Jump to content

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This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Nixeagle (talk | contribs) at 18:52, 11 April 2007 (→‎Blog.myspace.com (another one, I know): notdone). It may differ significantly from the current version.

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

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

snippet for logging: {{/request|560962#section_name}}

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

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 17 years ago74 comments32 people in discussion
This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived.


meatspin

The following discussion is closed: Not done

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

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

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

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

Anyways, Meatspin already has several redirects and they are promising a new one every month.--71.203.147.175 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done (so bot will archive this... ) —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

reexamine.info

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

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

What is the status of this? —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Definitely needs to go as a prolific violator of copyright (validated; not all are copyvios but it is clear they don't care), not sure whether it's counted as spam, though. Depends if you want ot be legalistic, I guess. Your call. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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


exoticindiaart.com

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

Ok JzG, looks like we have the following counts of links on 15 wikis:
Total count: 168 en: 133 de: 5 ja: 0 fr: 1 pl: 0 it: 10 nl: 1 es: 5 pt: 7 zh: 1 ru: 0 fi: 1 no: 4 he: 0 sco: 0
Is there an agreement to have this site removed on the following wikis? I would worry about getting agreement from the english, and Italian wiki before moving on with your idea. Eagle 101 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not sure how to contact it: - I will find their amdin noticeboard. 80.176.82.42 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
How are things going with this? —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done per inactivity. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

e-library.net

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

Have we tried blocking the IP range? (a short time can often discourage them). Eagle 101 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
We need to block the ips as this sites has some great content wikipedia.org can use.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not done seems to be resolved by block, if it is not, please make a new request. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

hai2u.com

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

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


3 proxy sites

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

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

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

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

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


theigdb.com

Many different users (mostly IPs) have added links to this site on many videogame entries, for many months. Examples of users include [41],[42],[43], [44], and so on. These users seem to have no interest in improving Wikipedia, only to use it for traffic, in some cases even suggesting it is an official site. When I do a linksearch for theigdb.com, I come up with nothing, yet doing a regular search comes up with many articles which presumably have all contained links to the site recently.(Dreaded Walrus on Wikipedia)

Mmm, let me think on this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and something I didn't think of trying previously:
A Google search for theigdb.com -wiki has a grand total of 8 results, two of which are the official site, and another of which is thediscworld.co.uk, which appears to be the former location of the site. This number is dwarfed if we search only on Wikipedia, where even with the nofollow on, there are 27 separate results on User:Veinor's Link Count records. --212.139.17.187 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (en:User:Dreaded Walrus)Reply
Oh, and one more thing. I thought I should provide more links to the contributions of the people who have done almost nothing other than inserting those links (rather than just the four above), taken from the Link count pages:
[45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]
There could be more, as I didn't look through all of the pages, but that should give the gist of it. --212.139.17.187 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC) (en:User:Dreaded Walrus)Reply

www.jobklub.com

This job web site has been extensively spammed to the English Wikipedia [53] [54] [55]; [56] (started on a smaller scale 30 March) Notinasnaid 11:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The ips are very similar, (try a small rangeblock?) but in any case I will stick this on en:User:shadowbot. —— Eagle101 Need help? 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

pwp.netcabo.pt/jmmg/

This domain have a lot of subpages redirecting to "oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com" already blocked. See:

Note: don't block "pwp.netcabo.pt" That domain is for homepages of netcabo ISP clients. Block only "pwp.netcabo.pt/jmmg/" Mosca 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


