Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by 87.194.23.18 (talk) at 04:31, 17 March 2007 (→‎touregypt.net: comment). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 17 years ago by 87.194.23.18 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.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

snippet for logging: {{/request|544545#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If you cannot find your remark below, it has probably been archived at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01 or Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/02.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 ago134 comments36 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
Not done Eagle 101 17:04, 6 March 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

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
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

bottleguy.com

Yet another shock site, most likely from GNAA.

Examples of vandalism with this site

Just block the IP, (or request it be blocked). Unless it is multiple IP (preferably ranges), there is no need to blacklist. Just treat it as normal vandalism. Eagle 101 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)`Reply
Not done, no evidence of spamming. Naconkantari 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

phonetrace.org

Yet another shock site, most likely from GNAA.

Examples of vandalism with this site

Just block the IP, (or request it be blocked). Unless it is multiple IP (preferably ranges), there is no need to blacklist. Just treat it as normal vandalism. Eagle 101 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, no evidence of spamming Naconkantari 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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. [6], [7], [8] - 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
Done Ok I will blacklist, sorry for the delay later today when I have time to log it and all. Eagle 101 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ruswar.com

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

Why this useful site is considered to be a spam? Who decide it for all people? Did you look the site youself? Or maybe you been on a war? This collection of RARE war PHOTOGRAPHY and DOCUMENTARY is unic non-commercial project, built by veterans of Afghanistan war. It looks like somebody has a personal problems and no respect to died soldiers. God has no forgivness for such vandalism. If it dos not mach a language criteria??? just remove the link from unappropriate page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bladerunner4545 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've already replied on the request for removal below, but basically it has been spammed across multiple wikis. I'm leaving this up to another meta admin to choose to remove it or not. Though I will ask you to please tone down the language, I don't have a "war" against much anything. Thanks. Eagle 101 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Eagle 101, Wikipedia is public project initialy created to help people find useful information. 1)By designating www.ruswar.com as a spam and removing from related pages you cut off people from the access to the source of valuable materials. Ruswar.com not only provides Copyrighted unique Photos and Documentary of Afghanistan war 1979-1989, Salang road, Soviet Army, it also helps people around the world to keep the memory of the past - Langauge is not the issue. 2)If one terrorist oriented person did not like the photography of Russian Army and the mission in Afghanistan, it's not the signal to you to label ruswar.com as a spam. 3)You undertook liability to make this action without discussion with other 40 administrators and consideration opinion of the page's authors. Moreover, it is a shame and a sin to call charity work - SPAM.

OK, here are some comments from a bystander. I'm not an admin and I don't make decisions here -- what follows is strictly my own opinion:
First of all, attacking Eagle 101 is wrong -- he's just following the rules in response to a request from others. Just as I was following the normal protocol when I deleted your links from the English Wikipedia; once a link is blacklisted, you can't edit any pages that contain it until the link is removed, so I was removing the link to free up the pages.
I looked at your photos and I liked them. I would not have requested they be blacklisted myself. Having said that, take a look at these to guidelines from the English language Wikipedia:
  • Conflict of Interest Guideline -- in a nutshell, never link to your own website even if it's non-commercial and even if the links otherwise meet all of our requirements
  • Spam Guideline -- if you start adding a bunch of links to your own website, it's going to lok like spam to us. If you start doing it across multiple Wikipedias, then it really rings alarm bells. When one IP address adds only links and does it across multiple Wikipedias, it's classic spam >95% of the time.
  • Civility Policy -- please do not bite off Eagle 101's head. He's a real person, just like you. Besides, if you'd like to see your links on Wikipedia, it's counterporductive
  • What Wikipedia is Not -- especially the section that says [[en:WP:NOT#SOAP|Wikipedia is not a directory or link-farm. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
  • External Links Guideline -- most useful or interesting sites do not meet our standards of "encyclopedic". I have two great web sites myself that are well-respected and widely cited in their niche yet they do not meet our guideline (and don't have links on Wikipedia).
  • Finally, you're bound to wonder "Well what about all the links to really rotten sites that Wikipedia has? My site is much better. Why have links to those others?" The answer is that on the English Wikipedia alone, we have 3 million+ links, many of them low quality (even if they're not classic "spam") and we welcome all the help we can get to reduce the problem. There a just a few dozen volunteers working on link improvement. As you see noncompliant links, please delete it (just don't go on a deletion spree out of anger -- see en:WP:POINT).
--A. B. (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
A. B. to clarify, I am the one that listed that, I blacklisted to stop the cross wiki spam. I'm willing to take it off in a few weeks and try again (see if spamming keeps up or not). Eagle 101 16:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend not removing as there is clear evidence of cross-wiki spam. Naconkantari 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Various Spam Links

  1. misa.pimpblog.nl
  2. vesna.reciter.com
  3. viva.reciter.com
  4. www.blogagotchi.com/bobovina
  5. www.blogagotchi.com/busek
  6. www.blogagotchi.com/cher

Spammed the sonikmatter wiki (and many others - google any of the links +mediawiki)

Examples 1 and 2

The Puppeteer 01:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It looks like a user account, try blocking the user on that wiki. Either that or demonstrate on this page that there is cross wiki spam (at least 3 or 4 wikis will do). Thanks! Eagle 101 02:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
User accounts are randomly generated by bots. The user has been blocked, but the bot will just create a new account with random numbers.

For evidence of cross wiki spamming, see the following links

  1. Google Search misa-pimpblog-nl
  2. Google Search vesna-reciter-com
  3. Google Search viva-reciter-com
  4. Google Search www-blogagotchi-com-bobovina
  5. Google Search www-blogagotchi-com-busek
  6. Google Search www-blogagotchi-com-cher

203.59.114.60 02:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Um, what am I looking for here with these google searches.... Eagle 101 17:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done Naconkantari 19:25, 12 March 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

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: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] 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

*.obsq.info

Constant spamming for the past few days. Check the history on this page. [25]

Is that the only place where that link is being abused? If so why don't you try a semi-protection or a protection. If it is not the only page, can you please demonstrate where it has been spammed elsewhere? Thanks Eagle 101 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
My wiki is the only place I know of. It might be spammed else where. They just hit me again after you wrote your comment. I have protected the page... but I bet they will move to my other pages soon enough. They are obviously using proxies as the IP is different but the web links are the same. Thanks anyway.... 65.67.98.193 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, come back and let someone know if they move on. Cheers! Eagle 101 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply



*.astore.amazon.com

please, check these edits: diff and diff. That's shoking, they have added (or modified) links to Amazon through the "partner program", in order to get money from the books buyed by wikipedians. Can you go to all the others wikis to control if the links to Amazon are 'clean'? Thanks, thanks a lot! --81.211.181.164 00:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC) - PS: they are everywere: [26], [27], [28]. --81.211.181.164 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

So wait... this is a request to add or remove? Eagle 101 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
add to the Spam blacklist; thanks. --81.211.181.164 02:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
moved to right place, support the request--Jollyroger 16:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I support the request to blacklist this domain. It consists solely of affiliate sites - even if you consider Amazon.com a useful link there is no value added by this sub-domain. We have removed thousands of these links from the English Wikipedia. The links are a bit difficult to track down now they have been removed, but here and here are just two examples. another example and another. And more discussion here. There have also been links to astore.amazon.de and astore.amazon.fr and astore.amazon.co.uk so I think that these should be also added to the regexp. zzuuzz (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done Naconkantari 22:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

these 3 websites are present in many wikis, mainly in the 'Wikipedia:Book sources' special pages (just removed from it.wiki ). If you search a book, the websites are always redirecting to Amazon (pay-per-link system). The same system is adopted by isbndb.com (Amazon and others). Probably the special pages related to Special:Booksources are full of this kind of spam in every wiki. --81.211.181.164 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please provide diff links to the spam. Thanks, Naconkantari 05:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
the 3 websites on the topic title belong to the same author: he is making money with the "referral profiteering" system (when you get a book description then the links are pointing to amazon). Links are mainly in the "Wikipedia:Book sources" pages on several wikis, for example: en, fr, es, fi, it, de. It is allowed to make money in this way? --81.211.176.241 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done, thanks Naconkantari 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Moved a removal request to the proper section, below. EdJohnston 01:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Medha Hari spam on Wikipedia

