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 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.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|527016#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If you cannot find your remark below, it has probably been archived at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01 or Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/02.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

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.

dqsoft.com, dqfree.com

Per http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/10642#comment-60436 which was also discussed on WikiEN-l. DQsoft have been engaging, by their own frank admission, in a long-term spamming campaign. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I think a meta-blacklist is in order Eagle 101 02:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence of being spammed to any wiki. The link given appears to be a post of someone other then that web site. Eagle 101 00:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The spam was removed. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs showing where it was spammed before? Or at least diffs of when it was removed. Cheers! Eagle 101 15:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

truegamesreviews.info

The ninth URL to a warez paysite, spammed into articles [1] [2] [3] [4] by one-use anons. Exterminate. --Kizor 12:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

looks like the IP's are on 3 seperate ranges, a link search turned up 4 more that I then removed. ([5] [6] [7] [8]) By the looks of this this may be a problem that can be addressed by the blacklist. There currently are 0 links in the English wikipedia to this site, (others I have not checked), the search to the english wiki can be done here. Hope this helps! Eagle 101 04:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Without blacklisting, it appears this link is no longer being spammed into the english wikipedia. Eagle 101 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

theoneworld.org

An anon is repeatedly recreating an article about his or her website. The initial attempt went to AfD at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One World Many Cultures and was deleted. Since then they have repeatedly overwritten the existing article w:One World Project. As the IP address changes frequently, blocks are not working.-Gadfium 05:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, does not look like this has any use on the english wikipedia, (as shown here, is linked 7 times, those can be modified to allow the pages to save with ease). A blacklist here to stop that IP would probably be of use at this point. I don't see where any harm would be done by a blacklisting. Eagle 101 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, you could simply protect the article. (a semi-protect, or if it is really bad, full-protect) for a few days or weeks. The IPs adding this are as follows, the link is to the diff of the IP, making the change:

• IP 219.88.143.149
• IP 202.154.137.127
• IP 202.154.137.125
• IP 219.88.143.162

Currently looks like the problem has been resolved for the time being using a semi-protection. Eagle 101 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article while this was being considered. I thought the spam blacklist was preferred to semi-protection in these circumstances. However, we'll see if the anon comes back once the semi-protection expires.-Gadfium 02:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

communityhotline.com, etc.

• communityhotline.com, polkcountymuseum.com, johndeeretractors.net, earlyhistory.googlepages.com, state.information.googlepages.com

These links belong to a thrice-banned spammer on en.WP, en:user:West wikipedia. He adds "communityhotline.org" and "polkcountymuseum.com" to communities in Wisconsin, for example: [9][10][11][12], or [13][14][15][16]. He adds "johndeeretractors.net" to a variety of farm machinery articles. [17][18][19][20] He adds "earlyhistory.googlepages.com" and "state.information.googlepages.com" to state articles (as well as some tractor articles and holidays). [21][22][23][24]

His known identities are:

• en:user:West wikipedia
• en:user:69.4.121.216
• en:user:64.33.177.170
• en:user:Unity-north
• en:user:Extreme outdoors
• en:user:Eric outdoors

The user has been rude and devious, and has often removed other external links before adding his own. -en:user:Will Beback 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The IPs appear to be originating from the same company. 64.33.177.170 is static, and can be blocked without fear of collateral. The other I can't tell. Are those the only two IPs that the problem is coming from as of now? Eagle 101 16:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Those are the only IPs that I've noticed so far. -Will Beback 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok in that situation, perhaps just block both IPs with account creation disabled? Then there would be no need to add the sites to the blacklist, as long as they don't switch IPs agian. Cheers! Eagle 101 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty easy to change IPs. I'll try it, but it seems like a partial solution. -Will Beback 21:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

goatse.cz

Self explanatory—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Has it been spammed? Eagle 101 23:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

all-car-photos.com

Constant spam on de.wp since November 2006 by diverse accounts I've just blocked: SimonaFergusson, EffesOler, KilieRet, CaddyDaddy1, Georgia78, GiovanniH, Licafors, Gorte, Vestarpfen. --Gardini 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Has it been spammed by more then one IP range? Might be useful to set the auto-block there and see if the spam stops. Eagle 101 16:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not only the spam. all-car-photos.com takes many articles and pictures from the de.wikipedia and put them under it's own copyright. Look at this: [25]. --62.226.13.155 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Shayanashop.com