wikipedia review

Please blacklist *.wikipediareview.com on the English wikipedia. Harassment and outing site, used to primarily 'out' and publically research the IRL identities of Wikipedia editors and administrators. Currently blocking and harassment policies on en. say that linking to attack/outing sites is forbidden... and as one of the lead attack sites on Wikipedians there is no reason it should ever be linkable anyway. Sites current existence and function endangers the real-world privacy and safety of all of us. DennyColt 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wholeheartedly endorse DennyColt's request. Anything that can reasonably be done to protect the safety of its editors should be of paramount importance to the Foundation. Oh, and please blacklist Daniel Brandt's site as well, for the same reason. ElinorD 16:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Strong support, per Denny's reasoning. Jayjg 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Strong support from me too. I've requested this before. The site libels people, not to mention the thousands of childish and hurtful insults, the attempts to out people, and the support for stalkers. There's never a legitimate reason to link to it because it could never be regarded as a reliable source for anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agree that WR should be on the blacklist. It is against Wikipedia-en policy to link to this site. The least disruptive way to enforce this policy is to use the blacklist. Any other method draws more attention to the site and the edit thus defeating the underlying purpose of the policy. FloNight 17:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is a new guideline change made within the last day as I understand it.[57] I think it makes sense to block wikipediareview if that's new rule since I understand users adding those links will now potentially be blocked[58] for harassment (see en:WP:STALK. As a customary courtesy, I recommend first breaking the 227 links that exist across various projects:
Many of these links are on "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk" pages. Others are on user talk pages put there by someone else. Finally, blacklisting these links first will lock up the main French Wikipédia article. --A. B. (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can go through and start deactivating/breaking links in subpages and archives on en... and leave notes for top level pages, like user pages, like I had been (started already). For the other language WPs, should there just be a note in the edit to link/look back here? DennyColt 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Take look at how I handled a sensitive set of links referring to the holocaust.[59] This was just on the en.wikipedia pages and I think JzG had already deleted all the links in article space. He also had people on the other wikipedias do all their removals. In the case of talk pages, I always left a note explaining what I was doing and why -- not just an edit summary. In the case of user archives, I did not edit the archives but left a note suggesting they would need to do this before they tried to edit them. Take a look at the recent deathcamps.org discussions here and in the March or Arpil archives to get a sense of the type of stuff I'm talking about.
For straightforward junk-link spam, I'll sometimes just go on as an anon on other wikipedias and delete a link, leaving a wikilink to this page and the appropriate section as my edit summary. But this one is likely to be a sensitive blacklisting with other wikipedias; insensitively handled, it may raise hackles elsewhere about "unilateralism", "censorship" or "en.wikipedia dominance", since the arbcom ruling only applies to en.wikipedia.--A. B. (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm very happy to remove them from French Wikipedia, where I have an account. I'd like to know, first, if an admin here is going to add the site to the blacklist, because I would probably explain in the edit summary that this link is about to be added to the blacklist at meta. I tried to help a week ago by removing deathcamps.org and death-camps.org links from German Wikipedia, while there was a discussion here and at the English admin's noticeboard; but the German Wikipedians didn't seem to like it, and I wasn't able to explain in German. ElinorD 19:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ditto, for en. Once its done we can just link back to here. DennyColt 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Solid oppose. Many of these links are cites. They've already as much as said that the link blanking that has already taken place is grounds for a lawsuit. You would have to go back around and remove the content-- including in history-- in order to really fix this issue. And for what? Link blanking of this sort is just going to enable them to reply, utterly correctly, that your problem is that you cannot stand criticism. Mangoe 04:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have no doubt that they would make that reply, Mangoe, but I'm sorry to see that you think the reply would "utterly correct". Surely you can see that it's one thing to criticise, and quite another thing to expose people to the danger of real-life stalking, phonecalls to employers, etc., by posting their personal details. I really hope the administrators at meta will care enough about the security of their volunteers to put that consideration before all others. ElinorD 08:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong support This site serves as a host to those out to slander valuable members of the community and also to those harrassing or stalking members. For instance, a friend of mine, who is a female administrator at the english WP became the victim of a stalker with threats to her family, phonecalls to her workplace. The stalker was banned from en.WP but was gladly accepted at WPreview. Another valuable editor was harrassed into retiring from WP alltogether, after some members of WPreview revealed his family details and send letters to his superiors in his job. Unfortunately we cannot stop these activities but at least we should not support their endeavours.- Oh, and of course the line should be blacklisted from all Wikipedias and related projects, not just from the English one. Str1977 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Support for what it's worth - any user on enWP who links this site will almost certainly be blocked or banned immediately, and there is no conceivable article for which wikipediareview could be considered a reliable source. Nothing to lose and everything to gain form blacklisting. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • How is this site being spammed? If this is a single-project concern and the site is not being spammed, it does not belong on the spam blacklist. If it is being used legitimately on other projects, then en.wiki should revert and block editors who include the link instead of having it blacklisted here. Please note that this is the spam blacklist, not the unwanted site blacklist as some editors may think it is. It is not used only on Wikimedia wikis but is generally copied to other sites that utilize the Spamblacklist extension. Therefore, unless evidence can be presented that the site is actively being spammed, it should not be added to the blacklist. Naconkantari 22:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think it should matter what the list is called; I think what matters is what it can be used for, and it is used for making links to inappropriate sites, be they spam or attack, incapable of being made. It's a helpful function, so we should use it whenever we can. Picaroon 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    It matters what the list is called. This list is specifically designed to combat widespread spam. It is not to be used for selectively blocking sites that may be inappropriate on single wikis. This list is not used just for Wikimedia wikis. It is not designed to block based on disputes. It is solely for reducing spam, which the above editors have not shown this site has done. I will strongly urge that this site be not included on the blacklist as it does not meet the definition of spam. If you want the site blacklisted, I'd recommend that you start a poll to change the scope of the blacklist. Naconkantari 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Support blacklisting, it's an attack site and linking to it is blockable. Lets not give people the chance to be blocked. Picaroon 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done as this is an issue with only one wiki's community wanting this link gone, I don't see a need to blacklist this across all wikis. What you guys can do is request en:User:Shadow1 add this link to en:User:Shadowbot. Regards —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