Medha Hari is an Indian dancer. She and/or supporters have aggressively spammed her promotional links and photos for two years using dozens of sock-puppets:

Spammed domains

  • voila.fr/bharatanatyam-dance
  • geocities.com/medhahari
  • medha.info

Articles affected on en.wikipedia:

Spams cross-wiki: English, German, Polish, Italian, French

We thought the problem was solved after the big checkuser investigation and a number of blocks six weeks ago, but a new sock has just added the link again.[29] --A. B. (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

All means have been tried, consider this Done Eagle 101 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry if I am wrong, but, for example, one link ( in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html ) cannot be categorized as spam according to the Wikipedia rules because

1. the link has been placed in the relevant category 2. the link is highly relevant 3. the link provided extended info on Wiki's article 4. the link is not related to Medha Hari, even though contains some links to her pages (as well as dozens of other pages, including Wikipedia!!!) 5. the link does not contain any promotion of any commercial product

Therefore, I consider all the vandalism of the A. B. group (who use plausible interpretations of Wiki's antispam policy) as abusive. 121.247.36.38 03:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A detailed discussion of these links including their promotional nature can be found at en:talk::Bharatanatyam. The advocates for this link were sockpuppets as established by checkuser. Most were blocked by independent admins, not myself. A wide range of Wikipedia policies and guidelines were violated these sockpuppets including en:WP:SPAM, en:WP:NOT#SOAP, en:WP:COI, en:WP:VAND, en:WP:EL, and en:WP:SOCK.en:WP:CIVIL, en:WP:NPA. The record of the accounts adding this link as detailed in all of the links provided above speaks for itself. If this editor has further concerns, she/he can ask for a second opinion at en:WT:WPSPAM; if the reviewing editors there find my actions have been inappropriate, they will certainly overturn them. --A. B. (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi AB! :-)Blessings from Madras! :-) I read a recent review in the Hindu about this site, so am new to Wikipedia, and, frankly speaking do not understand your personal vendetta against that little girl's web site! OK, sockpuppets are bad, but don't you want to throw the baby out with the water? If you start deleting all links because they lend some vague "promotional nature" to the sites, do you seriosly think you are contributing positively to Wikipedia, or just destroying it? All in all, I think that the reviewing editors will find that "medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html" does belong to where it used to be.

P.S. Just read that article. I believe that you don't like that link because it offers quite a different view from those in the W's article! Take the origin of "Bharatanatyam": if you care to read what that "nasty Medhahari's page" contains, you will see that it is a much more serious and better-grounded write-up than the maimed mess that is created here. Regards. Sethumadhavan33 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear users of the A.B. group, your argument that a particular link has to be blacklisted merely as long as it is added by a few 'sockpuppets' does not hold water if this link has been ALSO added by a number of non-'sockpuppets' (which you admitted). There are two separate issues that you, for some reason, chose to combine into one.

121.247.44.14 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I urge everyone to scrutinize the Bharatanatyam article discussion page before making up their minds to indiscriminately delete everything that they don't like. Jag Ju 10:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here is the proof that such self-declared "spam-fighters" as A. B. have been vandalizing Wikipedia. While deleting links from classical Indian dance, our dear over-zealous spam-fighters have nevertheless left the promotional and commercial link to dancevillage.org (which only link to Barnes&Nobles shop!) and closed their eyes on the fact that the eventsindia link was about volleyball, ceramics, anything but classical Indian dance.

I believe that the admins have to seriously look into cases of vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam". Jag Ju 11:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Jag Ju 11:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure that A. B. is not a vandal, Please assume good faith in him. If these were done in error, please list a request for removal with sound reasons why they should be removed. Please try to avoid attacking anyone while doing so. Thanks. Eagle 101 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

outrate.net

Multi article multi IP porn spammer. WPSPAM case.--Hu12 19:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Permanent link to the WPSPAM page here. Eagle 101 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done sorry for the delay, I'm trying to set up linux on my personal computer. Eagle 101 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


www.achieve360points.com

Users hitting articles in an alphabetical fashion. An advertisement-laden site that has no use for the articles they add them to.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Lovely, any more users, or did they give up? Eagle 101 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, return if continues. Naconkantari 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

321books.co.uk

Repeatedly spammed site, an apparant adsense campaign on the English Wikipedia. Additions from Multiple IP's and sock accounts. more IP's and socks WPSPAM case.--Hu12 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done, thank you. --.anaconda 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

haber80.net

massive interwiki spam via new article creation:

a few examples: http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmaniye http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmaniye http://yi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmaniye --Versageek 12:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Eagle 101 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


tinyurl.us

url shrinking site - spammed here --Versageek 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 05:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

lonympics.co.uk

Chronic spammer Newuser123 has used at least 57 accounts to spam lonympics.co.uk links across a wide range of en.wikipedia articles for months since first being confronted in August 2006. Still at it within the last week.[55][56][57][58]

--A. B. (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

VsiSoftware.com, Inc. and Insureme.com spam -- round 3

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Now we have still another insureme.com site that's turned up:[59][60]

  • lowcostcarinsurance.us

--A. B. (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 05:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hang on please! Have you researched this before blacklisting? Show me one place where insureme.com has placed a direct link. These sites you are listing are not insureme.com. They are simply affiliates through a third company. Insureme.com has no control of this without know these sites are spamming. They should be warned first. Now as for the sites such as lowcostcarinsurance.com they should be blacklisted for spamming. As for insureme it should not be unless it has spammed itself. Many major companies have this third party as an affiliate manager. I know two sites in which they are in the top 10 websites on the Internet. We shouldn't ban them. What we will have to do is take these sites on a case by case basis and blacklist them. It may be more work, but at least we will meet wikipedia.org standards. If insureme.com has spammed please place the link. If this is the case they should be blacklisted.

And the value of the link? Eagle 101 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Insureme.com has many link values. They are listed as the third listing in google.com for auto insurance. In addition to this they have more than 50 registered auto insurance agents. They have a blog that is linked to more than 11,000 websites in which webmasters are seeking experts opinions. They have many valuable auto insurance tools that are trademarked and resources to all 50 states. I am not saying add these sites to an external link. But, some editor or user may want to provide this valuable content to wikipedia.org. They want be able to because you blacklisted a website in which has not spammed wikipedia.org. Like I stated earlier insureme.com hasn't spammed directly. Quit being lazy and whitelist this website!!! We will have to take the affiliates who spam and blacklist them on a case by case basis. But, if I was to go out and buy a website and join there affiliate program and spam wikipedia.org why should insureme.com have to pay for this. I should be the one owho gets blacklisted since I spammed.


  1. 1 Guideline for wikipedia.org - Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam.