Spamming a lot of mushroom and psychedelic drug articles, see [26]. -GTBacchus 07:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Has it been spammed on more then one IP range and or across wikis? Eagle 101 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

elliottgann.com

The following discussion is closed: done

Spams commodity-related articles on the English Wikipedia using multiple accounts.[27][28][29][30] This French website also probably has links on the French Wikipedia.[31] Adopted a new user name disruptively similar to that of an editor who deleted his links. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

unitedfutures.com, brightcommoditybroker.com

User has spammed multiple commodities-related articles over the last year using at least 16 different accounts as well as creating multiple spam articles.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Documented at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#unitedfutures.com (the tidy guy). --A. B. ^(talk) 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Permanent link (Permanent link) Eagle 101 21:47, 8 February 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.

A few sites

#These sites are redirecting requests from Wikimedia sites to a third-party site\.
\.namebase\.org
wikipedia-watch\.org    
google-watch\.org       
cia-on-campus\.org      
\.scroogle\.org
yahoo-watch\.org

I came across an article with these external links that weren't links, then viewed the source to see why. They are listed as <nowiki>, and the Talk page has a discussion about them being here because they redirect. However, after clicking the links from an editing preview page, they don't redirect. Regardless of whether we agree with the content of the links, I don't see why they should be blacklisted, since the reason they're blacklisted is not (at least now) the case. Nathanm mn 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A news article reports that MSN Messenger is blocking www.scroogle.org. If true, could MSN be importing the spam blacklist? What are the liability implications for the Foundation if a domain is on this list that cannot accurately be described as spam? 216.60.70.68 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Request denied (again) - same reasons as before. Raul654 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What reasons? The stated one on the Spam blacklist is wrong. They don't redirect requests from Wikimedia, I tested it. Nathanm mn 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, please be aware that any link to these sites on enwiki would be immediately reverted, and any editor repeatedly inserting or re-inserting them would be blocked from editing and most likely permanently banned. This is per ArbCom ruling. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are they still blacklisted though, when they no longer redirect? And technically, they are not spam. --Majorly 14:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. Ashibaka 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So basically, there's an ArbCom ruling to censor these links because they disagree with the content? That's what it sounds like to me at least. Nathanm mn 08:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The real reason is that Raul654 thinks I am in the business of stalking young children, but this is false and malicious and therefore libelous. I've never seen any evidence that there was an Arbcom statement on this topic. There is now a page at wikipedia-watch.org/raul654.html that places the blame entirely on Raul. If Arbcom is involved, and someone can provide a citation, I'll be happy to expand that page. --Daniel Brandt 216.60.71.100 19:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Very droll. The real reason is that the arbitration committee on en: has ruled that linking to any site which "outs" the real identity of Wikipedia editors, or which contains personal attacks on editors, is a blockable offence. It is my understanding that mr. Brandt wants nothing to do with us, and the feeling is certainly reciprocated. Just zis Guy, you know? 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If the outing of Wikipedia editors is illegal, Wikipedia or the individual editors can take legal action. If it is not illegal, there is no reason to block links to his site. Even if we dislike him, giving the appearance of censorship on Wikipedia means he wins. If the redirection thing occurs again, then next to the text links there should be an explanation of why there are no "normal "links. It sure looked like censorship to me, and I'm a Wikipedia fan. -Alexbobp