What good will this do eagles?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawenforcer (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

accelerator3359

The URL accelerator3359.com is being spammed in various articles across various languages. Just a guess but with all the usernames its probably someone editing from an open proxy. Diffs are as follows:

[60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83] [84], [85], [86], [87], [88] [89], [90], [91]---Juvisaid 21:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is another "Joe Job" from Barber, this site is wrestling related unsurprisingly. 81.151.42.92 22:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done Its confirmed to be part of the joe job vie checkuser. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.bobobobobobobo.homestead.com

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

  1. User:Jelly Jiggler "pupper master" - [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]
  2. As User:Don_Patch5000 "sock puppet" (as seen on Jelly Jiggler's and this one's userpage) - [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]
  3. Now as an IP User:63.3.0.2 - [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114]

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

carandbikeforum.com

Spammed regularly across multiple articles by anonymous IPs over a very long period. Examples, and indication that volume is getting worse:

  • (April 9, 2007) 18 articles by 122.164.133.24.[115]
  • (April 9, 2007) 21 articles by 122.164.144.84.[116]
  • (January 17, 2007) 5 articles by 125.22.66.120.[117]
  • (October 10, 2006) 1 article by 59.144.6.154.[118]
  • (September 24, 2006) 6 articles by 125.22.78.69.[119]
  • (September 20, 2006) 5 articles by 125.22.134.134.[120]

There's probably been more, but these are the only contributions I can find at short notice. --81.106.229.118 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC) (DeLarge on en.wikipedia)Reply

Consider this Done but I went ahead and found another one.

  • (October 4, 2006) 4 articles by 59.144.12.42 [121]

—— Eagle101 Need help? 15:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

tozsdesed.googlepages.com

Spammed regularly in various articles on huwiki from various IP addresses (some examples: [122], [123]). The site itself displays real-time stock charts from a different company without their permission (as confirmed in an e-mail from TDCfinancial Ltd). KovacsUr 09:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Redirect sites/URL shortener sites fasturl.it, zootit.com

Redirect/URL shortener sites recently added as external links to en:URL redirection‎:

--A. B. (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

wikimouche.com, mouche.fr, gobages.com

Multiple IP are adding this links to french wikipédia (like here [126]). Is that possible to blacklist it? Thanks. --84.101.128.204 08:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you show some examples of spamming from these domains. Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

emailgulf.com

An annon user corrupts existing external links with this one. For instance, replacing "CAUCE" -- an established anti-spam organization. For example [127] and [128] --Mdwyer 14:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done I would suggest attempting to block the IP first, since it is on the English Wikipedia, I will consider suggesting this to be added to User:Shadowbot. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 17 years ago127 comments26 people in discussion
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a link is not a vote, please do not bold the first words in statements.

Langmaker.com

The following discussion is closed: Done (limited regex).

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

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

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

I think I've found some other discussions on this.
Let me read through them. There might be a reason behind this after all. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, we do have a reason for the blacklist, looks like it was a major problem on a few other wikis. See here. I'm going to recommend that you request whitelisting of this site. (do tell them when you request why its on the blacklist). Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

