jp

Linkspam. (maybe affiliate purpose blogs)

[52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] --Tietew 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Referral Profiteering?

I found this edits:

• pt.wikipedia (not detected) by 217.106.166.14
• de.wikipedia (not detected) by 217.106.166.49
• en.wikipedia(not detected) by Cchok321sd
• fr.wikipedia(not detected) by Novorich
• it.wikipedia (not detected) by 217.106.166.56
• fi.wikipedia (not detected) by 217.106.166.56
• pl.wikipedia (not detected) by 217.106.166.56
• uk.wikipedia (detected) by 217.106.166.17
• zh-min.nan.wikipedia (not detected) by 217.106.166.12

I undid all those edits. It wasn't detected on most wikis. I think this is related to en:Google_Co-op. Should/can this be blocked? Mosca 08:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions as to what can be done. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ehealthguide.info and others

Blacklisting:

• I am requesting full blacklisting of the falling domains:
  • americansharemarket.com
  • articles4free.com
  • articlesbridge.com
  • australiastockexchange.net
  • blogsbasket.com
  • canadastockexchange.biz
  • dubaistock.info
  • ehealthguide.info
  • explorearticle.com
  • ezinevalley.com
  • karachistock.info
  • paycents.com
  • text2read.com
  • thekarachi.com
  • topnasdaqstocks.com

• I am requesting blacklisting of the indicated subdomains only:
  • portal.ismaili-net.com
    • ismaili-net.com contains many legitimate Islamic articles some linked to by established editors
  • submitlink.biz/lodhi
    • while submitlink.biz may be dodgy, only this user, lodhi, has spammed it to my knowledge and I don't think he's the domain owner
  • saree.50webs.com
    • 50webs.com is a large web hosting service

• I am not requesting blacklisting of the following but would like them added to either Shadowbot or COIbot:
  • miniweblink.com
    • not spammed to Wikipedia to my knowledge but low-quality
  • submitlink.biz
    • remainder of domain -- low quality SEO directory

Examples of spam -- see:

• en:Special:Contributions/125.209.115.131
• en:Special:Contributions/125.209.115.132
• en:Special:Contributions/125.209.115.133
• en:Special:Contributions/125.209.92.238
• en:Special:Contributions/202.5.131.100
• en:Special:Contributions/202.5.131.11
• en:Special:Contributions/202.5.131.13
• en:Special:Contributions/202.5.131.26
• en:Special:Contributions/202.5.131.56
• en:Special:Contributions/202.5.131.58
• en:Special:Contributions/202.5.131.77
• en:Special:Contributions/202.5.131.88
• en:Special:Contributions/202.83.175.35

For more details: en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#ehealthguide.info (permanent link) --A. B. ^(talk) 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

TrailVoy.com

Requesting help with a specific IP who continues to insert a website that violates en:WP:SPAM. The site TrailVoy.com is a community of users dedicated to the Chevrolet TrailBlazer and GMC Envoy. The site requires registration to view anything beyond the front page. Further investigation insists that the site is just a collection of original research from its many users therefore cannot be referenced into Wikipedia or it would violate en:WP:NOR. I have requested the link not be re-added to the article en:Chevrolet TrailBlazer on its talk page. The user en:User:72.188.14.23 insists it should be added as some of the article was referenced from that site. I asked him to provide direct links to the information that was refereneced and informed him that it may not be used since it would contain original research. He will not comply with that request nor will he stop adding the link back into the article. I do not want to get into an edit war with this user, but in my opinion the site he has listed is not usable on the Wikipedia project. Thanks, 68.191.218.194 02:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC) (en:User:HumanZoom)

I made all the above links and it checked on the preview. When I hit submit, it is linkless. I am new to Wikimedia, so if I'm doing something wrong, I'm sorry. Thanks, 68.191.218.194 02:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

highlightzone.de

Persistent Spamming in de.wp, doesn't comply with de:WP:WEB. Our resident Spamfighter de:Benutzer:Hubertl removed over 50 Links on 10. Jan. 2007 ([68]) but like the mad killer in a bad horror movie, it keeps coming back to haunt us, often inserted by unique IPs ([69], [70], [71], [72] to name a few). Thank you, --84.175.205.57 09:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)(Michael)

afif.ws, afifpoem.com, afif2.com, afifchat.com, afifup.com

Cross-wiki spammer who has persisted using multiple IPs despite warnings; see en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#Ongoing spam, and this attempt to delete a record of spam warnings.[73] Domains:

• afifpoem.com
• afif.ws
• afif2.com
• afifup.com
• afifchat.com

For just a sample of the many link additions, see:

• ar:Special:Contributions/72.3.137.84
• ca:Special:Contributions/212.93.223.162
• ca:Special:Contributions/72.3.137.84
• de:Special:Contributions/72.3.137.84
• eo:Special:Contributions/72.3.137.84
• eu:Special:Contributions/87.101.240.9
• fa:Special:Contributions/72.3.137.84
• gl:Special:Contributions/212.116.219.3
• ja:Special:Contributions/212.116.219.134
• pl:Special:Contributions/212.76.68.204
• ro:Special:Contributions/212.116.219.153
• sq:Special:Contributions/212.76.68.204
• zh:Special:Contributions/72.3.137.84

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

location.essaouira-voyage.com on FR

Commercial spam for car hiring. Example : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.250.128.159

IP : 41.250.128.159, 128.241.108.160, 196.206.206.40, 196.206.199.235 ...