I agree completely. If an editor's been "outed" on his site, alert them to that fact and let them take action on their own. It's not a reasonable justification for censorship. Nathanm mn 05:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to the arbitration committee on en. Oh, and do remember to use the word censorship - they especially like that, it's always a hallmark of a calm and reasoned request. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

hkmrr.hk.ohost.de/rundbrief.htm

Used in de:Rainer Riehn. Can't see what's wrong with that page, seems to be an application form to a reliable newsletter. --85.180.179.248 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

ohost.de is being used by spammers as well. You might try whitelisting on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Diskussion:Spam-whitelist. (No decision yet, if another admin does want to remove this from the blacklist, they have my blessing) - Andre Engels 11:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

blog.myspace.com

Having trouble seeing how this is considered spam, but it's been recently added to the list, despite being pretty widly used (mostly on en.wikipedia) This site has a large number of user including a substancial number of musicians whose postings here had previouslly made it possible to link to copyrighted matrial this site had direct posting from the origional copyright owners and such was not a violation. There may have been a little spam from some, but the benifits that come from blacklisting this site are vastly outweighed by the problems that are caused... -- (sorry, no username on meta)

I agree. Many celebrities, especially musicians, maintain MySpace pages and blogs, and the English Wikipedia, at least, allows these blogs to be used as sources. --Maxamegalon2000 02:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And I'm now unable to revert vandalism on any page that has a link to a MySpace blog without either going at it one section at a time or deleting the link, and deleting the link would itself be considered vandalism. I'd definitely like to see this hostname removed from the filters. --Psiphiorg (en.wikipedia.org) 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the usefulnes of this site in general, and I'm not aware of any SPAM using it. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Aha. Requested by Jimbo. You may be wasting your time here. Just zis Guy, you know? 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a comment at his talk page. A small discussion has ensued, but he hasn't commented yet. --Maxamegalon2000 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this will mark the first time I disagree with Jimbo on something. MySpace blogs are very useful because they can be first-hand sources from many famous people (who have official MySpace pages). Will someone please whitelist this? --Liface 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently link articles in en:wikipedia:

• current list of articles that include the link *.blogs.myspace.com -- 1 link
• current list of articles that include the link *.blogs.myspace.com -- 201 links

Here's the breakdown:

• 5 links in 5 Image pages
• 42 links in 42 Article talk pages
• 19 in 17 User talk pages
• 42 in 40 User pages
• 1 in a Wikipedia talk page
• 49 in 45 Wikipedia pages
  • 9 links in old articles for creation requests
  • 32 links in AfD or VfD pages and logs
  • 8 links in other Wikipedia
• 52 in 43 Article pages

--A. B. ^(talk) 08:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put the list on a user subpage: en:User:A. B./Sandbox9 to give people a sense of the kinds of linked articles and the quality of the links. It can also serve as a clean-up list. --A. B. ^(talk) 08:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's also a discussion about this at WP:Reliable Sources I've like to see this removed from the blacklist. If the authenticity of the MySpace owner is verified, I don't see why this can't be used as citations - 60.240.174.126 10:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is a final decision then as not only has it been blacklisted the link has just been deleted from Eat Static breaking the reference it was part of which was to a blog on an official MySpace by a recognised authority (band member) - which is normally allowed by policy. I only found out it was blacklisted when I tried to restore it.82.41.98.219 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just look at some of the MySpace blog citations Wizardry Dragon has been indiscriminately removing from articles even though their authenticity has been verified. [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] and there's a lot more if you look at his contributions. - 60.240.174.126 02:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon has done the same thing to Feeder regarding a MySpaceblog that is the only way to back up the fact that the band raised 62,000 pounds at their gigs for the charity WarChild. I tried to re-add the link but he's blocked it and is definetly vandalism.