there is absolutly NO REASON to blacklist this site...its about constructed languages such as the WORKING world language Esperanto it has discussions on creating languages, designing word or letter characters, usage and many other interesting things about language in general. one should REALLY look at the CORE link provided to see if it is in fact a spam site...and not becuase a group of people reference it...wally --71.231.25.86 05:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually there is a reason to blacklist, if it has been spammed, as the links I gave show. Also do note that capital letters are not making a case. :) Show me how the site is constructive, and is worth taking volunteers time to watch that it is not re-spammed. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
hmm so dont look at the capitals letters look at the rest on creating languages, you've never heard of constructed lanuages like esperanto? purusing the first page of the site speaks for itself that its not porn, not MLM or commerical or extreme in any sense... :( it sounds like the definition of spam your using is rather broad... what do you mean re-spammed? cannot more then one person refernce it? wally--71.231.25.86 19:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
By re-spammed I mean the same spammers who originally inserted the link. Now if there are legit uses of this site, please request local whitelisting. All you have to give them (for the english wiki) is the deeplink (langmaker.com/blah) and the article that you want to use it in, and why it meets all of wikipedia's guidelines and policies. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. It seems that only the 'Modern Latin' article was spammed, so I limited the regex to that particular article with allowance for MediaWiki's dual URL formats (\blangmaker\.com.*Modern_Latin). —{admin} Pathoschild 04:04:39, 04 April 2007 (UTC)

Done (so the bot will archive this). —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

medrapid.info

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

Ok, the admin who originally added this does not seem to be around anymore, but a bit of digging in the archives yeilds this. It looks like the german wikipedia got spammed with that link multiple times by multiple IPs. Minding the logical fallacy above (no we are not against research projects), I will think about taking this off, give me a few days. In the meantime you can show me where it might be useful to have this site? I welcome some comments from any passerby. Thanks. Eagle 101 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done if this gets spammed, it will be re-added. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

bonsaimenorca.com

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

Thanks for your attention

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

libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org

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

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

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

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

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ 2nd time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cosplay-world.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

petrophoto.net

The following discussion is closed: Not done

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

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=535949#petrophoto.net here is why it is on the spam blacklist. We got spammed across multiple wikis with this. I am going to note that you could possibly contact the owner of the site for permission, or if the images fall under public domain you can use that. I will consider taking it off, give me a day or two. Comments are welcome here. :) Eagle 101 22:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well as I added the site, I won't say no for sure, but I recommend against removal. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 05:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done per recent discussions in February 2007 and March 2007 (one, two, three, and four). Perhaps in another month or so, after any spammer has had time to give up and wander off. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:01:04, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

ppstream.com

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

That article has already been deleted once. see this. Are we even sure that the community wants that article? Eagle 101 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done article seems to be kept, similar articles on other wikis, will be re-added if there are legit spam issues. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

outrate.net

The following discussion is closed: not removed

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

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

Mark Adnum, Outrate.net

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


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

It just strikes me that many sites,m such as Man Net, provide endless links back to their own sites. As I explanied previously, I agreI overstepped the mark. But I definitely feel that some links are worth inclusion in WIkipedia. Please help me resolve this issue, and again, apologies.

Demonstrate to me how man net has spammed, if we had caught them, it is very likely that they would be on this list as well. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


They, and other sites, often ad heir own reviews and interview to relevant pages, and so I assumed it was acceptable to do the same to.. This page, on Matthew Rush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Rush contains links at the bottoms to an external interview with Matthew Rush. Why is this acceptable yet my Interview with Camille Paglia has to be removed from her wiki page?

Or this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gage_Powers which contains external links placed by the site owners.

As for ManNet examples, see her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_%28porn_star%29

I just assumed that's what external links were for.

Ah, becuase you spammed a link, and were told to stop. Those other sites are presumed to have not been spammed. Trust me I'm not picking on one site, I just reverted another guy adding 20 links to wikipedia today. Thing is that he stopped, you did not. Please read the english wikipedia's information on what spamming is, and our info on conflict of interest. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
P.S. please sign your posts using ~~~~. Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have now read and re-read those policies. I don't make any excuse for excessively linking, especially after I did receive the warnings. I sincerely apologise.

Ok, will you add this link again? In any case, ask in a month. —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The only links I would ever add again would be my interviews with Camille Paglia which is content rich, recent and of interest to anyone seeking information on that person. Likewise, Billy Hayes and Joey Stefano, as there is little info out there on those two people. I've no intenton of linking o any others. What are my possibilities of being reinstated and able to add these links?

Ask in a month, as thats still en:WP:COI. If you can get the editors on that article to agree with you that that is a good link, then you may request local whitelisting. —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


Thank you for your assistance this morning. One last request: Who and where do I ask in a month?