--Ironie 02:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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.

isbn-check.com + books-by-isbn.com + isbn-check.de

These sites contain Amazon affiliate links. However that is not a reason to blacklist them. We do not allow people to add affilaite links to to WP, we do not have a "contagion" policy that says we cannot link to sites with affilite links, or most of our external links would have to go. This blacklisting has deprived WP editors and users of a useful tool, and should be reversed. Rich Farmbrough 10:59 4 April 2007 (GMT).

Here is the reason why these are on the blacklist. These sites got abused. Also as far as I know, you can use ISBN 1234567890 to link to book reviews etc, so right now the way I see it, is we are preventing spam, and not losing very much in return. If you want to leave a location for users to go to see how to obtain the book just use the ISBN number. I'd recommend against removal for now, it was actually abused. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly this one was here on meta at Meta:Book sources - I had to remove it before I could revert an additional link placed (in passing the page does have rather a lot of links - should it be watched more/semi prot?) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

yoyita.com

I have just tried to add a link on wikipedia to yoyita . com (can't even use it here) (the link was present previously, but now catches the attention of the blacklist with further edits). This site is thoroughly useful to the article I was editing (contrapposto), and seems to be only informative. Now, the list does contain \byoyita\.com, whatever that is (regex word boundary?). Can I ask whether this regex is intended to blacklist the URL I am trying to use, and, if yes, why? Jameshfisher 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

here and here are why. I recommend against taking this off the list, and I suggest that you request local whitelisting for a deeplink of that site. (by deep link I mean 'yoyita.com/blah'). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

gargoyles.dracandros.com

I wish to propose this site, just recently blocked above, for reconsideration. The site is a wiki, pertaining to the television series Gargoyles. It contains relevant information, and could be usefully linked to from pages on the English Wikipedia that are subpages of w:Category:Gargoyles. In particular, the pages "List of Gargoyles characters" and "List of Gargoyles episodes" could benefit from links to GargWiki pages to provide information on characters or episodes only briefly covered in those pages. At least two of the vandals responsible for the inclusion of the site on the blacklist (those editing on Wikipedia) seem to be the same person, and this person's biggest mistake seems to be linking directly to the main page of the site instead of to the appropriate articles. I assume that much of this individual's spamming would end if the appropriate links were included. One instance of vandalism of the separate Gargoyles wiki, http://gargoyles.wikia.com/, while reprehensible, seems to be in response to link spamming by administrators of that second site. Please do not blame the site itself for the actions of a few misguided individuals. (Incidentally, I am both an editor of the English Wikipedia under the name Supermorff, and a moderator of GargWiki under the same name.) -- 4.254.144.51 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just blacklisted this, so I won't say for sure, but I'd like to leave this one on for at least a week. Ask again then. The blacklist is designed to prevent problems like the one above. Perhaps after the members of the group see the "this link is blacklisted" message, they might not do it again when it comes off the blacklist. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is the owner of gargoyles.dracandros.com . Just want to add my two cents; neither I nor any of the administrators of the wiki approved this wikispam. Whoever was responsible for this was at best overzealous, and at worst trying to make our site look bad. Please reconsider having this site on your blacklist. -JEB

It is now one week on, and I am once again requesting that this site be removed from the blacklist. In the meantime, one Wikipedia user has added links to a related site in an apparent attempt to circumvent the blacklisting. I assume that such instances would stop if appropriate links were added to appropriate pages (it seems the blacklisting itself isn't enough). I would like to reiterate that this user is not affiliated with GargWiki (as far as I can tell). A project page decrying link spamming now exists on the wiki, and will be accepted as official policy pending a vote by members. -- (Supermorff) 86.131.16.191 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume you're referring to this [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. The next logical step would be blacklisting the conduit site, should the spam persist – not taking the other one off the blacklist. Also, sites are not blacklisted only when the people involved in them instigate the linkspamming. They could very well be visitors, fans or anyone who knows and likes the site and wants to use Wikipedia's notability to divulge it. The whole point of blacklisting is to hinder spam by preventing abusive linkage to be saved. Seeing as the blacklisting was circumvented, this indicates that the spam will continue once the site is off the list. Lemmos 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you. However, the links this user has added are precisely the ones that should be added once the blacklisting is lifted, except they are (unhelpfully) directed to the wrong place (as was the last spate of links added, which led to the site being blacklisted in the first place). Once these appropriate links are added, there would be no reason for the spamming to continue. -- (Supermorff) 86.131.16.191 08:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"they are (unhelpfully) directed to the wrong place (as was the last spate of links added, which led to the site being blacklisted in the first place)"

"Once these appropriate links are added, there would be no reason for the spamming to continue."