Marcus Bowen 12:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted an edit to the Lance Bass article that included a link to a MySpace blog as a citation, but I had to remove the link and just include the URL as text. I suppose until this site is removed from the blacklist, this is what we will have to do in order to properly cite our sources. --Psiphiorg (en.wikipedia.org) 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot understand why official sources are being blacklisted, this must be the single stupidest thing that I have ever seen Wikipedia do. Very confused and disappointed. --210.10.183.24 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This a real pain in the ass. If you want to block MySpace images from getting inserted, then blacklist viewmorepics.myspace.com , and not blogs.myspace.com24.52.190.122 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• We wanted to block myspace blogs, so blogs.myspace.com was exactly right. Thanks for asking, though :-) Myspace sites remain linkable, only the blogs are blocked. Individual blogs which are required as sources can be whitelisted on request, as at the the admin noticeboard. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just tried editing the Kirk Cameron and Julie McCullough articles, in particular the portions that deal with how the former had the latter fired from Growing Pains, which had a citation tag on it. I wanted to add a source so that I could remove the tag, and since McCullough discusses the matter on her MySpace page, I added a bit of material, and the source, but it got automatically reverted. I don't see why this should be so, and I'd like to know what Jimbo's reasoning is on this matter. And as far as reliable sources, well, I would think that McCullough herself is a pretty reliable souce on the matter. 67.82.110.48 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

www.ohs.150m.com

This is the legitimate home page of a legitimate high school. I don't know why it's blocked, maybe an issue with the hosting service, but I haven't been able to complete my edits to the school's wiki article because it contains a link to the school's website, which is a most necessary external link. Oknazevad 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (sorry, didn't realize I wasn't logged in the first time.)

Because of edits like this one, 150m.com has been blacklisted. I haven't made a decision yet - I'll get back to this later if noone else beats me to it. - Andre Engels 13:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Andre the site 150m.com has multiple subdomains, each operated by different people. Blocking the whole site blocks all of those. Can't we just block by subdomain without blocking an entire domain? I ran across a user removing links to other subdomains based on the blacklist here, that are actually useful articles about a subject of an article on wikipedia. Thanks. Wjhonson 21:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

iyisozluk.com

Hello my site (iyisozluk.com) is now black list.This site is online Multi language dictionary turkish from other 12 language therefor I'm adding my link to 3 article (dictionary,turkish,turkey) all wiki country sites. I thing this very much links for wikimedia. What can I do now for my site ?

Sory my bad english

And Thanks ...

Looks like this link has been spammed, across multiple wikis, at least that is what I am taking "pan-wiki" spam to mean. From the blacklist log:

 \.iyisozluk\.com               # Jdforrester # pan-wiki spam

Hope that helps. If there are pages in it that are good and relevent to a particular page, I suggest asking for white listing on that specific wiki. Eagle 101 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

www.chiquitania.com

Please unblock this site. It is a non-profit, non-commercial site that exists only as an online resource for information regarding the Chiquitania, a geographic region of eastern Bolivia. I am trying to submit an article on this same region (none exists as yet on Wikipedia), and the Web site referred to is an invaluable source for further information. Thanks. --User ID: 3303832 11:47, 20 January 2007 (CST)

It looks as if this was a problem on the Dutch Wikipedia with a Dutch tour operator spamming links to the chiquitania.com's links page. This happened after his own company's link was blacklisted as persistent spam. His company has a link on that chiquitania.com links page. See Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01#chiquitania.com. If the link is not removed from the blacklist here, you can probably get it whitelisted on the English Wikipedia only at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Other language Wikipedias have similar provisions for whitelisting as well. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

mojeosiedle.pl

Dunno if this is considered 'widespread' but... The address above is a Polish site hosting various forums focused around different local communities in Polish cities of Tró)jmiasto (Tricity. The tagline on some of those reads: "Talk to your neighbour without leaving home.")

Link additions by:

• http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad/Mojeosiedle_pl
• various other IPs (see [47])

Since some of those edits came from one IPS, we blocked the whole subnet, pending addition to the blacklist. --TOR 17:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please clarify? Is this a request to add a link to the blacklist? Eagle 101 02:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Suite101.com

Some of the writers in some of the topics on Suite101 have legitimate reasons to be cited. For example, one long gone movie columnist actually interviewed legit pros, and I published the only article on Loblaw's w:Sesame Beginnings licensing after Sesame Workshop issued a press release. I agree that yes, a lot of the time people post on Wikipedia only to drive traffic to the Suite's payment-per-2000-views structure. However, there are some legit writers there that don't do that, and let other Wikipedians link to their content. -- Zanimum 19:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

An additional information: we changed our writer payment model as of January 24, 2007. Writers do not directly benefit from page impressions in the future, (see Suite101's recruitment and payment terms) which was cited as one of the chief reasons when we were blacklisted. Bergerpeter 17:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See the following for historical background on Suite101.com and its relationship to Wikipedia.