You ask here. —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This was closed as Not done (for the bot) —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.lost.eu

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

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


pavelnedved.110mb.com

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

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

alleydog.com

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

Here is why alleydog.com is on the spam blacklist
#11 Jul 06 - bot spamming en.wp
alleydog\.com
I will think about removal. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
An added note, please sign your posts using ~~~~. Thank you.—— Eagle101 Need help? 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I've found more information here. Still thinking about removal. Does the site have any use? —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

nefac.net

I am not sure why this site is blacklisted, but it be great if it could be removed from the list. I would like to keep the link nefac.net/node/166 on the Charlotte Wilson page. 69.112.99.31 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

here is why the link is blacklisted, I recommend against removing it from the blacklist, but I do strongly suggest that you request local whitelisting, your situation is exactly what the whitelist is designed for. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok done, thanks. 69.112.99.31 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

dcestonian.com

Trying to determine why this site has been blacklisted. It was pointed out the site was an origin for spam. I contacted the guy who runs the site, and he said he know nothing about the problem, or that his site had been blacklisted. Dcestonian.com is a non-profit community related web site.68.48.81.66 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here would be why. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see a bunch of links pointing to some Polish language pages. Not sure what this has to do with spam? Do I understand correctly that being blacklisted implies www.dcestonian.com spammed wikipedia?68.48.81.66 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It means the site has been spammed on wikimedia foundation wikis, and that blacklisting was the only way to prevent insertion of that domain name. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Entire List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines

It seems like every website referenced for a Fraternity or Sorority on this page has been Blacklisted. I've tried commenting them out one by one, but after about the sixth, I'm wondering if any of them *haven't* been blacklisted. Could someone let me know the current status? 72.244.26.2 12:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you are referring to the english wikipedia, I don't have any problems saving the page. If you have a question about a specific link feel free ask. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Also note there are no references on that page, all I see is a bunch of external links which may or may not fit with english wikipedia's en:WP:EL guidelines. :) But if you have questions about a link please ask. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

yoyita.com

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

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

TNAwrestling.com

This is the official website of the second largest wrestling organization in North America, and likely the world (I can't think of any European ones that are bigger, and can think of only 2 or 3 Japanese ones that could be bigger). The site is used in dozens, if not hundreds of articles at WP (TNA PPV articles, TNA wrestler articles, wrestling match articles, etc.) To have their own official site blacklisted is ludicrous. What this is saying is that ANY site can get banned if it's spammed enough (even something like cnn.com or nfl.com). I would love to see the reaction if this BS happened to espn.com, getting blacklisted because some idiots spammed it. TJ Spyke 03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sad to say, but TJ Spyke is right, how a major website could be blacklisted is beyond me also. alexa.com stats for TNAwrestling.com. Govvy 14:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the record, see User:COIBot/LinkReports/tnawrestling.com (en:Joe job]]?) --Beetstra 16:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done actually removed about 3 days ago. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

de.chabad.org

The site de.chabad.org was blacklisted after a dynamic ip was adding links to English language content on the German wikipedia of a mirror site (www.chabad-baden.de). See [130] and [131]]. There may have been spamming of the mirror site which seems to belong to a local German Chabad center. However the main site which is the German language version of en:chabad.org, should not be blacklisted as it does not contain any English content and regarding the relevant content issue, the diff provided as the reason to blacklist the site [132] was actually relevant content which contained much info not in the current article. Obviously if there are users who add links inappropriately, they should be reverted, however this does not seem to be the case with this particular domain which does have much relevant use on the German wikipedia. --PinchasC 13:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

pda.aggiornamento.de.tf

The link above is blacklisted for no reason I readily understand. It is contained in de:Zweites Vatikanisches Konzil (see en:Second Vatican Council for a translation, no typical spammer target, I suppose) for a while now, the site appears quite relevant and on-topic to me at first sight. I wonder how it got blocked in the first place. --84.188.215.42 20:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done It was an invalid regex. It is now fixed. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.macedonian-empire.cjb.net

Why is this in the blacklist please? I'm no longer able to edit my user page because of this! --Rebroad 11:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done It was an invalid regex. Sorry for the problems. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

deathcamps.org

Website of Aktion Reinhard - a holocaust archive site. The site is linked to from en:Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and af:Warskou Ghetto Opstand amongst others. The spam filter is making it impossible to edit these pages... 81.171.1.194 16:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done here is why it is on the spam blacklist. Until those issues are resolved, I don't see a valid reason to remove. Now if you want to use one of the two (deathcamps.org or death-camps.org) you can request local whitelisting, though I would try to keep it to deeplinks if possible death-camps.org/someSubPage or deathcamps.org/someSubPage. Regards —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oursportscentral.com

This being in the blacklist makes no sense. It is a very reliable source for minor league sports press releases and team information! Tom Danson 20:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done that link has never been on this list. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blog.myspace.com