So don't blacklist simply because of no link value. If this was the case you would need to put a blacklist on 95% of all the websites on the web.

liveeyetv.org

w:en:Special:Contributions/66.212.64.234 keeps spamming his/her blog on articles about music groups: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]

82.66.36.11 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

srisathyasaibookcentre.org.uk

Anonymous editors (sockpuppets?) continue to insert spam/commercial links into w:Sathya Sai Baba in spite of several reports to admin, resulting blocks, etc. Problem has been ongoing for a long time and continues: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6. All editors are becoming exhausted with removing this spamlink that is inserted on a daily basis. Ekantik talk 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

mp3lyrics.org

Site hosting song lyrics without permission of copyright holders. Inserted into numerous articles on en.wp. Here are some of the ones I found. --Slowking Man 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

lyricsandsongs.com

Same as above. --Slowking Man 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

yahoo.335-i.com/BMW

wwww.yahoo.335-i.com/BMW - url shorterner. leads to a cars sales site. spammer contribs. JoeSmack 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.qmhandbuch.de

Commercial site for Quality Assurance Handbook (german) adding his link all few weeks to all kind of QM/QA realated articles. It was just remove today again from

Therefore, I would like request to blacklist this domain to save further work. Thanks in adance. AV 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done please just try blocking the IP behind it. Looks like it is just one account and its related IP address. Thanks, and if there are further issues with this link feel free to post here. Eagle 101 04:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 4

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[71]

  • auto-insurance-company.net

--A. B. (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

geiz-gorilla.com

Spammed by Deutsche Telekom addresses 84.185.216.42, 84.185.249.66, and 84.185.225.217 to articles on en, es, it, sv, and possibly others. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done clear case of problems. Eagle 101 04:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

coffeereview.net and Yosemite spam

Links:

  • extranomical.com
  • yosemitetours.travel
  • coffeereview.net

Added by Emotionlovesyou and at least one anonymous IP that we know of, 64.142.88.201 to a range of en:wikipedia articles related to either coffee or en:Yosemite National Park. Numerous warnings and an indefinite block have not stopped the problem.[72][73]. --A. B. (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Better Solution Spam

bettersolutions.com Frequent spamming of Better Solution links on Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. User has been caught and banned impersonating administrationship when his links have been reverted. See [74]. Latest spamming include vandalism of external link by replacing Microsoft Office official page with Better Solution's link.

Done Naconkantari 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion: Disallow redirect sites

Sometimes the danish wiki has experienced linkspam to linkredirect/shortlink sites. Would it not be a good idea to disallow such sites?:

E.g.:

relurl.com/
urlkick.com/
1url.org/go/
masl.to/
lnk.in/

It is best that people directly can see the domain they are going to. --Glenn 20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What triggered Glenn's above comment are links to Flash versions of games added across several (if not multiple Wikipedia versions; e.g. I found the same links in de:, nn:, and no: where acticles were available). The links are added from the address ranges 89.0.0.0-89.1.255.255 and 62.90.5.192-62.90.5.223 (and possibly others).

Examples of the added links taken from da:

- Kaare 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Redirect sites are prohibited. Done Naconkantari 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Open proxy

Another proxy being used to evade the spam blacklist: [75]. Silly, since the site being linked is not actually on the blacklist, although it has been spammed mercilessly by en:User:JB196. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

kitzor.com, tinyshorturl.com gamesff.com zluf.com

Spammer on many Wikis:

Spammer spams mainly Tetris, and Pac-Man articles. From yesterday I'm trying to clean everywhere he was. Hołek 12:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Links only to pl.wiki are here, because you can access other by interwiki... He spams everywhere on Wikipedia. (Maybe single-block for 89.0.*.* ?) Hołek 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done Naconkantari 19:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Brass India returns

This guy http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=502607#Conex_India_linkfarms returns with new domains. Femto 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply 

aksharmetal.com
appleeou.com
appleinternational.com
appleinternationalenggworks.com
appleinternational.co.in
appleinternational.co.in
appleinternational.in
appleworldwide.com
autobrassonline.com
brassbuildinghardware.com
brasscableglands.com
brasselectrical.com
brasselectricalaccessories.com
brasselectricalcomponents.com
brassfastenersindia.com
brass-fasteners.com
brass-fasteners-india.com
brassfittingcomponents.com
brassinsertsbrassnutsbrassbolts.com
brass-inserts-fasteners-india.com
brassneutrallinks.com
brassnuts-brassbolts.com
brasspartsindia.com
brassparts.ind.in
brassprecisionparts.com 
brass-screws-bolts-nuts.com
brassterminalconnectors.com
brassturnedcomponents.com
cableglands-india.com
cable-glands-asia.com
cableglandsworldwide.com
hindustanimpex.com
jamnagaronline.com
rathodind.com
sahajanandbrass.com
skynetindia.info
siliconbronzefasteners.com
shivombrass.com
webnettechindia.com
Done Naconkantari 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 5

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[76]

  • classic-car-insurance.biz

The same IP also spammed:

  • free-mortgage-calculator.info[77]

--A. B. (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please quit putting insureme.com as part of this spammer. This website is not insureme.com it is free-mortgage-calculator.info and classic-car-insurance.biz. This has nothin g to do with insureme.com. If we think this is part of insureme.com then we need to start one websites running google ads. Google does not own the websites running google adsense. Insureme.com doesn't own the sites running there ads either.

Change title above to


free-mortgage-calculator.info and classic-car-insurance.biz

XXX links

  • best-teens.bebto.com [78]

--Milda 06:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 6

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[79]

  • free-car-insurance-quote.net

--A. B. (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

subtitry.ru

and opensubtitles.org, subs.com.ru, titulky.com, subbiee.com, divxplanet.com, hot.ee/subland/, sub.divx.ee, subtitles.images.o2.cz, legendas.tv, andrepcg.lusopt.info

Links to copyright violating material (subtitles). Website fails WP:EL and WP:C guidelines/policies. Very same sites have been blacklisted.

Please provide evidence where these domains have been spammed. Naconkantari 04:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
OpenSubtitles.org - under each wikipedia language section on the word "subtitles". And even twice here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subt%C3%ADtulo see last 2 links. Other sites simply link to copyright violating material, therefore fail WP:EL and WP:C, as I mentioned earlier. Where should they be reported to to get them banned like other subtitles sites which were banned for this very reason?

topjobnet.org

A recent outburst of spamming for the same Tramadol site on en.wikipedia from multiple IPs:

All have been spamming the same link to topjobnet.org/tramadol/index.html across multiple medical and chemical articles. The entire topjobnet.org domain appears to be down right now, but it might be worth seeing if the domain should be blacklisted or just this particular URL. Thanks, Gwernol 11:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 14:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.chabad-baden.de

Having been inserted repeatedly for a long time into de.wikipedia articles concerning judaism-related topics. The site does not have more or better content than the de.wp articles have; mostly, the pages linked aren't even written in german language which is one major argument for/against external links at least on de. The owner of the website and the chabad of Baden have been informed about this twice without any reaction, the link is inserted even more often after contacting those. See contributions of

and many others.

Thanks, rdb (de) 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Eagle 101 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

israelnewsagency.com

Israelnewsagency.com is a website run by Joel Leyden, who is banned for spamming and disruption. Links keep creeping in, often from sockpuppets of en:User:Israelbeach, see en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Israelbeach. These links are generally reverted. The site is not a news agency as such, it's more of a blog. I assumed good faith in my latest dealing with an obsessive user over a link [84], but www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediaterrorismiranrussialeninisraelcensorship4877031407.html makes it clear that this was just another sock. I believe the time for assuming good faith in respect of this site is past. It is not a reliable source, it represents itself as a news agency but has no known editorial process and reprints as fact pretty much anything the Israeli Government sends it. Links have been added to en: many times, also to no: (e.g. [85]) and nl: (e.g. [86]). Some of the content linked has been copy-paste lifted from other sources, e.g. [87] which was an interview from the Jerusalem Post. Since we have spamming, conflict of interest, more than one project, offsite copyright violation, attacks on named Wikipedians and the site is not itself a reliable or attributable source, I think blacklisting is probably justified at this point. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 03:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 7

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[88]

  • affordable-car-insurance.net

--A. B. (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 17 years ago195 comments62 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.

pavelnedved.110mb.com

This is not spam link. This is a community of Pavel Nedved's fan. Please remove this link of the blacklist.


cborgeanos.foro.ijijiji.com

Please, remove this link of the blacklist. This is the only forum in honor to Cuentos Borgeanos, an argentinian band and I created the wiki of Cuentos Borgeanos and I need put the forum's link. It's not spam.

Sorry for my English, I'm still learning.

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

Not done Naconkantari 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


To clear up something, the person who spammed wikipedia was not the owner of TVRage but an admin, he has since been removed. although i understand why it was blacklisted, i hope in time it can be removed as the website gains more credibility.

Maybe in like a few months, it could be removed for a while, and if it's spammed, it can be quickly re-added, unless it's just one user, who can be blocked. -Sam.