• en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec
• Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/12#suite101.com
• Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01#suite101.com
• en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Grandparent page on wikipedia

I copied the following from http:// www. suite101.com/writer_faq as of today:

"How long will it take before I start to earn money as a freelance writer?"

"You start earning and accruing money right away, but how much depends on many factors including the rate at which you post new content, the quality of the articles, the aptness of your titles, the amount of promotion you do, the speed at which the search engines index and rank you... but you are paid your share of ad revenues on your material, in full, monthly."

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I really see no reason why Suite101 should be on the blacklist. The site is editorially controlled, reliable, and Wikipedia contributors acknowlege the referential value of many of its articles again and again. Our writers do get paid, and I believe that is appropriate for quality writing. If I understand correctly, Wikipedia is now adding rel="nofollow" tags to all external links (which I think is a great decision); that removes any incentive for people to abuse Wikipedia for search engine reasons. When Wikipedia contributors base their Wikipedia articles on Suite101 content, I strongly feel they should be able to refer to the original source of reference. Bergerpeter 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a debate about possibly reversing the nofollow decision in the future, perhaps in several months after the current large SEO contest. It's unclear where that discussion's going. Jimbo Wales has caught flack from many editors about this decision both from outside and inside Wikipedia (personally I support his decision). --A. B. ^(talk) 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Our site is an editorially monitored writer network. Suite101 has tens of thousands of unique articles and currently 250 active Feature Writers. There has been no systematic spamming other than a few of our writers inserting links to their own articles. This has been solved and those writers won't do it again, since it was done in ignorance. The idea of the spam blacklist is to keep off persistent link spammers, not references to highly useful material or to ban sites that earn money and share revenues with writers; it would only be fair and in the interest of Wikipedia's rules to remove suite101.com from the spam blacklist. Bergerpeter 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The site was blacklisted because someone promoted it. Your terms of use actually incorage people to link to items that they write. See the original blacklist request here. Sorry. Eagle 101 22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen many examples of WP:OR issues from material referenced from this blacklisted site. This is in addition to the spam-linking which was regularly occurring before the blacklist was placed. I too I support the decision of Jimbo Wales based on the spam concerns. 71.111.138.207 01:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

wiener-gasometer.at

The following discussion is closed: done

Hello! I have uploaded some photos of the Gasometer in Vienna at the Commons of Wikipedia and wanted to add this photographs to the relevant pages on other language sites of Wikipedia. It was not my intention to produce spam. Please remove the URL from the Blacklist. I wont add a weblink to the URL on new image-descriptions any more and I am extremely sorry that I have done this. You will find on the website a non-commercial academic/scientific documentation of the Gasometer in Vienna. Greetings, Andreas Pöschek Andreas.poeschek 00:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remove this domain from the list. It is completely absurd to have this non-commercial site blacklisted. Today I was adding an entry to the Jean Nouvel list of works in the English Wikipedia, when suddenly I was transfixed by this spam filter unexpectedly blocking my edit, forcing me, in order to be able to save my contribution, to delete a perfectly legitimate link to a page from this domain (one showing illustrative photos and info on another of Nouvel's works), a link that was already there as part of the previous version, and it was there for a good purpose; it was not something I was adding in my edit, but I was inexplicably forced to remove that link because otherwise this automated filter bot wouldn't allow me to save a new version of the article. That was just crazy, and very frustrating and annoying. You want to have a spam filter to "protect" Wikipedia, that's OK, but please make sure its blacklist entries make sense and do not actually damage Wikipedia by forcing editors to remove existing legitimate links in order to be able to save their contributions. Uaxuctum 12:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

whale.to

This is not a commercial site. Contains a lot of valuable information, with many external links and medical references from various sources. Lots of information on vaccination and various diseases. The site contains references needed for the pages en:Tetanus and fr:Tétanos. -- Bwass

