Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Nixeagle (talk | contribs) at 17:19, 23 February 2007 (→‎kit-direito.com: done). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Eagle 101 in topic Proposed additions
Shortcut:
WM:SPAM
The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, or Other discussions; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

snippet for logging: {{/request|534633#section_name}}

If you cannot find your remark below, it has probably been archived at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01 or Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/02.

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 17 years ago59 comments13 people in discussion
This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived.

iamtryingtobelieve.com

Mostly spammed at en:Parepin and associated talk pages, as part of a viral campaign that is spreading towards English Wikipedia. Zscout370 02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please provide diffs showing this, thanks. Eagle 101 18:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


axweb0.org

Same were added to user talk pages:

And other url by same users:

  • www.topmeds10.tu1.ru diff by dereek.
Looks like all of these edits (see linked page, all originate from one IP) /axweb0.org. I'm creating a sub page as to not flood this page out with my 72 results. Try blocking the IP, it looks to be the only IP related in this, set autoblock to "on" to prevent more socking. I will do it, for now consider this Not done unless we start to have serious problems. Eagle 101 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Just a note, this guy has now switched usernames, and must be on a new IP, as I desabled editing from all users on that last block. Eagle 101 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

New cases:

and shortly after, the spam-target changed:

Those are all on the same IP range, simply block 89.20.97.0/24 and the problem is gone :D Eagle 101 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've added the domain to Shadowbot's blacklist. Shadow1 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, then in that case, this is Not done Eagle 101 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

child-support-laws-state-by-state.com

Repeatedly spammed[3][4][5] this link across multiple articles on en.wikipedia using at least 3 different anonymous accounts. Warnings and blocks have had no effect other than to get him to shift IPs. See en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#The Christmas child support spammer: child-support-laws-state-by-state.com for details. (Permanent link) --A. B. (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow! that guy has at least 24 /16 ranges available to him... (76.166.0.0 - 76.190.255.255) I am going to suggest that we do a block on the 76.190.0.0/16 76.186.0.0/16 range for a few days and see if he has any more ranges open to him. If not then we can just use blocks to resolve this. If so, then we are going to have to consider blacklisting the domain. Eagle 101 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Comcast is the biggest (or 2nd biggest) broadband provider in the United States. You'd be blocking 65,000+ IPs -- probably all Comcast in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metropolitan area and maybe more of Texas. I suggest you may want to raise this question on en:WP:ANI first. We don't want our user names on Slashdot or Fark this afternoon. --A. B. (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
See Slashdot:
Qatar: 866,000 people Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex: 5.8 million --A. B. (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've made sure it was a soft block, now lets just hope they don't go to socking ;). Eagle 101 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done - looks like alternative means worked here. Eagle 101 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.adultfyi.com

a hardcore pornographic page, has been added on de:WP

Do you have diffs of it being spammed to a point beyond normal admin tools?
This request was most likely by de:Benutzer:Augiasstallputzer. This site was used as a source/reference for articles on de.wp, it was not being spammed. Seems he simply does not like the links or has other problems with them. Anyway, they should be discussed elsewhere. This is the wrong place. --Rosenzweig 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Regardless it won't get blacklisted without evidence. Eagle 101 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Eagle 101 is correct. Just because we don't like the content the site don't deserve a blacklist. If we want google to use our blacklist we must keep the highest standards. We fight and protect against spam. 72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)... see also: en:talk • en:contribs
Not done - no evidence presented showing how or why this should be added. Eagle 101 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

urlsnip.com

Used to insert a blacklisted viartis.net link into an article. I have the removal diff but I don't know when it was added or by whom.[6] --A. B. (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Already here, see above :-). Thank you. --.anaconda 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

meatspin

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

Is there any evidence of this link being spammed into Wikipedia? Are there more then one IP range currently doing this? Or, any evidence of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

lastmeasure.zoy.org

Another shock site, currently used in vandalism by Tooj117 sockpuppets at the English Wikipedia. Example. Lastmeasure is the "THIS PERSON IS LOOKING AT GAY PORN" website. No encyclopedic value.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

gamefreaks365.com

Spammed by an anon quite a bit (see en:Special:Contributions/70.224.58.15) and also by others to a number of gaming articles, e.g. [7], [8], [9] - link list on en after reversionof the anon's edits was: 