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.

Not done, request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 05:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think whitelisting is OK, but there seems not to be a whitelist for all languages, which makes it impossible to add to my local ones. Since my site is Swedish (although in English language), I tried to add it to the Swedish and Norwegian (similar language) wikis, they just link to this page when they tell you the link is blacklisted. I have also searched the local wikis (in respective language) but cannot find any whitelist.

The whitelists are available on every wiki. Please ask an administrator from the wiki that you are trying to include the link to add it to the whitelist. If the administrator can not find the whitelist, please direct them to this page. Naconkantari 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

netfirms.com

There have been at least four requests [89][90][91][92] 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 [[121]] this was written and keeps getting removed. I was even warned. If I get banned yet keep our standards high then this is all worth it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

?

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

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

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
Could we at least unban myspace blogs from Talk pages? I need to cite a fact from a musiacian's myspace blog to counter a claim of original research. 128.122.226.112 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The blacklist extension does not work selectively. Its an all or nothing deal. The easy way around this is to simply do http://blogs.myspace.com/blah (in wikitext it is <nowiki>http://blogs.myspace.com/blah</nowiki>). That will allow another person to find the link. Eagle 101 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

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
Not done Naconkantari 05:41, 24 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.[122] --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

Not done, clearly used for spam, no discussion for two weeks. Naconkantari 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

--XX7 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do so. I fully stand behind keeping this on the blacklist. If a site is being spammed, it will be placed on the blacklist regardless of who is doing the spamming and will not be removed unless there is a strong need for a link to the site. Naconkantari 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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
Because of what? An Editor who is a Freemason doesn't like a website that contains articles critical of his group? Please provide the reference that Arbcom ever made such a ruling, if you can't then remove the 'blacklist'.24.68.248.67 15:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The poster who made the original blacklist request is a known masonic editor with a heavy pov bias. The website in question contains articles critical of the group he is a member of. Arbcom never made any such ruling as this individual alleges. There is no precedent for banning a website in this way. The website is fully within Wiki guidelines of acceptable content.King james version 15:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Checking some cron's of article, seems like this removal proposal is not totally pointless. Please, investigate further, seems like the spam was made to defamate a legitime opposition source. --Jollyroger 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done Naconkantari 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Whoa, I'm not sure that this was such a great idea. Freemasonrywatch.org is a favorite of long-term POV pusher and banned user on the English Wikipedia, Lightbringer. It is number 2 on the list of top conspiracy sites. This link has NO USE WHATSOEVER on wikimedia projects. Cheers, PTO 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, Reversed due to new link. In the future, please provide this kind of evidence before a site is removed or added to the blacklist. Naconkantari 19:33, 12 March 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.
Requested denied. It's one of Brandt's sites. Raul654 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
None of the six nonprofit, noncommercial, tax-exempt domains on the spam blacklist has redirected since June, 2006. They redirected from April, 2006 to June, 2006. You can verify by clicking on a link inside a preview page. See: wikipedia-watch.org/raul654.html 68.90.165.218 23:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done Sorry, but we're not going to be sending any traffic Mr. Brandt's way. Raul654 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I beg to differ. If these are no longer redirecting, then they should be removed from the blacklist, which explicitly exists for the purpose of blacklisting spammers. The addition to this list in the first place was problematic, but we avoided creating a separate list for the time being since there weren't enough compelling reasons to do so. But if Brandt has truly stopped redirecting his sites, there is no reason for them to remain listed, whatever our dispute with him may be.--Eloquence 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You are right. What kind of a response is 'we're not going to be sending any traffic Mr Brandt's way?' It's not very mature is it? Pursuing petty feuds through wikipedia's official blacklist is not very becoming of a serious encylopedia. 87.74.10.185 11:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
While not wanting to send traffic to Brandt is clearly a bad reason to keep the site blacklisted, I have to say that I don't see much gain in taking it off the blacklist and the probability that Brandt will use it for redirecting again seems high. On the whole, this isn't worth it. JoshuaZ 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

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.

Site full of ads, most of the images can be found in better resolution and without ads here. Strongly against removal. --Jollyroger 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Listen this is ridiculous. The fact that the website has ads does not mean that it should be blacklisted. It contains a lot of images that aren't contained on the Wiki commons. Not to mention it is making alot of pages increasingly difficult to edit, because not just the Da Vinci page itself links to it, but many the pages of his subsequent works. It should be un-blacklisted because

1. It contains very, very few ads to begin with 2. The sight contains many, many useful images, with accurate source guides, and an overall good construction 3. It's being black listed is causing difficulty in editing. 4. The person who inserted them as asserted that they were placed for good use (and I beck him/her on this choice), and not to Spam. 5. It is obvious the intentions of the website are to present useful and insightful information, not advertisements.

I would sincerely appreciate it if this were taken off the banlist. Thanks a bunch.

--72.196.250.18 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

('Chopin-Ate-Liszt!' at Wikipedia, please let me know the response to this on my Wikipedia page.)

Not done, request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 05:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)#Reply

This is a very good site for Leonardo da Vinci sketches - by far the best I've seen. The claim that the site is full of ads is ridiculous. There are hardly any ads on the site - far less than most web sites. The other claim, that there is a better site for Leonardo sketches is also false. The other site referred to has far fewer sketches and is very poorly organised. I'm very surprised that the davincisketches.comt web site has ever come to be on the blacklist. People interested in Leonardo da Vinci are being denied a very good source of information because it is blacklisted. --XX7 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes please remove - Jolly Roger's comment above is wildly inaccurate. The Category "Drawings by Leonardo" contains 11 items! The sketchbooks are a different matter. See en:Leda and the Swan where this is the only source for two drawings, for a painting never made, by Leonardo. Ads are inconspicuous. 87.194.23.18 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC) - Johnbod from enReply

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
Being a nasty suspicious bastard I checked Krnlhkr's edits on en:. Guess what I found? [123]. First edit: requesting whitelisting. Second, third, fourth edits: arguing about it on en:talk:Traditionalist Catholic. No other edits. Is that a rat I smell? Feh. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would object, I was one of the editors. The Fisheaters site is just not a good source, is not notable, and was blacklisted because the editor was using wikipedia to drive traffic to her site. She had an army of new editors with one or two edits appear to re-add the links against consensus. Fisheaters also continues to maintain a "how to attack wikipedia" page [124]. Dominick 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This URL (fisheaters.com), just this minute, was reported as blacklisted when trying to save Circle of stars without it existing in it. How come? --129.178.88.68 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have a read of the conversation above, its on the blacklist. Eagle 101 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What attacks would those be?

Guy, since you are referring to a link now removed, I'm assuming you're referring to a discussion forum thread that was a copy-paste of a section of evangelize.html. There was nothing attacking in it except for the name I chose for the thread, a name that admittedly sounded pretty bad (yeah, it definitely was an unfortunate name, but was one rooted in the idea of the "Church Militant." I apologize for the misunderstanding.) But the text of the thread simply encouraged Catholics to not sit around and expect fairness and balance if they don't get busy. Like the text of evangelize.html it was copied from, it encouraged fairness, NPOV writing, etc., and gave instructions (from a second link I have) on how to edit Wiki. To evangelize.html, I later added a characterization of the Wiki editing experience which sounded a bit bitter (now removed), warning, in essence, that editing isn't for the sensitive types like me, but I never -- not once -- encouraged adding links to my site (for further clarification, I also added, just this morning, text that explicitly admonishes against the now-moot idea of adding any links whatsoever to my site without gaining consensus on Talk Pages since it seems that that page was being understood by Wiki admins differently than I'd intended).