Looks like this was added a long time ago, needless to say we don't have any logs on when this was added or why. My assumption would be that it was added in in cross wiki spam. And what you are suggesting there looks to be adding it to multiple wikis. Are those the only wikis that need the link? If so I would suggest asking to have specific sections of the site added to the whitelists of the respective wikis. They can whitelist just the pages that are needed for references. Again without logs I really can't tell you why it was added in the first place, my assumption is that someone spammed it across multiple wikis, and or did so using multiple IPs. Cheers! Eagle 101 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd never heard of this site, so I spent about 10 minutes looking at the site and doing a quick Google search. Here's what I found:

First, take a look at the home page, scrolling all the way through it -- it looks very POV. Then a random sampling of pages:

• whale.to/m/map.html "Medical Mind Control"
  • "The methods used by Allopathic Monopoly to suppress the truth. Mostly propaganda---lies, hypnotism and Fearmongering. Aka Mind Control"
• whale.to/w/nat.html "Natural Healing"
  • "80% of my patients were well just after doing my thorough bowel cleansing program."
• whale.to/a/medical_mafia.html "The Medical Mafia"
  • "The worldwide Elite (Boss) of Allopathy. Aka The Drug Trust, Medical Monopoly, Cartel or Industry. Think IG Farben and Medical Fascism. Only the top people in Allopathy know the whole truth on Allopathic medicine, and covert-vaccine agendas."

A Google search on "whale.to wikipedia" turns up:

• whale.to/a/wikipedia.html "The Great Lie of Wikipedia: "the....encyclopedia that anyone can edit.""
• en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto
• en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whale.to

A narrower Google search on "whale.to spam wikipedia":

• Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives
• Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/07#vaccination.org.uk
• Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/07#whale.to

--A. B. ^(talk) 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh nice! you found the logs. Great job A. B. Eagle 101 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Problems with whale.to have included: relentless spamming by the owner; highly POV; copyright violations; off-wiki attacks. Almost all the good content on that site is scraped anyway, often in violation of copyright. Please, no. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

ueuo.com

I have a website as a subdomain of ueuo.com and want to add a link on my Wikipedia user page. Ueuo.com is part of the Free Web Hosting Area which provides free hosting space and it doesn't spam as far as I know. I've been using it for a while. --Jingshen 09:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com

Came across this being on the blacklist while trying to edit the Charles Demuth article. The link in the article looks legitimate, as does the site itself -- I'm not sure why it's blacklisted. --24.7.101.196 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The link was being spammed across wikis. See this for more info. In fact the link was actually added by the same IP that was spamming the other wikis. (See here) The IP was 81.84.142.19, and it hit 11 wikis with that link (counting the english wikipedia link). Cheers! Eagle 101 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, odd. It doesn't look like they're trying to sell anything; maybe just the work of an overenthusiastic site creator? Well, anyway, I'll defer to the admins -- mostly just curious. -24.7.101.196 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here, on French Wikipedia, with Amadeo Modigliani, I don't think it deserve to be blacklisted. Because, non commercial and rich in iconographie. Please, leave it out. Best regards. -- Perky 10:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It was blacklisted because of cross wiki spam, exactly what this list is for :P. If it is suitable on a particular wiki, you can always request that the site, or even specific pages of said site, be whitelisted on your respective local wiki. For example it is en:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist on the english wikipedia. If you need it for another wiki, just ask here, and I can point you in the right direction. Cheers! Eagle 101 19:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems harmless, is not selling anything, has a very rich collection of artworks; the fact that the text is Portugese seems immaterial since all that viewers will want to do is look at the artworks. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why the site should not be available in all languages. Please unblock. --CliffC 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

www.gabrielleray.150m.com

This link and its sublinks was blacklisted, and the related links have been removed from articles. It contains very useful information about older English and American musicals and persons connected with the theatre. Can it be reinstated, please? -- 66.65.114.133 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole domain has been blacklisted becuase of edits like [this one. If that particular link is useful, perhaps ask for it to be whitelisted on the respective wiki. For the english wiki it would be en:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. If you need it for another wiki, just ask here, and I can point you in the right direction. Cheers! Eagle 101 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