It also is idiotic that this page is in the blacklist. On the wikipedia article Ultimate Victory (the sophomore album by Chamillionaire), it still lists the release date as April 24, when Cham himself said in his myspace blog that it had been pushed back until June 5. Now I can't edit the page to correct the date! Could somebody please help me? Tom Danson 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done request local whitelisting. Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.harrysmith.cjb.net

Why is this blacklisted? Can it not at the very least be allowed on en:Harry Smith (wrestler) (which is presumably the only page that would link to it seeing as it's the subject's personal website)? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 00:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done It was some faulty regex. Though I am going to say the popup ads on that site are horrible. That froze up my browser for a good 15 seconds it was loading in a bunch of junk. Feel free to use it, but I certainly won't look at that one again. :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ahh thanks for that. *cough*useFirefox*cough* ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 07:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I do use firefox along with Gentoo_Linux :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

web.archive.org/web/20010604050931/www.wcw.com/p1.html

For en:World Championship Wrestling article. Illustrative citation to reference the page. This link was fine 5 minutes ago. Basically, I cannot make one simple edit to correct the reflist from being completely messed up unless I go through it and hack out references that are now suddenly and inexplicably blacklisted. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see this Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04/Additions:_Done#tnawrestling.com before removing, thanks! --Beetstra 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Mmm something is messed up here... let me try to untangle this :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not good at all... see this. Its working here on meta, but I'm getting something wrong on en. As far as I know meta does not have a whitelist, which makes this even stranger. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, from testing on en, if you put nowiki around this link, it will save. (on en). See this. I'm going to see if a regex is off or something, but this *should* not be working on meta and failing to work on en. Its just plain odd. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yey! I found the problem, let me figure out how to fix the regex. It is one of the more complicated regex that I used to stop Barber from continuing his problems. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done pending the blacklist propagating correctly, this *should* work. If it does not for some reason, and I don't notice, just let me know below this post. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.tv.com/wcw-monday-nitro/march-26-2001/episode/128781/summary.html

See above (for en:World Championship Wrestling article) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see this Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04/Additions:_Done#tnawrestling.com before removing, thanks! --Beetstra 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not on blacklist. --Beetstra 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's still flagging up as blacklisted. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done - byproduct of this problem should be fixed, if there are problems mention them in this section below my last post. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

oratory.rajah.com/testfolder/index.php?archive=1461

See above (for en:World Championship Wrestling article) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see this Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04/Additions:_Done#tnawrestling.com before removing, thanks! --Beetstra 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
not on blacklist. --Beetstra 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's still flagging up as blacklisted. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done - byproduct of this problem should be fixed, if there are problems mention them in this section below my last post. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.obsessedwithwrestling.com

See above (for en:World Championship Wrestling article) plus this has numerous links in articles ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see this Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04/Additions:_Done#tnawrestling.com before removing, thanks! --Beetstra 07:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not on blacklist. --Beetstra 07:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's still flagging up as blacklisted. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
not done (yet) not on the blacklist in the first place, see this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Modify what I just said, there is something odd afoot. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done - byproduct of this problem should be fixed, if there are problems mention them in this section below my last post. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

mybb.ru

It is a site providing a service of free forums in Russia. Here's an example of completely legitimate one: usd . mybb . ru Article Captcha Exchange Server. --88.119.34.224 19:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

simonetti.forumcommunity.net

Attempting to cite a composer's post in this (his official) forum. I know it doesn't seem terribly reputable at first glance, but it is important to the soundtrack section of the article en:The Third Mother. 151.201.9.217

Not done See this, generated from an archive search. Please request local whitelisting of preferably a deeplink to a page of the forum that you need. (for english wiki they request this). —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, this was very helpful. You may remove my post if you wish. 151.201.9.217

Blog.myspace.com (another one, I know)

It's needed in w:Chronology of the Doctor Who universe as a citation from an officially created MySpace tie-in. MySpace is used so frequently my producers (Doctor Who, Nip/Tuck, Veronica Mars) to tie in their TV series, that it's sometime NECESSARY to cite it. It should just be removed from the blacklist, although I'll simultaneously apply for a local whitelisting. 81.96.167.246 (w:User:Zythe) 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done, local whitelisting will do. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).


Bug with the spam blacklist?

I have attempted to revert the following vandalism:[133] , which is vandalism because it contains not only unsourced but false and difficult to understand material which was intentionally inserted.