No, the site was blacklisted because several links were added to other articles apart from the main one. I fail so see the logic in your rationale because there was already one link [80] on the subject's main page for a long time before it was blacklisted (11 April 2007). I don't deny the possibility of the spam ceasing, but the attempt of circumvention indicates the contrary. --Lemmos 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Take the Wikipedia page on, for example, the character w:Goliath (Gargoyles). GargWiki has a page on Goliath also, containing more specialized information that could clog up the Wikipedia article (I think) if added directly. I honestly believe that a link that directs users to the GargWiki article on Goliath, added to the Wikipedia article on Goliath, would improve the Wikipedia article. And I believe that if such a (helpful) link was to be included, then users would stop adding (unhelpful) links to the GargWiki main page. The same reasoning follows for links on other Wikipedia pages. -- (Supermorff) 86.131.16.191 17:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think I understand the confusion here. The whole reason for blacklisting the site was because editors were adding those links – which you want to include too – on all those articles [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]. That is considered spam, and permitting links to be added merely to oblige whims is not the way to fight spam — blacklisting is. Moreover, you seem certain that once the site is off the blacklist, links will be added to those articles. I’m afraid this is a misconception. Should the site be taken off the blacklist, the links still must meet the requirements of Wikipedia:External links, and being off the blacklist is not enough of a reason. --Lemmos 21:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a bit lost here, this needs off the blacklist for one or a few articles? If so I would consider local whitelisting as an alternitive. Just provide a deeplink (gargoyles.dracandros.com/something), and they should whitelist that deeplink in fairly short order. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the people involved in the blacklisted site want to add their links to every related articles. Those who had attempted to do it, caused disruption and vandalism, which is why it was blacklisted in the first place. --Lemmos 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As a mod at the blacklisted site, please know that we did not ask for anyone to spam on our behalf. I'm sorry it happened. A few months back, I added one link, just one. I didn't delete any other links, I didn't turn my link into an editorial, and it was fine. We have a policy page which discourages this sort of thing. The person who spammed has, is not a mod at the site. To my knowledge, he has contributed nothing to our site. We did not request nor do we condone this kind of behavior. I think it is unfair to blacklist us, because of what a couple of idiots have done. --Greg Bishansky

Right but in any case its a problem right now. Any useage of this link needs to be requested vie local whitelisting. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Lemmos, I feel that the tone of your bulletted comment may have been slightly unfair. Despite this, I have reread the guidelines for External Links on your advice, and I have for the first time noticed point 12 of "Links normally to be avoided": Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. While the precise meaning may be slightly subjective, I suspect links to GargWiki do fall into this category in the eyes of most editors. I am therefore forced to agree that the spamming will likely not cease if the site is taken off the blacklist. We may yet consider local whitelisting, per the advice of Eagle101. I am sorry to have taken up so much of your time. Have a nice day. -- (Supermorff) 86.131.16.191 11:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ainfos.ca

The \bainfos\.ca filter is removing legitimate links from ainfos.ca (not bainfos.ca). For example, a link was removed from W:Popular Indigenous Council of Oaxaca "Ricardo Flores Magon" today. Further, bainfos.ca doesn't even seem to exist. - 70.145.240.170 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

done - Thats a bad regex, it was added because it was listed as a url redirect service, and when I did my scan of it manually I thought it was. It is fixed. Actually I take that back this link was actually spammed on multiple wikis by one account. Blacklisting it was the only way to prevent more additions, let me think about it. You may view the problem here. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

why is this site considered as producing spam. ainfos is a discussion list and an article site. --192.188.55.3 01:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

ulkerfenerbahce.com

What are you doing ? This site not spam. Sport Club Basketball name Ulkerfenerbahce and fenerbahceulker. (a little speak english) and

Please post in the correct section. Naconkantari 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

here is the reason why its on the blacklist. As this was very recent I recommend against removal. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

antu.com

Fenerbahce sport club official supporter site. --Antispam 12:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please post in the correct section. Naconkantari 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

nezumi.dumousseau.free.fr/japon/japcontar1.htm

Why is this blacklisted? I needed to create a link to Hiroshi Araki's artistic creations...Urhixidur 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please post in the correct section. Naconkantari 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

alleydog.com

The following discussion is closed: removed

Template:Sbl-link

This site does not belong on the blacklist because it is an educational site with only positive (useful) intentions. The site was created and run by a Psychologist (PhD in Psychology) specifically as an educational site for psychology students and people interested in psychology. There is no malware, spyware, etc., associate with this site. The site is for educational purposes only.