See my remark above on another 150m.com subdomain. As I pointed out there and as other people have remarked, blacklisting the entire domain removes useful content. Is there not a way to blacklist by subdomain? If so, I'd like to request the domain be whitelisted and just those offending subs be black. Wjhonson 21:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

nolico.com

The Spam Blacklist complains about nolico.com on the Talk page for w:Compact_fluorescent_lamp. What evidence is there that nolico.com should be on the Spam Blacklist? Chrike 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason it is on the blacklist can be found here, hope that helps. Eagle 101 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

www.ingenieur-verlag.de/

This link relates to a german web portal for engineers (www.ingenieur-verlag.de/). The website contains information about project management, controlling, quality assurance, etc. It offers articles and PDF files about the above-named topics for free download. The website is hosted by a german publishing house. I see no reason for listing the website on the blacklist. --141.113.85.21 09:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason the link was blacklisted was because of this. Hope that helps. Eagle 101 16:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

ACK, but there are still articles at de.wikipedia.org containing links to www.ingenieur-verlag.de, see e.g.[48] "Weiterführende Links" -> Link:"Einführung in Multiprojektmanagement". Shouldn't it be removed? --09:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

...or is it just to prevent further linking to this site?

www.telefanatic.com

This link relates to an italian portal dedicated to tv serials. In this site an editorial board writes daily news, spoilers, episode guides... There's also an italian database with files dedicated to each tv serials with cast & crew infos, curiosity about dubbing and actors etc. Furtheremore there are lots of goodies dedicated to this tv genre: podcast, polls, forum, galleries, e-cards, videos (trailers), fanzine and newsletter.

Estopa.com

This is a official page of Estopa, it's not spam www.estopa.com

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).

artnet.de

please unblock (first of all all magazine-articles): artnet sometimes has excess value, e.g. artnet.de/magazine/features/brauneis/brauneis06-30-06.asp -> great article & songs from the artist. there is no reason to block such an interesting page..!?!! 138.246.7.114 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Partially done. I have restricted the block to only artnet.de/artist - Andre Engels 11:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because there is sometimes between all the ads maybe an information? That doesn't make sense. --Hedwig in Washington 07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it blocks the pages that were spammed before, and not the one that is mentioned here. - Andre Engels 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I obey whatever the META Admins decide! I checked that link and it seems to make sense! 8-))) --Hedwig in Washington 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This looks Done Eagle 101 03:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sledtv.org

Was curious as to what happened to the sledtv.org site, then i saw that it had been blacklisted, did a little poking around and never saw any removals but one and no infractions, warings etc, why was this blacklisted? I believe it should not be, and should be reversed

It was blocked as being one of a series of URLs, added by the same spammer from different IPs. Examples given were [49] and [50]. - Andre Engels 08:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Rake Yohn

I was trying to revert a lot of vandalism on the Rake Yohn wikipedia page and I keep getting the spam blacklist thing. What's going on? --164.82.144.3 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There must be a link in the page that has been blacklisted. Remove it and you should be able to revert. Cheers! Eagle 101 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

StormBringer

I tried to put some code on the wiki in spanish but a message appeared that states that is black listed. This is part of the code:

< div style="overflow:auto;

I don't know what happened.

http://ibtimes.com

Chronic spamming by en:User:Dck7777, en:User:Wog7777, and a bit by en:User:70.18.40.105. Total 118 contributions, all linkspam, all took forever and a day to cleanup: after reviewing, every link that proceded pattern http://ibtimes... was linkspam, and has been removed: [51]. However, link with pattern http://www.ibtimes has quite a few valid links: [52]. I'm thinking it likely has something to do with how the link is placed to viewers on the outside vs. how they see them internally. Perhaps you could simply block http://ibtimes: it might be enough to slow the spammer down. -Patstuart 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears to not be working. I ran a test page, and didn't get any problems: what's more, there were two more spammers added to the list of socks. All come from New York City. Patstuart 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Reparative therapy

I just tried to edit [53] and got the following:

Spam protection filter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~).