As per "spamming," I can only say that I definitely and admittedly added many links to my site. I did so, though, in 2005, before there were any rules against adding links to one's own site, and did so on relevant pages (see your own list). I did not limit my Wiki editing to adding links, as has been unfairly said. I edited under the name Used2BAnonymous for months, and my contributions can be seen (you'd have to go back in the History past the infamous edit war of that night in Dec. 2005 to get to them. If you stop there on the first History page or two, link-adding -- or reverting -- is all you'd see). I am far, far too sensitive, depressive, and sarcastic (and busy) to be a Wiki editor, so it'd all be water under the bridge except for untruths that continue to be told (such as on the Trad Cath Talk Page as we speak), for the characterizations of me and my site when the topic of my site comes up on these spam pages, for the fact that other wiki-media (and Google may in the future) use Wikipedia's blacklist, and for the double standards in play when it comes to linking and which are defended even after being brought to admins' attention (Traditio.com? Chabad's waldorf salad recipe? Sheesh), even in the context of discussing whitelisting FE so that links can be discussed on Talk Pages by people with some familiarity with the topics involved instead of just obliterated and called "spam." I dunno... it's all just sad and frustrating. Peace. 75.46.74.131 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • You represent as untruths things which are differences in interpretation, which is rude and unhelpful. And once again: your aim is, and always has been, to include links to your site. Wikipedia is not a link farm or referral service, and sites of no objectively provable authority cannot be used as sources, so there is really nothing more to be said. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't want the site's pages to be used as a source, but as external links for further reading, and I would like for the site to not be characterized as "spam." I am unclear as to what things above are being represented as untruths which are, rather, differences in interpretation, but I will go through the points (in bold) you make on the User:JzG/Fisheaters page:

Re. the the links you have at the top of the page to "prove" how Wiki was my only source of traffic:

1) Now there is only one link showing from Wiki to FE at Yahoo 2) Yahoo now shows 15,600 links to FE 3) Yahoo shows 5,421 links to kensmen.com 4) User contributions are the same, of course 5) kensmen.com has no traffic data at Alexa 6) fisheaters.com has a 298,872 traffic rating at Alexa (this numer goes all over the place, BTW; I've seen it much higher and much lower. The traffic rank for the US is 78,773 as of this date.

Re: "Alexa reports show Wikipedia as the major site linking in to the old domain, the new one has too low a ranking for the report to be there yet I think.": Yes, the ranking was low -- because it had just moved; at that time, as far as Alexa was concerned, FE was days old. I offered to make a temporary password and let you log in to see my Urchin stats even so you could see that traffic was just fine, Guy, in spite of Alexa ratings. In any case, now there are no Wiki links to FE, and the site does fine per Alexa (see #6 above).

Re: "It is reported that the forum attached to this site has 6 moderators and 300 members; this does not address the concern that the site itself appears to be a monograph. There is no evidence of the site being run by an organisation (or even a person) independently recognised as an authority on catholicism in general (per the breadth of linking) or even on traditional catholicism (re the proposed restricted linking).": The site has 8 mods and 1,091 members as of this date. The site is run by me, a single individual whose work is respected and linked to by priests, parishes, dioceses, the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, Latin Mass Magazine (edited by priests), the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Revealer, Turnabout, universities, etc. The site shouldn't be used as a "source," but as an "external link" for further reading.

Re: "About Spam" section: The most commonly understood definition of the word on the Internet is the one that should be respected, IMO. Otherwise, it'd be like me publicly and repeatedly calling someone a "twat" and, in response to offended complainants, referring them to my own personal definition, e.g., "by twat, I mean helluva nice guy." It really is extremely painful to me to be referred to as a "spammer," JzG. I hate spam with a passion.

Re: "That is an evasion. WP:EL existed and was pointed out during her edit war over removal of the links, and ignored": The WP:EL as of the last day of December 2005 follows the colon, and when all that was going on, I was fruitlessly begging for official clarification as to policy (see my now deleted RfC against Dominick): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&oldid=32525225

Re: "For the rest, most of the articles were not even specific to Catholicism, let alone the disputed branch of Traditionalist Catholicism": See your own list of links on the User:JzG/Fisheaters page. These are the entries -- all of them -- that you list:


Advent All Saints All Souls Day Altar bell Angelus Annunciation Anointing of the Sick Apologetics Ascension Ash Wednesday Assumption of Mary Baptism Barbara Benedict of Nursia Blaise Brigid of Ireland Candlemas Catherine of Alexandria Catholicism Christian Christian symbolism Christian view of marriage Christian-Jewish reconciliation Christmas Church bell Circumcision Confession Confirmation (sacrament) Crucifix Day of the Dead Dispensationalism Easter Epiphany Eucharist Eucharistic adoration Ex-voto Fasting Funeral Good Friday Habemus Papam Halloween Holy Orders Holy Thursday Holy water Icon Immaculate Conception Incense Indulgence John the Baptist Labyrinth Lent Litany Liturgical colours Liturgical year Marriage Martha Mary Magdalene Mary, the mother of Jesus Mass (liturgy) Massacre of the Innocents Maundy money Mel Gibson Michaelmas Modesty Mortification of the flesh Novena Nun Palm Sunday Papal infallibility Papal Oath Pascendi Dominici Gregis Penance Pentecost Pilgrimage Purgatory Relic Religious order Requiem Ritual purification Rosary Sabbath Sacramentals Saint Agnes Saint Anthony of Padua Saint James the Great Saint Joseph Saint Patrick Saint Valentine Second Vatican Council Sign of the cross Stations of the Cross St. Stephen's Day Subsidiarity Sunday The Passion of the Christ Thomas à Becket Traditionalist Catholic Tridentine Mass Twelfth Night (holiday) Veil Vestment Votive deposit

Re: "Some of the content linked appears superficially neutral (although the overall tone of the site is not)": The overall tone of the site reflects an in-communion with Rome, Vatican II-accepting, "Benedict XVI is Pope" type traditional Catholicism allowed per the papal document, "Ecclesia Dei" (which can be read on the site) or at the Vatican website, if you prefer. I attend Masses offered by indult, by priests who operate with ordinary jurisdiction, under plain old Bishops appointed by men whom probably 99% of the world recognizes as Popes.

Re: "many of the links failed to include sufficient text to inform the Wikipedia reader beforehand that the site represented a minority view": The view is an accepted Catholic view, the site's full name is "Fish Eaters: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism," and I said I'd have no problem whatsoever with links to the site being labeled "traditional" or "traditionalist."

Re: "Many of the links were identified as "traditional Catholic view of foo" or "Catholic view of foo". As identified subsequently on Traditionalist Catholic, traditional is ambiguous in context, arguably implying elements of Catholic tradition, whereas this is traditionalist, i.e. dissenting from Vatican-II, a minority group within Catholicism.": Read the "About This Site" page (contact.html). This is simply untrue and is probably even more painful to hear than being called a "spammer" since the typical Catholic reading that sort of accusation runs in the opposite direction.

Re: "This means that it is hard to find eviodence of the site owner adding content rather than just links.": I used to edit under the name Used2BAnonymous, and spent months -- practically day in and day out -- working on the entry "Traditionalist Catholic." See the Talk Pages there.

Re: "In almost all cases adding the link was the totality of the edit, no content was added at the same time.": See the edits of Used2BAnonymous (before the edit war of that day in December 2005).

Re. "In at least one case the link was to the text of a document which originated with the Vatican, and for which the original was available (in English) form the Vatican website.": Not by me (though I did have many links to papal documents in the Traditionalist Catholic entry since they were handy to me, I was a new editor at the time, and I was working offline. BTW, documents that precede the reign of Leo XIII aren't available at the Vatican website.).

Re: "Since the site was blacklisted the site owner has tried very hard indeed to get it removed, with numerous requests to the spam blacklist for removal, emails to admins and to Jimbo Wales, a campaign page on the Fisheaters website and other activities.": I requested once here that it be un-blacklisted, and others have as well (I try to watch this page). When the site is mischaracterized here or on Talk Pages, I defend it. I did write to Mr. Wales (twice, about a year apart) asking him to intervene. I don't believe I've ever written to any other admins. There has been no request, let alone a "campaign," at FE or its forum for anyone to go and get the site de-listed.