Here is why alleydog.com is on the spam blacklist

#11 Jul 06 - bot spamming en.wp
alleydog\.com

I will think about removal. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

An added note, please sign your posts using ~~~~. Thank you.—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've found more information here. Still thinking about removal. Does the site have any use? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed; the original incident is relatively old (July 2006), it's quite possible the site is no longer being spammed, and there is conceivably value in the site's content. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:11:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

gelsenkirchen-im-blick.de

Hey, i don't understand, why this Domain is on the Spam blacklist. The Page has no advertisments, is well structured and obtains a lot of Information. It would be nice for me, if somebody gives me some help, how to delete the link from the "Spam blacklist". Best regards, Marcel 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, It was blacklisted due to this. Basically a group of IP addresses, one of them the IP that you are editing from now spammed various foundation sites. The only way to make it stop was vie a blacklisting. As this request and the original spam came from the same IP 217.7.1.116, I'm very weary about removal. I recommend against removal from the blacklist, but I will wait on another meta admin to have a look see. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ruswar.com

ruswar.com — is not spam!--87.118.102.154 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Any other reason? Spam in this case is not a subject, but rather a verb. Things go on this list because the site owner attempted to promote his own site across foundation sites. As I did the original blacklisting, someone else can look into this, but I recommend against blacklisting. If there is a specific use of the site use deeplinking (ie ruswar.com/something). You can request that specific pages be allowed vie local whitelisting. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

racetotheright.com

racetotheright.com is not spam. nor, as Raul654 claims[90] is it an "Attack Page." there is no promotion of this site by the owner, or any members of it on wiki foundation sites.--Zeeboid 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(from below)

I have blacklisted this site per [91] Raul654 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Racetotheright.com is not a spam site. I would like to request that this is added inapproperatly, and have it removed. it does not meet the qualifications of a spam site, not even by a longshot. The issue that was braught up by this site is it contains a place where users can log in and discuss wikipedia rule infractions.--Zeeboid 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who can assist with this, or where do I need to go to get this corrected?--Zeeboid 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been blacklisted not for spamming, but because it's an attack site (focusing on individuals who edit primarily on global warming articles) and a staging ground for POV editors bent on inserting their bias into our global warming-related articles. Raul654 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs? your opinion of what an attack site is was never backed up at that refrence you gave[92] as no one was able to answer the question "What do you consider an attack page." I fear this is simply a retalitory attack when attempts to ban others failed. the site isn't even mine, yet you claim it is[93] If you are inaccurate there, claiming improper ownership of a website, then I submit you do not know enough wether or not it is an "Attack Page" it blacklist it here. Could you please assist me in knowing the deffinition of an attack page, so we can work from there, becasue I am under the understanding currently, that it is not an attack page.--Zeeboid 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for unlisting

I request hiphopjazzproduction.com hiphopproductions.com flo2flo.com and harmonicazone.com be unlisted from blanklist I have given details on another page and in summation. This blacklist cases brand damage haven paid money for trademarking. The blacklisting took place do to NPOSS and A and B harassment. Links added were suitable to the sections added to. The site is a ten language education site suitable for 13/14 - 18/19 in the british. Some sections on this site are too detailed some are not detailed enough etc. Anyway the constant stalking of nposs and A and B led to them malicious and false arguments which they admitted to in action. I have noticed that this is a strain of behaviour of many on this site not realising wiki world has real word effects. You have associated the site with terms such as vandalous spam etc even though spam is only spam if it is not relavent. And vandalous suggests inappropriate malicious edits which is not and was not the case. I have noticed some filthy links being allowed and countless youtube and myspace links. So arguments that were given were invalid they would accept that it was unvalid and would continue to a new argument. etc. Now there are real world consequences to what you do and they have duped you into making committing brand damage I want these sites removed from your blacklist. This is an education site. People spent 10mins plus on the pages linked to on average so they were useful this is fact! Wiki is for everyone not this clicky community it has become.They have been communicating with others to rope them into the harassment of these links. You have blacklisted flo2flo.com even though the site has not been listed do not put wikipedia in this situation. These sites do not sell there are no advertising if there was advertising there would be nothing wrong with that either you link to countless sites that eventually sell something. Specific pages of education were linked to also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.231.183 (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2007

Some relevant information. I got a note, which can be seen on my talk page here on english wiki and on meta wiki. Following my request for brevity, I got this legal threat. He admits that he uses multiple IPs, which he said is something as a result of his ISP, (accounts for why the IPs are not the same). In any case the discussions where the blacklisting was done is at:

• Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04#hiphopjazzproduction.com
• Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04#hiphopjazzproductions.com
• Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04#harmonicazone.com < the flo2flo site is also in this section.
• en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#hiphopjazzproduction.com < wikiproject spam discussion on the topic.