The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.

You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the Spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to allow a particular link without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the Spam whitelist talk page.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://blog DOT myspace DOT com

Return to Main Page.

(Note that in the above, I had to change the URL of the blacklisted text so I could post it here) After, I tried searching the text and found nothing. I copied all the text to my word processor, searched, found nothing. Please help. Thank you! Joie de Vivre 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the links and "broke" them -- the page is editable now. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Is this something that I, a standard editor, can do or learn to do? Joie de Vivre 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure -- Look at what I did. I just made sure there was not a complete, uninterrupted URL. I got rid of the http://www. part.

Alternately, you could just put a spaces after the http:// and the www; a human can still interpret the link but browsers and MediaWiki software can't:

• http:// www .myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=7428306&Mytoken=20050611060821
  

Blacklisted links often aren't very useful -- in such a case, just delete the link. I did not have the time to evaluate these links; we're less picky about link quality on talk pages. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

CSS code causing a hit

I recently tried to submit an error to w:Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. As the error resulted in a fair amount of exception code, I posted this along with the report in case they needed it. To avoid cluttering up the page, I put it in an overflow section. However when I submitted it, the filter blocked it with the text cited being "overflow: auto; " and "height:" joined together (obviously I couldn't put it together as it would also trigger the filter. Surely this cannot be. Harryboyles 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

See bug #8829. --.anaconda 17:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

www.xs4all.nl/~wichm

There has been major vandalism to a featured article (Kinetoscope) involving the wholesale deletion of an entire top-level heading. I can't revert this edit because apparently this link in the original text exists. I am 100% certain it is not spam. As this article is likely to be on the front page soon, could this please be dealt with immediately so as to restore the featured article to its original text ASAP? Thanks, 82.35.33.45 (Girolamo Savonarola on en) 11:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the English Wikipedia article, it appears that this problem has been fixed.[54] --A. B. ^(talk) 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Removed from article, it was not necessary. As for not being spam, it appears it was wherever else it was added (see [55]). "At least one website picked this up" in a ref which included a proper source suggests that perhaps it was. Just zis Guy, you know? 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

jewsdidwtc.com

Following a recent mention of the jewsdidwtc.com website and a slideshow of images from that website on notable news source CNN, I think that continued blacklisting of jewsdidwtc.com prevents a relevant reference from being discussed on the issue of media integrity. See en:JewsDidWTC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.15.119.166 (talk • contribs) 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not finding this a very compelling argument. I wouldn't remove it.++Lar: t/c 20:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

itsmarta.com

I am trying to edit the w:Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority but I am getting a Spam Proection Filter error. It says: 'The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://www DOT itsmarta DOT com' Please advise; this is the main government site for the transit agency and should not be listed as spam. If you need to reach me I am w:User:Biomedeng on the English wikipedia.68.158.105.112 01:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, this has been fixed with a minor change in the regex for marta.com. Thanks for letting us know! Cheers! Eagle 101 05:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Other discussions

• Spam blacklist policy discussion

=List_of_nicknames_of_European_Royalty_and_Nobility

I tried to add a link to the 'List of Treaty Titles for Monarchs' page on this page, but the update failed due to a link I didn't include (to an elzibethtudor site) how should I address the 'blacklisting after linking' that apparently happened, and how do I get my link added? I'm user Bo on wikipedia.

Depending on the nature of the link you can:

• Remove the offending link
• Replace the offending link by a URL in text
• Ask on your Wikipedia for whitelisting or here for removal from the blacklist.

- Andre Engels 13:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Saxon

This page can't be edited - but I'm not clever enough to work out why. Suggest it be removed from blacklisting - all I wanted to do was add a flag to say that it looked like a fan site and needed attention. Thanks Testbed 10:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)testbed

All you have to do is remove the link from the article, and you should be able to save. The software even points out what link is the problem The following text is what triggered our spam filter: blah. Hope this helps, Cheers! Eagle 101 00:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)