However, when I attempted to save my page after the reversion, I relieve an error that says I have violated the "Spam blacklist". I am not adding any hyperlinks by this reversion, so I do not understand what the problem could be.

Thanks in advance, User:Bobo The Ninja on the english wikipedia, 16:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Blacklist prevents all saving, not only when you add a link, also links that may already be in the document. The warning you get tells you which blacklisted link triggered the filter, and that link should be removed. Hope this helps. --Beetstra 16:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
So am I supposed to delete the offending/blacklisted link (or at least the http://www. part) even if it was inserted/written by someone else?--84.145.222.231 17:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it is a wiki after all, and can be ruthlessly edited by others... Nobody owns anything on these wikis :). If you think the link is legit request local whitelisting. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

republica.com

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

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

blog.myspace.com

Please help.

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

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

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



PressArchive.net

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

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

haloeastereggs dot co dot nr?

I can't undo vandalism to Easter egg (virtual) because it tells me that a site is on the blacklist. I can't even name the site here, because the meta-wiki refuses to let me save this comment because the site is on the blacklist, but here it is with some slight obfuscation: www dot haloeastereggs dot co dot nr. I can't find anything on the blacklist which would appear to patternmatch this. - Brian Kendig 02:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I took the link off for now, so you can save, its likely a bad regex. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done fixed, you may re-add the link. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

en:U-boat

I tried saving an edit & got the Spam blacklist warning. I have no idea why. How do I fix it? 24.66.94.144 22:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) And how do I fix that IP address? It's not mine...Reply

I have no problems saving. —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

SBArchiverBot is deleting but not archiving stuff from this page

I notice this bot twice deleted the same completed additions from this page[134][135] but they never made it to Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04/Removals: Done. I don't have time to do it, but it's probably worth looking at the bot's contribution history for other mistakes. --A. B. (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nothing else went wrong. I'm going to try another run now to see what's up. Shadow1 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply


strings of text that may not be used in URLs

Is it really necessary to mass block sites just because they have a certain string of words in the url? Examples: "casino-online" and "online-casino" are strings of words in the URL not allowed. I find this a bit annoying since there are several non spamming sites with these words in the URL, this makes it hard to make the best possible articles in the gambling section. One of many examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blackjack#Why_is_it_called_.22Black_Jack.22.3F. Should we not consider adding the relative few sites who are spamming to the blacklist instead of not allowing any links at all to a lot of legit non-spamming sites? I suggest that "casino-online" and "online-casino" is removed from the blacklist 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Or just request local whitelisting :) Get whatever pages that you need on the whitelist. Those words are common spam keywords. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes that would probably be a very good idear :-). However apparently some editors really don't like anything gambling related at all in the whitelist. Example: in the en:blackjack article just below the playing strategy chart the article contains this text: "...but requires a slightly modified basic strategy table (such tables can be generated using the external links)." This quote used to refer to an external link to the following page: online-casinos.com/blackjack/basic-strategy-calculator.php but it was removed from the whitelist during a "clean up". Then the whitelist cleanup editor went on an removed the link in the blackjack article because the site was blacklisted. Clearly the site was not really blacklisted at all - on the contrary it was whitelisted untill he decided to remove the link from the whitelist (for no good reason). As a result of this the quote above from the blackjack article is no longer true. Could you please look into this and perhaps add this site back to the whitelist as it added value to the article? Thanks you. 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Then re-request it on the whitelist, it may be an error. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the help - I made the re-request. Cheers 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Other discussions