As I did the original blacklisting I'm going to leave this up to a second meta admin. Regards. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes these guys are thorough in there harassment. It is only a matter of before wiki gets in trouble by this kind of behaviour. You guys are public I will want all mention of these sites to be taken from these pages. flo2flo.com was not even linked to on wikipedia as that is my front page and would serve absolutely no purpose what so ever he simply did that one out of plain harassment I wouldnt be surprised if he added it himself. You shouldnt allow people like that on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.231.183 (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2007

See en:User talk:Rickie rich#Summary: flo2flo.com accounts and behaviour on Wikipedia for a summary of this user's multiple accounts, domains, blocks and discussions.--A. B. ^(talk) 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

EVERYONE USES MULTIPLE IPS IN EUROPE NO ONE CAN HELP THAT U ARE BEING ARGUMENTATIVE STOP STALKING ME —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.237.241 (talk • contribs) .

Goto rickie rich user talk for proof of stalking by A B he has catalogued the extent of his stalking and admitts to brand damaging of flo2flo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.237.241 (talk • contribs) .

• Stalking

AB has now tracked down my address and encouraged viewing. EAGLE WHY are you not address my concerns this is not acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.234.62 (talk • contribs) .

• eagle

Everybody uses multiple IPs no one has a static IP anymore in Europe I have explained this over and over again. There is a real world out there you cannot do things by wiki world rules now make the changes I have requested stop fanning the flames. How can you adhere to brand damage and fight for the continuing support of brand damage. Fix this problem please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.237.241 (talk • contribs) .

• According to the sie owner's complaint to OTRS, not being allowed to add his links to Wikipedia is ruining his website. I don't think one could ask for a clearer endorsement of blacklisting than that. There appear to be only two ways forward form here: leave it on the blacklist, or unlist it and return to the endless round of revert, block, ignore. I'd say the former is less disruptive and a better use of our time. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I said you idiot why it is not okay right to link to my home address to find other things I am involved in that have nothing to do with wikipedia slander my sites etc. I did not say what you said. I am going to the police with this cause this is crazy. You can trace other things I am involved in and put me on a blacklist that is used by other people you have associated my brands with terms like vandelous spam etc etc. Haven stated that your blacklist is used by others. Gary you are a liar. 84.13.244.247 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• That really moves the debate forward, doesn't it? Oh, by the way, factual inaccuracy above: not everybody uses multiple IPs in Europe. Mine has been static for about three years. There is no "brand damage". The only damage is that you can't use Wikimedia sites to boost your site traffic. Find some other way of getting traffic, helping you get traffic to your site is not one of our objectives. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

When you create a new word that you trademark it is new. as a result when search algorithms try to decide what it is about they use proximity equations so if you have a new word associated with spam vandelous etc. You have link to porn etc which eagle has allowed and not blocked *[94] Mine on the other had is an education site at both ends basic and complex. I removed commercial catalogues that Nposs has a business association with etc. And as a result everything I am involved with is tracked down and my address linked on things that have nothing to do with wikipedia. If that happened in the real world, well it just wouldnt happen. In wikiworld people think that it is okay. If a search is down on any of these companies wiki spam and vandelous opinions will come up even before my sites because wiki is highly ranked everywhere. I was getting 110+ visitors a day before wikipedia had any of my links now it is down to 14. with my site being associated with spam vandelous etc. If I submit to any directory that is human edited they will do a search and wikipedia spam and vandelous will come up you have done massive brand damage. If I attach my brands to anything in the real world spam etc will come up. As well as links to my address. I can not comprehend how no one can even understand what you have done. I simple cannot believe. A. B. new what he was doing because that was his intention

• I suggest we close this discussion as being plainly unproductive. Even if the site were removed from the blacklist, any links would be swiftly reverted per en:WP:EL, en:WP:COI and en:WP:SPAM. The meat of the request appears to be that this is all a vast conspiracy to keep the site owner from his inalienable right to get traffic from Wikipedia. The only person who fails to see where he has gone wrong is the requester himself. This is in spite of at least four admins having told him, both here and on OTRS. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oh please not again. Dealing with these links has been a massive nuisance on .en. None of these links would ever be able to stay on .en anyways and their comments about traffic issues amount to an admission that they want to spam Wikimedia projects to boost their ranking. JoshuaZ 03:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have been told that basically you have committed libel you have also admitted libel. Why is it you guys dont understand that we live in the real world you are not allowed to commit libel. I have said I no longer want anything to do with wiki, I said that i want all content to do with me and my brands. Including libel. but you refuse and continue to link all over to my address even though I have said not to. You lot simple will not stop. NOW FUCK OFF stop linking to my address and stop libeling my BRANDS I HAVE SAID IT whoops that is another rule break. I bet you guys are going to trackdown my family members and start linking to their addresses as well. Sick Sick people.