Re: "The site owner does not even identify herself or her credentials. It is a website of no objectively provable authority.": I don't expect the site to be used as a "Source" but would like for it be used as "External Links" for further reading. Given that it is linked to by priests and parishes and dioceses, that it is used by RCIA programs and such, I think it should pass the litmus test there. (Just within the past couple of days I happened across a priest's blog in which Father -- mistaking my site for being one run by some French blogger named "Eric" because "Eric" links to FE -- said, "...there is an English section entitled 'Fish Eaters' in which he attempts to give guidance on everything a catholic should know. You'll find descritions of everything from devotions, sacraments, the liturgical year, consecrations to the Sacred Heart/Immaculate Heart, guidance on appropriate attire at Mass, etc. It's for Catholics, Protestants, or anyone thinking of becoming a Catholic. I'd say much of what he posts would constitute excellent study material for those on an RCIA course with appropriate guidance from a priest. He comes from an unashamedly 'traditional' position." ( http://south-ashford-priest.blogspot.com/2007/03/ut-pupillam-oculi-i-recently-discovered.html ). I see that sort of commentary all the time from priests and laymen.

I don't go on about myself at my site because I am shy, depressive, and a loner. I don't misrepresent myself in any way; I just try to teach and let the work speak for itself.

As said, this is all just sad. 75.46.74.131 01:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • If you had an account you'd be indefinitely blocked for disruption now, given the amount of the community's time you've wasted arguing to be allowed to link your site. It's not an attributable source, it's been spammed, it's blacklisted. If you find these arguments stressful, try not having them. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A LINK FARM. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Guy, I am fully aware that Wikipedia is not a link farm, but neither should it be a slander farm. It is also sad to see that you regard a defense against your misperceptions -- untruths that are publicly and repeatedly stated as fact whenever the issue arises -- as "disruption." I would not have to have these arguments if you would stop mischaracterizing my work. 75.46.90.135 11:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Facts as documented. Nobody forced you to edit-war about links ot your own site, and I have tried to be as accurate as possible in describing the site and the problem. You disagree? Hardly a surprise. But in the end it hardly matters - a site that has been Wikispammed and blacklisted as a result, and which is not a reliable source, and whose principal proponent is its owner, can stay on the blacklist. Every day we delete such links and block editors who add links to their own sites and fight about it. I fail to see that anything much has changed here, you are still a site owner agitating for links to your own site, an exchange which undoubtedly benefits your project more than it benefits ours. Perhaps you should take no for an answer, you'd save a lot of time. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure how you can refer to the User:JzG/Fisheaters page as containing "facts as documented"; the above post of mine proves you to be mistaken on those points, so, of course I disagree. It is hardly surprising because, being very familiar with every word on my site, I know that the site isn't, for ex., "dissenting from Vatican-II." I was not planning on adding links to my site, but some people want to and have tried to, only to be told that the site is "spam," and to be referred to User:JzG/Fisheaters, which contains erroneous information that I am attempting to get you to stop spreading around. That is the issue. 75.46.90.135 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Er, no it doesn't. The key points are in any case: you added many links to your site, you fought when they were removed, you solicited your forum members to come to Wikipedia to push your agenda, and instructed them on how to avoid being spotted, you have expended many kilobytes arguing to be allowed to link to your site, and not even you claim that your site is a suitable source. You just want links. The answer is: no. Even if we were inclined to allow links to your site, which I for one am not, you are the very last person who should be agitating for them. Now please stop spitting in the soup. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • "you added many links to your site": Yup, see above..
  • "you fought when they were removed": Yup. Dominick, who apparently thought the site was a "blog," got pals to take them down and replace them with sites with embedded midi files and other such fine things. Why wouldn't I?
  • "you solicited your forum members to come to Wikipedia to push your agenda": Not true.
  • "and instructed them on how to avoid being spotted": Not true again.
  • "you have expended many kilobytes arguing to be allowed to link to your site": I've spent a lot of time trying to get you to stop mischaracterizing my site and slandering me.
  • "and not even you claim that your site is a suitable source": An external link for further reading is not a source.
  • "You just want links": That'd be nice, but I'd be happy if you just quit lying, like I told you months ago.
  • " Even if we were inclined to allow links to your site, which I for one am not, you are the very last person who should be agitating for them.": Last time I looked, my name isn't krnlhker.
  • "Now please stop spitting in the soup": I'll stop what you consider "spitting in the soup" when you stop lying. 75.46.90.135 09:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • And now you show your true colours. Perhaps this was you after all, I did not believe it was. How much of the above verbiage is Krnlhkr? Almost none. And there is only one person to blame for your past actions being dragged up again and again: every time you come back to argue for links to your site, your past action in adding links to your site and fighting over their removal is likely to be reiterated. Solution: go stick to your site and we'll stick to ours, and leave each other alone. The only reason I keep my subpage is because you keep coming back and starting the whole rigmarole again. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, Guy, this was me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JzG/Laura&diff=60446315&oldid=59446189 Krnlhker's posts are signed with "Krnlhker"; the rest above are mine. I am not here arguing for links to my site; I am arguing for an end to the public mischaracterizations thereof and, because other Wiki media use your blacklist and because there is talk of Google punishing sites on that blacklist, I also would like whitelisting. That is all. 75.46.90.135 08:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Well I'm glad that nasty message was not you, despite the efforts of someone to persuade me otherwise I did not see it as your style, so belated thanks for the much nicer message. As to ending the supposed mischaracterisatio" of your site, all you need to do is drop the subject and it will go away. As I say, the only reason I keep the subpage is to save having to go through all the diffs again every time. It's mostly not about your site, it's about your behaviour. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think we've misunderstood each other (again, ha). The post on your Talk Page about the comment made on the page about your sister (R.I.P.) was also by me, and I was referring to the comment linked to above, not to anything nasty someone might have said. I was being sarcastic because Baccyak4H edited my comment on your Fish Eaters sub-page and wrote, "I am alerting you to this because I know that editing others userpages is generally frowned upon." I didn't know that that was frowned upon (sorry) and was making that point -- and the point that I am not some malicious person -- by pointing out another edit I made to a userpage of yours. Anyway, I am not comfortable "politicizing" my words about your sister and my wishes for your consolation. They were genuine, and I only brought it up to indicate that I innocently edited your userpage and didn't know it was considered a breach of Wiki etiquette.
As to "dropping the subject," the thing is this: I am not "bringing it up." Krnlhker, for ex., is not me; neither was PaulGS, who made the same request in August. Nor was Roberth Edberg and Evrik and others whom I've seen ask for the site to be whitelisted. Me, I've brought the topic up once here, just after the site was blacklisted. I do watch these pages and defend the site once the topic is raised by others because those people are sent to your subpage which contains statements that are not true (see my post above that rebuts the points you make). For someone to be told that my site "doesn't accept Vatican II," for example, is beyond aggravating; it is death for a Catholic site (at least to another Catholic). And to post very clear evidence otherwise (see above) and to have it totally ignored every time is doubly aggravating. Further, knowing that other Wiki media use Wikipedia's blacklist, and that Google may punish sites on that blacklist is extremely worrisome to me. Yeah, it'd be great to know that editors could hash things out on Talk Pages and maybe link to FE if they thought it helpful, but with Dominick around with his Catholic article watchlist, it'd likely be impossible anyway (and I sure as Hell won't get sucked into the "Dealing with Dominick" trap unless it's a matter of defending my work). It's just not that big a deal; my site does fine without it. But what I do wish for is for people to not be told my site is "spam" (though I understand Wikipedia has a particular definition of such) and one that "rejects Vatican II" and so forth, and to not be punished by all Wiki media and by Google for the rest of my life. I'd also like for my RfC against him to be restored so that the proof that he lied (and it was most definitely, without doubt, a lie and not a misunderstanding) about EWTN -- a lie that, in essence, accused EWTN of lying -- could be accessible (I especially would appreciate this since his RfC against me is not deleted). 75.46.90.135 16:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is not about editing user subpages, I don't have a problem with that. It's about your actions. Best thing for you to do is walk away, then see what happens in time. One thing's for sure: your agitating for links to your site is a major factor in keeping it on the blacklist. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, use local whitelisting Naconkantari 19:02, 12 March 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
As soon as enc-dram becomes a notable website or becomes a reliable source and they stop harassing people on wikipedia I'm sure they will be taken off the blacklist. 71.193.11.169 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think they have a timescale for that, especially the latter part. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ipetitions.com