  1. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=105 linked from XaviXPort gaming console
  2. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=110 linked from Matt Leto
  3. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=170 linked from Metroid Prime Hunters
  4. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=55 linked from XGameStation
  5. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=68 linked from GameZone
  6. gamefreaks365.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=71 linked from Talk:Comparison of handheld gaming consoles
  7. gamefreaks365.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=446 linked from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time
  8. gamefreaks365.com/newsarticle.php?sid=1833 linked from Eidos Interactive
  9. gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=1091 linked from Avatar: The Last Airbender (video game)
 10. gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=1120 linked from NBA Street: Homecourt
 11. gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=393 linked from Alex Kidd in Miracle World
 12. www.gamefreaks365.com/forums linked from Wikipedia:Dead external links/301/g
 13. www.gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=1109 linked from Def Jam: Icon
 14. www.gamefreaks365.com/screenshots linked from Wikipedia:Dead external links/301/g

Also some on nl: and maybe other projects, I'm checking. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you show me the ones from other projects? Eagle 101 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I deleted the ones from nl:, three Alex Kidd related nl:Alex Kidd The Lost Stars, nl:Alex Kidd in Shinobi World, .nl:Alex Kidd in Miracle World. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I will look at this further in a few hours Eagle 101 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

cdjuridico.com

Website for selling CD/DVDs about law.

Articles:

I give up listing more diffs. You can see more on these articles:

Users (may me all the same user):

Mosca 17:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Quite clear pattern of abuse. Eagle 101 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

39 related domains

The following 39 domains were spammed across 68 articles on en:wikipedia.org from 80+ anonymous, dynamically assigned Malaysian IP addresses:

  • 40weekspregnancystages.com
  • about-credit-card.com
  • about-credit-report.com
  • aboutbodybuilding.net
  • acneskincareinfo.com
  • air-purifier-and-filter.com
  • all-soccer-info.com
  • asbestos-mesothelioma-cancer-info.com
  • atkindietplan.com
  • atkins-diet.cc
  • benefit-green-tea.com
  • breast-augmentation-and-enlargement.com
  • breast-augmentation-implants.com
  • cabbage-soup-diet-plan.com
  • carpetsearch.org
  • cell-phone-blog.net
  • credit-cards-n-debt.com
  • diabetes-diabetic-diet.com
  • dietpills-information.com
  • digital-camera-technology.com
  • dsl-broadband-isp.com
  • dsl-link.com
  • edi-guide.com
  • fitness-health-plan.com
  • grapefruit-diet.org
  • hdtv-lcd-plasma.com
  • lasik-surgery-info.com
  • lasiklasereyesurgeries.com
  • lowcarb.ca
  • satellite-service-providers.com
  • skincaresinformation.com
  • south-beach-diet-information.com
  • southbeachdietprogram.com
  • tech-guide.org
  • teleconferencing-technology.com
  • the-atkins-diet.info
  • the-atkins-diet.info double Eagle 101 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Reply
  • vpn-info.com
  • zonedietinformation.com

See: en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#39 domains, 80 accounts, 68 articles (permanent link) for links to all 80 anonymous IP accounts' contribution histories. 99% of the edits come from these addresses were spam additions. That discussion also lists the articles spammed as well as Google Adsense account numbers where available. Links have been removed from all pages. --A. B. (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Eagle 101 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Adfunk spam on Wikipedia

The following 10 domains have been spammed across at least 47 articles on en:wikipedia by at least 6 accounts:

  • adfunk.blog-city.com
  • f1rezone.tblog.com
  • fiucer.blogsome.com
  • wtslink.com
  • mylink.tblog.com
  • tech2.blogsome.com
  • yellowpages1.blogspot.com
  • health1011.blogspot.com
  • ekhye.blogspot.com
  • internumber.blogspot.com

Adfunk has at least 11 affiliated sites and I recommend blacklisting them now as well:

  • evo.blogsome.com
  • engine.blogsome.com
  • adfunk.blogsome.com
  • ms1.blogsome.com
  • gnharrod.com
  • gangstarz.info
  • tech.shoutpost.com
  • mytaxi.blog-city.com
  • myl6.blogsome.com
  • prdeal.com
  • blog.myspace.com/adfunk
    • Note: blog.myspace.com domains are already blacklisted

Given all the controversy over myspace blogs, it's possible blog.myspace.com may come off the blacklist at some point. I recommend specifically blacklisting the blog.myspace.com/adfunk domain so that it stays on the blacklist if this happens.

For more information including links to contribution histories for each spam account, see:

Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Links have been removed from all pages except en:User talk:Tech2blog. --A. B. (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Note: some of the domains listed are actually sub-domains of large hosting services such as blogspot or blogsome. I recommend blacklisting only the subdomains as listed above. --A. B. (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done I've blacklisted only the domains that were actually spammed. Eagle 101 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks -- and I'm sorry about forgetting to take the www's out. --A. B. (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another Maximus domain for blacklisting: xatpro.com

Other Maximus Business Solutions domains were blacklisted earlier this month; see:

In tracking down unrelated Adfunk spam on en.wikipedia, I found that an IP had added a link to a known Maximus domain last May at the same time as one to a domain I missed in my earlier request.[34][35]

  • xatpro.com

Currently, there are none of these links on any pages. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, is there current spamming of this? I mean May is quite a while back... Eagle 101 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
This spammer has been so prolific that I can't say if that link's been added since May. It very well may have. I've waded through hundreds of article edits looking for Maximus spam. If you look at the WikiProject Spam discussion, there are probably more domains I missed and there are surely many IP accounts I've missed. The Maximus spammer has been active with 11 different IPs just in this month -- that I know of:
It's safe to assume that we will being playing Whac-a-mole with these guys for a long time. I recommend blacklisting that link, but it's certainly OK if it's not for now.
--A. B. (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Netbizsolutions.com spam on Wikipedia

At least 15 dynamically assigned, one-session use IPs spammed 6 domains across at least 38 articles on en.wikipedia. In all but one case, these IP addresses' contributions were 100% spam only.

Domains spammed (6):

  • affiliatedirectorysite.com
  • furniture-asian.com
  • netbizasia.com
  • netbizsolutions.com
  • sixco.ws (similar to tinyurl.com)
  • templatesnew.com

Affiliated domains -- I recommend blacklisting these now as well (5):

  • activehits4u.com
  • fluxservices.com
  • hostnetbiz.com
  • impotenceherbs4impotency.info
  • impotenceherbsextract.com

For more information and for links to all the accounts' contribution histories, see:

Currently, there are none of these links on any Wikipedia pages. --A. B. (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Quite clear spamming from multiple IP ranges. Eagle 101 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
To clarify, I'm only adding those that have actually been spammed. Eagle 101 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lost .eu "game"

Links to "lost .eu" have been repeatedly removed from the dab page Wikipedia:Lost and snuck into a number of other pages with similar names. People from http://www.lost. eu are attempting to get sign-ups for some sort of social experiment contest, which is offering $5000 for the most sign-ups.