A. B. stop your mission you have gone too far.

• A. B. has diliberately set out to libel these domains and you are going to get in alot of trouble over that blacklist because more than wiki world use that list. Alot more which is why my traffic yet down and is down on when I even new about wiki.

• It seems you still don't get it. Linking your own site(s) is what we call spamming. Tracking a user's addition of their own sites to articles is a legitimate activity. Blacklisting a domain that has been spammed is not libellous, it's a recognition of the fact that it has been spammed, see en:WP:SPAM. Wikipedia cannot damage a domain or trademarked name by blacklisting, all we do is prevent users from abusing our projects to promote it. If your business model relies on links from Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, your business is probably doomed. en:WP:EL and en:WP:COI also discuss this situation. You state that your traffic is down as a result? Not our problem. Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects are not here to boost your site traffic. The fact that you appear to think that our projects are a legitimate way to boost your site traffic is precisely why you are blacklisted. It really does not get a lot simpler than this, and it has been explained to you a number of times with varying degrees of bluntness. Find some other way of improving your site traffic. Just zis Guy, you know? 06:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• It is libellous the world doesnt run by your laws you can not blacklist sites that have not been spammed by anyones definition, I am not running a business you dumb ass. You dont get it do. It is not a MONEY MAKING SITE i AM NOT SOME SORT OF BILL GATES. Yes you have damaged a trademark A. B. sees it as that which is why he ran round wiki talking about flo2flo.com which has not even been launched nor was it linked to you DUMB idiot. You have worked on the assumption that you guys are normally you are not. You have libeled my sites.
• Wikipedia will only last until someone can afford to sue because there are so many law breaks it is ridiculous

• Since you are unable to state your complaint in terms any of us can comprehend, I suspect the problem may be your end. We have not libelled your site, we have blacklisted it. As far as I'm aware the blacklist is not indexed by Google,

• Yes it is

and even if it was that would not constitute libel because your site met the criteria for listing, which we make clear; however, a debate has been started about renaming the page to "url blacklist" to avoid even the slightest danger that some deluded individual would sue on the basis that their Wikispamming was being described as spamming; as our article makes clear, link spamming in user-editable resources is indeed identified as a form of spamming, so that is not actually a problem. Actually, though, the blacklist does not seem to appear in Google searches and this debate (which you initiated) appears on only the third or fourth page of Google hits for "flo2flo", to pick one at random, so it's extremely hard to see what damage is being done to your trademark - unless you assert (and this does appear to be your contention) that the value of your trademark is undermined by not being able to link from Wikimedia projects - in which case you are simply wrong. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• No it is not deluded and you would lose other people use that list it is the big man of wiki tredding on the little guy. No they did not meet the criteria because you black listed sites that were not even linked to only two of the four were and A. B. admitted that he traced down businesses/things he thought I was involved in. it is on your blacklist so it is on about a few thousand anti spam programs already. So if I send a mail to some servers it will not get through at all. If it stays on there are year I am done for. You guys act like the big business you hate. Your idiots. It took me A. B. days to realise it is wrong to link to peoples addresses. He been doing it for months.So basically you admitt damage just question to what amount you guys are strange you see that you are wrong but still assertain the right to act like that

• Put down the stick and step away from the horse carcass. The problem you describe above comes under the heading of unintended consequences of your own actions, a.k.a. "things you should have thought of before abusing a free volunteer project for promotion of your own enterprises". Just zis Guy, you know? 21:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• ON that note I take that as an admission. volunteer doesnt mean you can break the law. I will have to even things up somehow. As I can not afford to take wikipedia to court at the moment maybe I could get wikipedia to take me to court.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.254.61 (talk • contribs) .

Outrate.net

Hello. Is it possible to request local whitelisting for the above site? It was blacklisted completely in March, but I discussed with Eagle 101 the possibility of having certain site pages white listed.

Right, on what sites, and what pages? You should have a look at local whitelisting, the key thing is to request deeplinks such as outrate.net/index.php ect. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response. I've had a look at the local whitelisting page, but am not sure how to suggest inclusion of deep links.

Suggested pages and links would be:

(For the wikipedia entry "Camille Paglia"): outrate.net/camillepaglia.html - Extensive and recent interview with Camille Paglia.

"Midnight Express", "Billy Hayes": outrate.net/billyhayes.html - an interview with Billy Hayes.

And a couple more. What should I do, exactly?

Thank you for your fast response. I understand that I request a whitelisting in the talk page of the relevant pages, eg for the entry "Camille Paglia" I wanted to add outrate.net/camillepaglia.html

Is this correct?