Just wondered if it could be removed. I have a link to a petition I made that I want on my user page, just wondering if ipetitions is a serious spam link or something. 68.252.6.166 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done Yeah its serious, see this for more detail. If you want one particular petition whitelisted, you could ask at en:WP:WHITELIST. (I'm assuming that you want this for the english wikipedia). They may refuse your request though. Regards Eagle 101 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


www.ruswar.com

Why is this one black listed? It seems like someone's personal website with notable photos of the afghan war.-66.74.234.167 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

here is why. I will leave this up to another meta admin to choose whether removing this is a good idea. Eagle 101 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, let me re-phrase. Can we unblacklist this site? The argument for blacklisting is weak. Posting relevate photos in different language wikipedias in their respective relevate article is not spamming. I think admins need to do some research in the definition of spam if this falls in that category.
Actually no its not, it was done to prevent cross wiki spam, Exactly what this list is for. Again as I said above I'm leaving it up to another admin. Regards Eagle 101 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, spammed across multiple wikis. Naconkantari 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.tatsoul.com

Please remove this from the spam list. We put one external link not knowing it was against the rules. This will not happen again.

Done - Wow, this and 3 other requests below, I'm willing to take this link off, but if they should get spammed again the link goes right back on. Eagle 101 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.animals-pictures-dictionary.com

I was asked to give a specific page that can be linked from wikipedia, so in my opinion the main page for example can appear in "Animals" article. anyone agree with me?

Strongly against. These photos are not uncommon, are not free and the site has ads. --Jollyroger 11:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
What is loacal whitelisting?

anarkismo.net

The fact that pages on this site were used in one incident of spamming (which looks more like an overzealous user trying to add links she considers relevant to the topic, than spam proper), does not invalidate its use as a source on many other pages (see e.g. Wikipedia:Anarchism, Wikipedia:Platformism and, indeed Wikipedia:Anarkismo.net). 67.180.234.15 06:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

One of the purposes of this list is to counter spam, someone spammed a link across wikis, and if it were not for keeping a sharp eye out, we would not have caught that spam. (one link per wiki is very hard to catch). In a few weeks, I might consider removing this (if another meta admin does not before then, as I did the blacklisting I will leave it up to another admin). For now I would suggest requesting certian parts of this site to be whitelisted. The english whitelist can be found at en:WP:WHITELIST Eagle 101 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

nefac.net

The fact that pages on this site were used in one incident of spamming (which looks more like an overzealous user trying to add links she considers relevant to the topic, than spam proper), does not invalidate its use as a source on many pages. The site hosts, among other things, Northeastern Anarchist magazine, a fairly significant and well-respected American anarchist publication. (see also Wikipedia:Especifismo, Wikipedia:Platformism, Wikipedia:NEFAC). 67.180.234.15 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

One of the purposes of this list is to counter spam, someone spammed a link across wikis, and if it were not for keeping a sharp eye out, we would not have caught that spam. (one link per wiki is very hard to catch). In a few weeks, I might consider removing this (if another meta admin does not before then, as I did the blacklisting I will leave it up to another admin). For now I would suggest requesting certian parts of this site to be whitelisted. The english whitelist can be found at en:WP:WHITELIST Eagle 101 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Be that as it may, nefac is a respectable site, used as a reference in a number of articles. It strikes me as absurd, and damaging to Wikipedia's ability to function, to blacklist it simply because, on one occasion, it was added inappropriately to a number of articles across wikis. I couldn't find a statement of policy on adding sites to the blacklist; perhaps you could point me to one, because I don't understand by what criteria you are arguing this should stay on the blacklist. 67.180.234.15 08:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why is this link blacklisted exactly? Because once someone used it to spam? It is an essential source for anarchist related articles. Please de-list. 212.106.68.32 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ainfos.ca

An anarchist newsgroup, it hasn't been used to spam, and I just had to delete a referenced claim from the w:Jaggi Singh article because Wiki wouldn't let me make any edits to the page until the properly-cited reference was removed. 74.100.73.245 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

here is why the site is on the blacklist. I suggest requesting specific links whitelisted. w:WP:WHITELIST. I will leave this up to another meta admin to review. Eagle 101 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Again, this seems like a sppurious reason to de-list yet another anarchist resource. If this was CNN, would it be de-listed? What kind of criteria is being used here? Please de-list. 212.106.68.32 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is the alleged spam entry for ainfos.ca:

ca:Antifeixisme diff ca:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 12:59 UTC hr:Antifašizam diff hr:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:14 UTC nl:Antifascisme diff nl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:18 UTC no:Antifascisme diff no:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:20 UTC pl:Antyfaszyzm diff pl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:22 UTC sl:Antifašizem diff sl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:24 UTC sv:Antifascism diff sv:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:28 UTC 

Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This does not look like spam. It looks like the addition of a valuable Canadian anarchist website as an external link in related articles on anti-fascism in different languages. Please de-list. 212.106.68.32 14:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

in.geocities.com/medhahari

One particular link in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html was wrongly blacklisted in Bharatanatyam by some unscrupulous users, and has to be restored. There are numerous arguments (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#Medha_Hari_spam_on_Wikipedia ) for this link to be placed in Bharatanatyam . Tamilselvam 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

here is why it is blacklisted, I leave this open to arguments, but I would prefer arguments to remove be stated here clearly and concisely. Unless another meta admin wants to remove before arguments are put here, I am going to wait, as it is not my place to try to gauge what appears to be a dispute. Regards. Eagle 101 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The arguments for removal (please address each of them explicitly):http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogout&returnto=Talk:Spam_blacklist
  1. relevancy: the link has been placed in the relevant category, is highly valuable and extends info on Wiki's article
  2. the linked page has nothing to do with Medha Hari, even though somewhere it contains some inactive links to her pages (as well as dozens of other pages, including Wikipedia!!!)
  3. the link does not contain any promotion of any commercial product
  4. User:A. B.'s argument that a link must be blacklisted as long as a sockpuppet submits it is irrelevant, since this particular link was submitted by numerous non-sockpuppets.
In addition, please explain the why Eagle 101 chose this particular link to be removed while he left some other, obviously irrelevant and commercial links (that's what is real SPAM!), there. I see that there indeed a very strangely selective (abusive) application of Wikipedia's guidelines.Bharathathatha 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Relevant data and links:
Multiple admins and editors were involved in dealing with problems and all independently reached the same conclusions:
Cross-wiki spam:
Policies and guidelines violated by various Medha Hari accounts:
The Medha Hari web site is self-published and does not meet the requirements of:
The users complaining about this domains' blacklisting are all new editors using accounts created after numerous sockpuppets were banned in January:
--A. B. (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I really doubt this is coming off, it has simply been abused too much, too recently, but I will leave this up to another meta admin to have a look see. Eagle 101 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, Naconkantari 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

pages.citebite.com

A request to blacklist pages.citebite.com was placed on 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC). Blacklisting was approved on 22:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Citebite archives web pages that are submitted to it. Blacklisting citebite.com has crippled many Thailand-related articles that used the Bangkok Post (one of the two English language newspapers in Thailand) as a reference. The Bangkok Post doesn't use stable URLs for news articles - articles only stay up for about a week before being deleted. Bangkok Post articles are not archived by Archive.org. I and many other editors of Thailand-related articles therefore use Citebite addresses in article citations. Some examples of Thailand-related articles that use citebite include en:Thaksin Shinawatra, en:Saprang Kalayanamitr (which is going up for Good Article review), en:Surayud Chulanont, and en:Bhumibol Adulyadej (which is a featured article). Placing citebite on the blacklist has crippled these articles.