See, for background:

--Leflyman 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

notdone - Try dealing this with the normal means of stopping vandalism and spam. (ie, blocks, warnigns ect). If more IP addresses start popping up, drop a note here. Eagle 101 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
That's interesting -- I was tracking down unrelated laptopnik.com spam out of Malaysia and Singapore today and found that in addition to those links, someone using a Hewlett-Packard IP,128.88.255.35, tracerouting to Singapore had added lost.eu links. Leflyman's 72.138.68.246 spammer is a Rogers Cable customer in Canada. Neither IP is listed on any prominent open proxy/abusive IP lists[36][37], the first thing you think of when you see such geographically diverse spamming. That this is some sort of a contest would explain what we're seeing. Based on this, I think blacklisting is going to be our only sure fix short of blocking everyone but 127.0.0.1. --A. B. (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done - if this is what we really think this is, lets go ahead and blacklist, we can take it off when the contest ends. Eagle 101 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
--Leflyman 03:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for mentioning those, any idea on how long the "game" is going to last? Eagle 101 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

geocities.com/xpw5yearslater

Same content was previously hosted on another blacklisted site - www.declarationofindependents.net, and was repeatedly inserted into Tommy Dreamer by various IPs. 81.153.129.208 02:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - clear evidence above of multiple IP ranges. Eagle 101 02:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

modiarte.it

Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

mondeducirquelausanne87.blogspot.com

Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

ruswar.com

Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

charlie-parker.org

Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

kit-direito.com

This domain redirects to "cdjuridico.com" already blocked. Its the same user with another IP [50] For details see previous post #cdjuridico.com —Mosca 08:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done redirect site to already blacklisted site. Eagle 101 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

tvsylt.com

Constant linkspam in many articles on de.wp by several IPs from the 80.130.*.* range, e. g. 80.130.112.205, 80.130.92.34, 80.130.115.117, 80.130.108.19. Please take it on the blacklist at least for two months or three. --Gardini 11:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done - Could you try a block of 80.130.0.0/16 first? Try it for like 31 hours and see if he comes back or not. Eagle 101 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 17 years ago70 comments18 people in discussion
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals.

tvrage.com

Any clue why tvrage.com is blacklisted its a useful site for TV Shows and Actors & Crew info. Please let us link to this wonderful site that's way better then http://www.tv.com

It is on the blacklist because it was spammed. See this. Regards Eagle 101 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I was actually blacklisted because someone (a user who even stated on his en. talkpage that he's a member of a rival site) showed two places that were "spammed", and a sysop or whatever here quickly accepted it. No offense. If you couldn't keep one user linking articles under control, then maybe you should target the user (now blocked), and not the site being linked. ;) --Linalu24 04:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


First off, this is not a vote, and for now I have commented out the vote section. I will contact the meta admin who did the blacklisting. But if it has been spammed across wikis, or by more then one IP, then its not likely to leave the list. Eagle 101 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It was actively spammed into articles by the websites owners and several "anons" - the fact of the matter is it still does not meet linking guidelines either. MatthewFenton 13:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As pointed out, I added the site to the blacklist after an initial request, which seemed legitimate. The issue was re-raised in October, and because there was no detailed reasoning to the request for removing the site, along with a reasonable response by another editor, I denied the request after a few days simply because I was attempting at that time to clear out the backlog at this page, noting that I was the admin who had first added the site. Doing a quick search, I see that additional requests have also been made in December and late January. I am no longer sure whether this site should remain on the blacklist or not, having seen a variety of arguments both for and against the site; this is an issue that should be left to more discussion here, and because I've been involved with adding the link, I do not think it appropriate for me to be the "final say" on this, per se. However, I do want to point out that in the meantime, while this discussion continues, local whitelisting would enable links to this site at any wiki wishing to do so. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

The reason it is on the blacklist can be found here, hope that helps. Eagle 101 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've double-checked my original request and further researched both pressreleasegold and nolico.com. I don't think they're connected and I suspect I made a mistake when I made my blacklist request. I think they had a link on the pressreleasegold site as part of some link exchange program and I thought it was still one more pressreleasegold site. I recommend removing and I apologize for this mistake. --A. B. (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
consider it Done Eagle 101 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

hem.fyristorg.com/kraftwerk

This is one of the first and largest Kraftwerk pages on the Internet, cannot understand why it is considered spam. It is listed under the "external links" section on subject Kraftwerk. Please remove it from the blacklist!