I assume we are talking about the english wiki. If that is the case en:WP:WHITELIST is where you want to look. Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Although quite why we would whitelist a spammed ad-riddled site to add links to articles which are already well supported by links and sources is a bit of a puzzle... Just zis Guy, you know? 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(debt|financ|loan|morgage).*\.blogspot.com

Here is one item on the spam blacklist:

(debt|financ|loan|morgage).*\.blogspot.com

It has been there for a long time but it seems too broad. It is blocking some legitimate external links I want to add to en:Comparison of Canadian tax solutions. Could you please broaden it to say

(debt|financ|loan|morgage).*-.*\.blogspot.com

instead? It would still cover the majority of such spam sites at Blogspot, since most spam sites tend to have dashes in their domain names. Cheers, en:user:unforgettableid

Um, why on earth would we want to link to a blog with a title matching this pattern? Surely if there is a blog which matches the pattern and is a valid link we can use local whitelisting for that site; the chances of spam are vastly greater than those of valid sources with such domains. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to link to a certain review on canadianfinancialdiy.blogspot.com. It seems the blacklist entry I am up against is the only one so broad; most of the other ones with (, |, and ) are much narrower. I don't want other people to hit the same problem as me. But never mind; I will request whitelisting instead. --en:user:unforgettableid

tutorialspoint.com

Just found that tutorialspoint.com got blacklisted because I had added many links from this site to wiki. I was not aware if this could cause a problem for this site. I'm not owner of this sit, yeah I have gone throug few tutorials available on this site and I was impressed so I had added them on WIKI. I appologize for my mistake and request you not to blacklist this site because of me. I'm not sure if its owner know about it or not but I can make sure that I will refrain from adding any further link.

Now its upto you what decision you take. Again sorry for my mistakes. S.S.

--

09 F9 ...

This isn't a URL, yet it is banned. The spam blacklist is not designed as a method of censorship for legal purposes and works exceedingly poorly as one, as the above header demonstrates. For the record, I was trying to edit w:Talk:HD DVD but was unable to because it already had this string in it. GreenReaper 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to edit a deletion review on an article of this name (now at w:Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 2/09 9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0) and got blocked by the spam blacklist. This seems grossly inappropriate. --Goobergunch 06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done this is not currently on the spam blacklist. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 07:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This appears to be due to Wikipedia developers attempting to add it to a local spam regex. See w:MediaWiki talk:Spamprotectiontext. If this sort of thing happens regularly I'd suggest updating the message there, because otherwise people get redirected here. GreenReaper 07:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I really really doubt the devs added it. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 07:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone who had access to globalsettings.php did temporarily, it seems, since Goobergunch got it as well. It's not there now.GreenReaper 07:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wishes to censor content (and unlike some of the digg-reading kiddies I can actually see why they would want to) they should do so honestly and openly. This is not a url, yet I was unable to add it to my user page because it is said to be a blacklisted hyperlink. Please Wikipedia- give your reasons for wishing to censor this content, and do so transparently. Not by fraudulent means. Lurker 10:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note you can add the key by posting half of it, then saving page, then addimg the rest. Hah! Talk about an amateurish way of censoring content. Lurker 10:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

El no poder poner esta serie de números me parece una forma de censura que está fuera de lugar en una enciclopedia libre como esta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.18.10.185 (talk • contribs) . (English translation by Babelfish: "Not to be able to put this series of numbers it seems to me a censorship form that is outside place in a free encyclopedia like this.") --Versageek 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, lets try this again :) The spam blacklist does **NOT** have the ability to backlist that number, regardless if we want it to or not. If that string is blacklisted by now, it was done by the developers. In otherwords this is Not done (not added or removed). :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So what remedy is there? How does one officially communicate with the developers to request it removed?--Cerejota 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• You think they don't know that people want to continue the keyspamming? Just zis Guy, you know? 21:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

wannasurf.com

Site was added on 10. January because someone added it and blueplanetsurfmaps.com to many surfing pages. I think it's one of the best databases for surf spots. Please remove it from the blacklist, if it's added again to many pages, we can blacklist it for good. --85.197.25.18 16:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I support your request. --213.150.1.85 06:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

fremderfreiheitsschacht.de

Please give me at least one reason why this is listed. The page has a lot of information about the de:Wandergeselle and their traditions. Thank you. --84.177.91.13 11:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC) = de:Benutzer:Peng

Zorpia.com

Last year this domain was blacklisted because some of its members where using it to spam Wikimedia sites. We fully understand Wikimedia's desire to protect itself from this kind of activity, and have sought to rectify this situation fully. This has taken much effort and man hours, from many members of our team, so we hope you will consider our actions carefully.