Latest comment: 17 years ago38 comments14 people in discussion

Referral Profiteering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


artnet.de/artist

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

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

Ask de:Benutzer:Hedwig in Washington in English/German and de:Benutzer:MaxSem please, they are responsible. see: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Hedwig_in_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=26571641
Comment by Hedwig some days before: And now I´m waiting for complaints. Greetings 195.93.60.97 11:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Bullshit, I never said that. It's your personal problem that makes you frustrated. Don't blame your own inability on other user.--Hedwig in Washington 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Is anyone here able - no, not you, Hedwig Troll from Washington - to answer the question of Saintrain and of all people, who will ask the same questions in the next years? Btw: de:artnet is a regular en:joint stock company and not suspected of producing spam (except by Hedwig and MaxSern. Unfortunately he speaks no German :-))
  • Examples: here <-- and and here from 22:34, 16. Dez. 2006 to 22:47, 16. Dez. 2006 . Does anyone find one single spamlink at artnet? You can win 5 Euros!
  • I guess, not the most engaged vandal is able to "produce" such a damage like Hedwig and Max, because these few examples from de can give only an impression to what is happening worldwide in wikipedia 195.93.60.97 09:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here is why the site is currently on the blacklist see here. If you can present good arguemnts on how the original blacklist conditions nolonger apply I will take it off. Regards. Eagle 101 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi it´s unbelievable. Thanks for that link. I planned to wait on the next asker and then to present the next 20 damages on de. But I had no idea, that Hedwig has destroyed 129 articles, only in de. How big is the damage in en? In Germany these people are bestkown as super trolls. (@Hedwig: Das gibt noch ein Nachspiel)
Note: You will not need artnet for illustrations like Da Vinci, Rembrandt or Dürer, but for all these thousands of artists who are only popular (or nearly forgotten even) in their own countries and who have made beautiful stuff like this [[136]. Can´t believe it, honestly. Regards 195.93.60.97 20:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nothing can be destroyed, it's a Wiki! So don't cry and don't accuse others of being super trolls, maybe you shall read the rules of Meta and DE-Wiki before complaining and don't try to threaten me. That's not helping your case either. As I said many times before (my email), convince me or let us try to unblock the site and watch it closely. But no, better complain about the system and Admins that don't speak German on Meta. Oh Lord. --Hedwig in Washington 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I´ve asked you one time, see above, that should be enough. 195.93.60.97 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

For future reference, the previous discussions were in December 2006 and February 2007. It seems the users involved were concerned with the quality of their references, not spam. Note that widespread placement of a link in good faith to reference an article is not spam, as this quote by one of the requesting user suggests:
"the point is that 129 (see above) links are way too many. Period. That's masslinking and it's not conform with the rules. If it's unblocked, there will be 100 or more within a couple days. I understand the problem the guys have and I really wish it would be different, but unblocking is not the right thing to do IMHO. We should find different ways (websites) to show pictures and the written information is not very useful and doesn't help on the topic."
I'm further inclined to remove it, unless mzlla has another reason I haven't seen. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your decision, no matter what. But don't expect me to clean the mess up again. ;-)) --Hedwig in Washington 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Who else? And don´t forget a single one.
btw.: What´s up with user:mzlla? Is he dead ? 195.93.60.97 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Found this: It's a little mysterious: mzlla's last edit was in december 2006: 16:00, 7 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Spam blacklist/Log (?December - 4 sites added)
But that gives us time to prove other "spam" trollings by Hedwig, as kunstportal-bw.de 195.93.60.97 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

More problems

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

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

Problem editing en:Old School (Film)

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

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

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

Done see the edit by —— Eagle101 Need help? if you want to see what I did. (check the history of the page). —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.bolivia.at.tf

I attempted to edit en:Bolivia and this link triggered the spam filter. However, I can't find it or any link resembling it on the blacklist. Am I missing something or is there a problem with the filter? Also, the Bolivia page was last edited (with that link present) at 22:32, 1 April 2007 and I can't find any evidence that the link was added to the blacklist since then.--Dycedarg 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done I fixed it, though that link really ought not to be on that page. Its taking me 1 minute to load up a page on that. I'm sure there are better sites, but thats my personal opinion. For me to see any of the actual content of this site, it is taking me over 4 minutes (its still loading as I'm typing, and I'm on broadband). —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ah it finally loaded. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I know it's a crappy site, but I didn't think that we put sites on the blacklist for having long loading times. I was just making sure there wasn't something wrong with the filter, and besides that the site does have useful information even if it takes forever to get to it.--Dycedarg 21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Actually I don't see any real useful info, but you are right the domain should not be on the blacklist if its not redirecting people around the blacklist. (that was why it was on there to start with). —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.deathcamps.org

Please remove www.deathcamps.org. from the blacklist It is quite normal site devoted to a history of nazi deathcamps and ghettos of times of the Second World War 80.134.79.55 Ben-Velvel

This has been discussed here. ElinorD 08:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • The hyphenated spammers have been emailing the OTRS list. I told them as far as the admins on enWP and several other languages are concerned the case is closed, we don't need their fight. I hope we are not going to reopen Pandora's box here. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

en:Novi Plamen

Why is Novi Plamen magazine blacklisted?

Its not, I am able to edit the page. If there is a blacklist message it is do to a url in the article. (I'm assuming your problem is with the english wikipedia) —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

A link can't be added to any related articles, and it says it's blacklisted.

What specific page are you having problems on? —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=560962"