The site was spammed across multiple wikis, please see this. I would suggest that if it is useful for a subject on a particular wiki, that you request it be whitelisted on that wiki. Regards. Eagle 101 19:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I admit that I did additions to different languages on subject Kraftwerk, and that in hindsight it was stupid of me, although I don't consider it deliberate spamming. I feel like a criminal when an excellent non-profit, no-ads site is banned because of me. But it is me who is to blame and not the site I think, it is still one of the top five sites on subject Kraftwerk. I would be very glad if you would re-consider and remove the site from the black list.

netfirms.com

There have been at least four requests [51][52][53][54] to whitelist this on en.wikipedia. I started researching this and found the following:

"Netfirms, Inc. is the premier provider of web hosting, domain name, e-commerce, e-mail, e-marketing services and technology solutions. Our customers include families and small home offices, established businesses and large corporations. Netfirms powers more than 1.2 million websites to online success each and every day ..."

There were apparently problems with some netfirms sites in May 2006, but I think the overall domain was added by Naconkantari at another time; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Naconkantari/sbl. The example he gives looks like one more problematic subdomain. I suggest removing the overall netfirms blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Consider it Done. Eagle 101 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm taking this off for now, but if there is any spam again, we might have to put this back on. Eagle 101 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
There will be spam -- there are so many sites (1.2 million) hosted by netfirms that we're going to get spam from a few there just as we do from some sites on geocities, narad.ru or any other big hosting service. I think the answer is the same as with the other big services -- just blacklist by subdomain as needed. Otherwise, we're poisoning the whole lake to kill one snake. --A. B. (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is Done. Eagle 101 19:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

nationwidebillrelief.com and surfquotes.com

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

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

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

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

Accounts adding nationwidebillrelief.com links since mid-2006:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This needs to be documented for the article [[83]] this was written and keeps getting removed. I was even warned. If I get banned yet keep our standards high then this is all worth it.

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

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

covermecarinsurance.com

http : //www.covermecarinsurance.com/articles/Automobile-Associations_5109.html is a legitimate reference in the American Automobile Association wiki. I don't want to remove it and leave the page unreferenced but I'm unable to remove some unrelated advertising without also removing that due to the blacklist!66.117.137.27 06:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Request that it be whitelisted on your respective wiki, if you give me an address to your wiki, I can give you the proper page. Just get an admin to add it. Cheers! Eagle 101 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just looked at that URL. The whole site looks very spammy and I see no affiliation with the m:American Automobile Association. That particular page just has a very basic 3 paragraph overview of the AAA. Also, it looks like someone has already removed the link from the AAA article today. --A. B. (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well regardless, we never added that url to the blacklist, but we did add carinsurance.com to the blacklist. Let me fix so the regex won't catch this site. Consider this Done Eagle 101 14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eagle 101 Are we saying that this site or any similar site will be removed because we put carinsurance.com to the blacklist? This is bull. Sites should be removed becuase of spamming or violating guidelines not because of similarity to a site who violated wiki guidelines or spammed. If this site was spamming then it should be blacklisted because of this. Not because of its similarity of other abusers sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)... see also: en:talk • en:contribs

No I'm not, that is what I fixed, it was an error in the regex. The regex is now fixed, that is why I posted this as done. Eagle 101 03:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

agepi.md

This domain is blacklisted, and cannot make references to their content such as laws and articles. agepi.md represents State Agency on Intellectual Property of the Republic of Moldova. Please remove it from blacklist. Thank you