Summary of Actions:

In March of 2006, Zorpia.com was attacked by a group of spammers. They created free profiles on Zorpia and used JavaScript code in their profiles to re-direct a user from the Zorpia site to a spam website. These spammers also posted links to their spam pages on other websites including Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Zorpia’s name was discredited as a result. Since April 2006, the spamming activities on Zorpia.com have been largely reduced by the coordinated efforts of both our administrative and technical teams.

Administrators Side:

1.Searched for and banned spammer pages presented by the Google search results as well as any pages linked to them.

2.Searched for suspicious codes in the journals, comments, skins, private messages, testimonials, text areas, different profile sections, headers and footers of suspected pages. These accounts were banned accordingly if found to be containing malicious links.

Technical Part:

1.Blocked JavaScript code from being entered into the free membership profiles. Spammers can no longer enter codes to re-direct other users to other websites.

2.Used the system to search for JavaScript code in the pages of suspected spammers. The administrative team investigated those profiles and banned them accordingly.

3.Submitted banned Zorpia links to Google in order to remove these pages from the Google search results that link Zorpia’s name to malicious spam web pages.

4.Mass ban (including IP address) of suspected profiles.

5.Future projects such as the “URL-spam-checker” are being developed to tighten security even more. Programs like these will stop spammers from being able to advertise the website that they work for and enhance the efficiency of our banning effort.

We do feel that after these concerted efforts by our team, that the domain should be whitelisted, as we do not feel it poses a significant spamming risk to Wikimedia sites. Thank you for your kind consideration.--Ayako 13:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How do these links benefit Wikipedia and do they meet the requirements, for the English Wikipedia, of the External Links and Reliable Sources Guidelines?

We are not asking here about a Wikipedia entry, and there are no links mentioned. Please correct me if I am wrong, but what do External Links and Reliable Sources have to do with blacklist removal, and our great efforts to prevent Zorpia from spamming wikiMedia sites? None of the above text is concerned or attempts to be concerned with the English Wikipedia. This post is concerning our blacklist entry for wikiMEDIA. After a good faith effort, I would just hope for a reasonable consideration on this SPECIFIC topic.--Ayako 00:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, there was a barrage of attacks from Zorpia people on admins and editors involved with cleaning up this mess a month or so ago. What's the story on that? --A. B. ^(talk) 18:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I echo the above questions. Just zis Guy, you know? 19:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: The question echoed is "How do these links benefit Wikipedia and do they meet the requirements, for the English Wikipedia, of the External Links and Reliable Sources Guidelines?" - The above plea contains NO links, nor does it ask for an inclusion in the English Wikipedia. After much effort exercised by Zorpia, I urge other editors to actually READ the submission above.

Lemme quote www.zorpia.com/group/zorpia_wikipedia_petition :

Zorpia.com is being deleted AND BLACKLISTED by Wikipedia. It means that no one can EVER mention Zorpia in Wikipedia. E.g.:
- Zorpia cannot appear in Wikipedia's list of social networking websites.
- Wikipedia's 9/11 entry cannot refer to your page, when you write about your valid and unique conspiracy theory about 9/11 in Zorpia.

- Wikipedia's Britney Spears entry cannot refer to your photos, even if you are a paparazzi having taken a photo of her shaving her head!

The two latter points are a VERY GOOD reason not to remove this site from blacklist. MaxSem 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Zorpia was blacklisted for spamming, you are quoting out of context on issues irrelevant to this matter. Bloggers mentioning current events and referencing on wikiPEDIA has nothing to do with white listing on wikiMEDIA's many sites/projects. Please note the domain we are in (meta.wikiMEDIA.org)--Ayako 00:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

With regards to this domain, meta.wikimedia.org, here is the description from the main page:

• "Welcome to Meta-Wiki, a website devoted to the coordination of the Wikimedia Foundation's projects, including Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and the MediaWiki software on which it runs."

Projects, such as different language versions of Wikipedia, typically have whitelists that specifically apply just to them. For instance, the discussion page for the English language Wikipedia's whitelist is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. You can ask for whitelisting at the projects where you wish to add links, assuming those links are appropriate. You'll probably have better success doing this than trying to get global whitelisting here.

I hope this helps. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

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).

Adrian Noble

Hi, I translated the Adrian Noble pages from England and the Netherlands, and merged them into the German article. But now I cannot put the language link de:Adrian Noble on the English site. In the Netherlands and on the German site, there is no problem to make the correct links. I always get the 'spam' warning. What can be done about this problem? anne-theater 11.4.07

What is the warning that you are getting? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC

artericerca.com

When I attempted to add interwiki on en:Giovanni Boldini to Croatian wikipedia hr:Giovanni Boldini I got Spam protection filter warning for artericerca.com, there seems to be \bartericerca\.com\b in the blacklist which is triggered. --Ivan Bajlo 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)