Ok, this is odd, It is not logged, it is not in any of the archives, and worst of all, I can't even find it on the blacklist. So I'm assuming that there is a over-reaching regex somewhere, as soon as I find it, consider this Done. Eagle 101 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure its on the blacklist? Please see this. I've successfully inserted the link into a sandbox. Eagle 101 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

blogs.myspace.com

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

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

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

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

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

Good summation. One thing to keep in the mix of course is that whether or not our honorary GodKing requested it originally, he does approve of keeping it on for now per the diff given. He's a reasonable fellow though, I hear, so if the case can be made, it should be, and he'll no doubt change his mind. That said, my thinking at this point is informed by a hypothetical... Suppose 99.9% of the subdomains/pages of a site are something that only get spammed, and 0.1% are good... In that case it would be reasonable to spamblock it, and whitelist exception the 0.1% good, wouldn't it? whitelist exceptions are harder though. If it were the other way around, and 0.1% of the subdomains/pages were spam and 99.9% good, no one would argue that we should spamblacklist the exceptions. Now, somewhere there's a point of balance. Given that it's harder to whitelist than blacklist it's probably not at the 50/50 point, it skews. But what is it, and what are the numbers in this case? I have no opinion because I have no more data, but I think this analysis might be a reasonable way to get cost/benefit understanding? ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

fotoplatforma.pl

Please review my address www.fotoplatforma.pl at the black list. It was honour to me to show some of interesting photos in Wikipedia but when you find it as a spam I was surprised. If you have possibility - check up all my links and You will find some of them are very old because many people and authors of articles find them valuable. I spent some years to collect photos of butterflies and flowers and more. Most of them are very sharp, colorful, valuable. I worked hard to add good quality links to wikipedia. More then 50% of visitors add my website www.fotoplatforma.pl to favorite, Google and Yahoo show my website very high because this content is not spam. Do you ever find my links about butterflies among apple tree? What do you mean - cross spam? Photos of natural environment means thousands subjects and if one day someone find nature as a cross spam it is really new point of view for me.

If You decided to stop my work to Wikipedia - let me know - thats all and enough to do with me. Spam list with my www.fotoplatforma.pl is unsuitable and wrongful to me thats the reason I asked to remove it.

best regards Marek foto@fotoplatforma.pl

Please also see discussion about this topic on my talk page here. I think I've explained quite well why the link was blacklisted, if you don't understand why it was blacklisted please ask. Thanks. Eagle 101 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/

Under what circumstances can a web site be spam blacklisted ?

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

The web site is not spam. It contains no pornography, racism, or politics. It does not contain any adverts at all. It does not sell anything. It does not promote or represent any company or individual. It does not mention any individuals. The only reason it was blacklisted is that the first person to add it was banned during conflict with other editors. Is that reason for spam blacklisting within Wikipedia guidelines ? Please let me know the original source for the guidelines concerning this matter, and under what circumstances the web site would be removed from the blacklist. --XX7 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is the reason your site was blacklisted (see here). Basically there were many new accounts trying to add this link. I will ask the person who did the blacklisting to comment. Eagle 101 16:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

Are different people, or people in different guises being the first to add a web site grounds within the Wikipedia regulations for a permanent ban of that web site ? Please refer me to the relevant regulations on Wikipedia, because, even if that was the reason for the blacklisting, this does not appear to be one of the reasons allowed by the regulations for imposing a permanent ban. The imposition of the blacklisting presently doesnot appear to have been imposed within the regulations. All I see from the link provided is evidence of one person on one occasion adding one web site to one article relevant to that web site. If this were grounds for a permanent ban, hundreds of thousands of web sites would have to be removed and permamnetly banned. Under what circumstances would such a ban be lifted. --XX7 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

We are not a court of law here, the regulations are plain and simple, can we deal with the spam in any other way? If not it goes on here. Normal canidates are when people spam a site across wikis. (adding the same site to english, french, german, ect wikipedias). The second primary reason is if multiple accounts are adding the link, (or multiple IP ranges normally), and all admin attempts to stop it don't work. Again, I'm asking the person who did the original blacklist to comment, I know they are still active. Regards. Eagle 101 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to officious. It's just that, whatever the history, making useful information available seems to have been the real victim. The only Wikipedia article really involved is Parkinson's Disease. Whitelisting the site (if that's the correct term) would not mean that the site would appear on that article. The editors and administrators on that article appear to very resistant to alterations, and may not then enable anyone to list the web site anyway. However, consensus is able to prevail on all articles. Majority rule is well within the principles of Wikipedia, but blacklisting a good web site solely because the first person to add it was subsequently banned does not appear to be. There is no inherent fault at all with the web site in itself. If the web site was whitelisted it could easily be reversed if necessary. --XX7 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it has to do with "the first person to add it was subsequently banned", I think it has to do with a more widespread spam issue. Anyway I'm contacting the person who added this to the blacklist. Also just note, at least the english wikipedia considers itself as not a democracy. ;). In any case I am going to notify who did the blacklist. Eagle 101 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Mmm looks like they are not around, I will think about removing it myself, let me dig up some stuff first (see if I can find a further reason for the blacklist). Eagle 101 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

See en:Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/General Tojo. --A. B. (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A disguised (using urlsnip.com), blacklisted viartis link was recently removed from an article.[84] --A. B. (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
[http: //www.aboutus.org/Viartis.net# Viartis.net] on AboutUs --ESamuels 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Um? what? Eagle 101 21:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
[http:// www.aboutus.org/Viartis.net# Viartis.net] on AboutUs --ESamuels 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why that link? I don't think this is relevent to the discussion. Eagle 101 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. It has just become apparent to me that viartis.net was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes, on the 13th August 2006.

2. The brief addition was directly relevant to the article, which concerned Parkinson's Disease, and was added merely as a reference to further detail concerning that subject. There are, quite rightly, millions of references to more detailed information on Wikipedia.

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

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

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

--XX7 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


Langmaker.com

Please remove this domain from the blacklist! I don't see the point why this harmless site should be regarded as spam. I personally find it the most important reference in things concerning constructed languages. --213.47.167.58 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is the reason why this was added to the blacklist. If it is useful, I would suggest requesting whitelisting of a particular page of that website (whatever page it is that you need). Eagle 101 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Freemasonrywatch.org

Masonic editors are continually deleting this website and making false accusations that it has been made inadmissable by Wikipedia. Masons dislike this website because it exposes them. It is one of the largest and highest ranked websites on Freemasonry on the internet. Do not allow Masonic censorship on Wikipedia.24.68.248.67 02:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The site was blacklisted because of this. Eagle 101 17:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

namebase.org

I would like to see a justification for the entry for namebase.org; true, the site offers for-fee copying and duplication services, but it is after all a 501(c)3, and these services are only incidental to the site's rather interesting and useful value-added name indexing services. Also, its occasional linkage hardly constitutes "widespread, unmanageable spam" as per the guidelines (quote: "Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam"), and there is no evidence that links are being added by bots, or by human agents of Public Information Research. Thank you. 68.236.38.185 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The reason why it is blacklisted:
#These sites are redirecting requests from Wikimedia sites to a third-party site\.
namebase\.org
If it is still redirecting requests, then its going to stay on the list. We generally don't like url redirect sites as they can be used to circumvent this list. Eagle 101 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Understood, and a valid point; but could you jury-rig an example so we can see what you mean? Otherwise it's hard to verify this, being as linkage to the site is, you know, blacklisted.

davincisketches.com

I would like to respectfully request that this site be removed from the blacklist. I added the link to the site to what I thought to be related articles in a few different languages with no ill intent. I apologize if I violated any posting rules it was not my intention. If it would be possible to have it unblock, I would be very grateful to have it solely on the main Leonardo da Vinci Page and if removed from the blacklist I will add it to no additional pages. Thank You.

fisheaters.com

I would like to request that this site be removed from the blacklist, and a link be allowed in the Traditionalist Catholic Wikipedia entry. I asked on spam-whitelist, and they suggested I propose it here.

The reasons for the blacklisting of it is here

Please unblock this site. I think that this site is a good external link that balances out the other ones. I think it meets the following criteria:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

There is tons of information on traditional Catholic practices, culture, etc., that is well-researched and gives verifiable references; I've been visiting this site for almost a year now and think it will be valuable to others interested in Traditional Catholicism. I read the talk pages on it, and what I think happened is a bunch of well-meaning people pasted a bunch of links to it before understanding what wikis are about. Then a big argument ensued where everyone loses because this is blacklisted and can't be used as an external link. I think this site should be whitelisted, and a link from the Traditional Catholicism page allowed.

I read JzG's page, and I've read the FishEaters' site response. I respectfully think JzG misinterpreted some of the actions and is confused about some of the things.

For example, JzG says: For the rest, most of the articles were not even specific to Catholicism, let alone the disputed branch of Traditionalist Catholicism. Some of the content linked appears superficially neutral (although the overall tone of the site is not); many of the links failed to include sufficient text to inform the Wikipedia reader beforehand that the site represented a minority view, and the breadth and format of the links triggered the spam radar.

But then JzG lists the articles that he removed links from, and they are all about Catholicism, etc. The site clearly states that it is a Traditional Catholic site (though wiki refers to it as Traditionalist Catholicism, such Catholics refer to themselves as Traditional Catholics).

Again, I think this is just a case where people got off on a bad foot. I understand JzG's concerns, and I would be happy to address them point-by-point (though the blacklisting is a year old). But I would like this site to be removed from the blacklist and a single link allowed at the wikipedia Traditionalist Catholic article. It has a lot of good original information for people wanting to learn about Traditional Catholicism. Krnlhkr 09:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so you want to add it to one page? If so, can you tell me what the url that you want to include, I don't think on the whitelist they knew of this. Please give me a "deep" link into the site, and I will do a whitelisting of that, if we only need this on one page. Regards Eagle 101 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, what I would like to do is add a single link pointing to the main Fish Eaters page to the external links section of the wikipedia Traditionalist Catholic article here. That would be to http://www.fisheaters.com and the description would be the site title (The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism). The site itself is comprised of original essays, information, cultural practices, religious practices, etc. and as such is completely dedicated to Traditional (Traditionalist sic) Catholicism. That's all I'm asking for. A single link to the main Fish Eaters page in a single Wikipedia article. Would that be OK? Thanks, I really appreciate it. Krnlhkr 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Is there an about page or something, so that we don't have to whitelist the whole thing? (given the spam issues). Something like www.fisheaters.com/Some_sub_page. That might be best. In addition, have you gotten consensus with the article editors on that page? IE, everyone agrees to this? If so please post something (agian) on the whitelist and I will do the whitelisting. (Given that you give me a "deeplink" (like www.fisheaters.com/Some_sub_page). Eagle 101 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sure, I can find a deeper link that is appropriate. Let me talk to the article editors and see if they are OK with this, and if so, I will post on the whitelist. Thanks again for your help, I appreciate it. Krnlhkr 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Looks like this is Not done as this link will end up going to the whitelist, when and if the english wikipedia wants it. Eagle 101 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

encyclopediadramatica.com

Now i do know this site has been banned, but banning the mention of it is censorship, which is contradictory to wikipedia's neutral POV. This is even more serious as the site is often critical, and is effectively a spoof, of wikipedia, and to simply block all mention of it does not allow the wikipedia community to consider what could possibly be wrong with wikipedia, which would enable us to remedy the issue. Censorship only works against freedom of speech and expression of ideas, and as such should not be so actively used by admins. So in short, it is against wikipedia's rules to not allow a page on this site.203.173.178.117 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just archived a prior request to remove this (about 6 hours ago), you might want to have a look at this. For now consider this Not done. Eagle 101 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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).

Other discussions

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Referral Profiteering

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

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

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

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

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

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

blacklist problems

I am having problem editing as the spam blacklist prevents me from adding the following url: rakeshyogi.122mb.com Can anyone help. my icq 394635903


Help! When I try to edit I get this message:

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.

Also:

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: [but if I try to include it, it blocks.]82.155.102.110 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=534633"