Citebite was a citation tool - it was never used for the purpose of promoting a website or a product (which is the definition for external link spamming). Please remove pages.citebite.com from the blacklist. Patiwat 06:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Patiwat is right. Citebite is a citation and archiving tool, not a "URL-shrinking service" as the original advocate for the blacklisting describes. Although it is indeed preferable to link to the original source when citing in Wikipedia, sometimes that is simply not possible, as Patiwat noted above. A Citebite link is no less legitimate than a link to a commondreams.org copy of an article that is no longer available on the original website. Indeed, it's better because the entire page is preserved, not just the text. The reader sees the article as it first appears, and the original publisher gets unambiguous credit for it through conspicuous logo, layout, etc. Bongbang 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done for now, but we are going to have to look into possible abuse of this link. Eagle 101 16:47, 6 March 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

oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com

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

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

  • An over-enthuiastic site owner added links to his collection of fine art images, by artist, to several art articles (not sure how many, but maybe 20 or 30 in the English Wikipedia, not an outrageous number IMO)
  • These were correctly identified as spam because of the way they were added
  • However, the site houses a broad and rich collection of artwork images for famous and respected artists, with many works that are unfamiliar (at least to me)
  • The links add value to Wikipedia by greatly extending the number of available examples of each linked artist's work
  • The site has no ads and is not selling anything
  • Several legitimate editors support de-blacklisting the site.

I have absolutely no affiliation with this site or its owner, I am just an admirer of the collection. Thank you for considering this request. --CliffC 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Endorse this I think I commented in a previous discussion here. Images are good, site is not commercial. I've never added it myself, but have found it on several articles in en (many now have taken it off). 87.194.23.18 18:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (Johnbod from en)Reply
Not done, used for cross-wiki spam. Request whitelisting on your local project. Naconkantari 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.zorpia.com

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

The following was copied from [[125]] (sorry, there was a little confusion on the correct place to post):

Hi Eagle. I want to ask you specifically about zorpia.com's inclusion in the blacklist. There have been specific allegations that Zorpia is some kind of drug related spam/scam site. In particular I would like to draw your attention to A.B's talk page at [[126]]. Although on the face of it, his comments and links look fair enough, scrutiny reveals an odd methodology. Close inspection of the links given, reveal that many of the search results start from item 700 onwards.

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

2) A regular search of 'Zorpia' on Google such as [[127]] only reveals that it is what it claims to be, a social networking site. How many pages of the Google search do you have to page through to find references to drugs? I got bored trying.

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

4) Currently, searching for 'Zorpia' on Wikipedia (en)[[128]], leads the user to links such as this [[129]] - search result where the number one result is A.B's talk. This means that Wikipedia does a good job of directing people to its own source, which through faulty methodology and assertions/insinuations, makes false claims about a genuine Social Networking Site. I have to stress, that in itself is a serious matter. I have to say, although A.B is obviously not familiar with Zorpia, 5 million other people from around the world (at least) have heard it, and know it to be a genuine site, rather than a drug spamming site.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

It was blacklisted because it is being used for spam. Please see the results of this Google search. Naconkantari 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

studentville.it

I would ask to edit from blacklist the url student ville.it please. This is a free website with contenents that are very good and useful (above all latin and italian literature). The contents are made by teachers. In wiki there are others many web sites with advertising (also with popup).

Thanks for the attention.

Not done, as explained one month ago in my talk page. --.anaconda 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but now there aren't popup. I don't know where is the problem, on wikipedia there are thousands and thousands of website with banner,according to me the law should be the same for all.

Not done -- as per .anaconda, I plan on getting another user to do automated archiving of sections of this blacklist that are over x days old and have the start-done-end or start-notdone-end tags on them. Eagle 101 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

bonsaimenorca.com

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

Thanks for your attention

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

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

These are not spam links, they have been added by WP editors to their user pages and to booksouces. They are useful tools, please remove from spam list. 213.48.182.7

Not done, these sites contain amazon affiliate links. Naconkantari 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to ask that the removal be reconsidered. The problem is that, without this site, we can't offer any ISBN-checking facility to our readers on the Special:Booksources page of the English Wikipedia. The site can also be used to check International Standard Serial Numbers, and is the only known way of doing that, since www.issn.org will no longer check these numbers without a paid subscription.

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

cosplay-world.com

This is a totally normal website as you can check. I don't understand why it is blacklisted. Please remove it from the blacklist.

touregypt.net

If this is heavily cross-linked, it's because it contains an extremely comprehensive resource (admittedly tertiary) on Egyptian history. I have never seen it linked for any purpose other than to provide a reference, certainly not for commercial purposes. There— has not, as far as I know, been a single agent responsible for all the linking; links to it get added as a matter of course for no other reason than that it's a top Google result for many searches on Ancient Egyptian history. See [130] where it's the second non-Wikipedia result. Please remove it from the list. Csernica 04:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I too would like to speak up for this website, in spite of its villas-for-rent spammy title. For instance, Christ Pantocrator linked to a useful brief, sensible layman's article on the famous icon from St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai. but whenever a long list of Wikipedia articles on sensible subjects are cross-linked to a website, it might be a hint to even an Administrator that across-the-board deletions might not be in the best interests of the average Wikipedia reader without access to JSTOR etc. Would removing it from the blacklist— how is that arrived at anyway?— mean that the deleter will remark "Be my guest"— as an administrator sneered on my Talkpage— when asked who will do the restoring legwork? (User:Wetman).
Mark me as a three on support of this website. I have used pages from it as a reference on Wikipedia articles, and it has some good, well referenced, scholarly information on a wealth of eqyptian history, culture, and geography. Wikipedia User:KyraVixen, probably quite well meaningly, removed the reference from the article in question thinking it was spam. It wasn't spam, it was a vital reference to the article. Could we please remove this site from the blacklist so I can restore the reference? That would be great --209.42.203.87 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Wikipedia User:Jayron32)Reply
Dear Administrator, I must urge you to allow all touregypt.net linked web sites to remain on Wikipedia and to lift the ban on this web page now. The touregypt.net web site provides a ready reference for pictures and information on Ancient Egyptian pharaohs that one just cannot access elsewhere in great detail. For instance, the Wikipedia articles on pharaohs Shepseskaf and Ramesses IV were greatly improved by the ready access to related touregypt.net articles which gave both 1) images of statues or pyramids/tombs of these kings as well as 2)specific and reliable information on their achievements while in power and 3)cited the author's sources for his information at the bottom of his touregypt.net page. With the touregypt.net links now removed, the Wikipedia articles on these kings--and many other innumerable personalities of Ancient Egypt--have been greatly devalued in scope and quality; reliable information on these ancient people are limited to only a small select group of scholars. I thought this the goal of Wikipedia was to make information accessible to everyone and hope I was not misinformed. Please note that the owner of the touregypt.net site, Jimmy Dunn, did not created his web pages on Ancient Egypt to push spam on visitors or to use them as a revenue generator. If he did so, Google would remove his web sites from their Top 10 list of Internet searches immediately since Google has actively worked to reduce the presence of spammers on their search engine and increase the quality of their searches. Here is Google's list of searches for king Shepseskaf of the 4th dynasty of Egypt: [131]. As you can see, the touregypt.net article on Shepseskaf and his pyramid is the very first story that Google features. If it is good enough for Google, it should be good for Wikipedia too--as a general resource for Wikipedia subscribers. So, please remove this unfathomable ban on touregypt.net and let people like me who care about Egyptology to easily access its resources on Wikipedia. From a loyal Wikipedia subscriber. Thank You. Leoboudv 10:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would agree; the gallery of images of Icons from St Catherines's Sinai contains far more pictures of this extremely importany collection than Commons & all other sources put together.

Johnbod from en 87.194.23.18 12:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree wholeheartedly. I do not know how exactly this site got on the blacklist, perhaps the fact that it is partially touristic, however it contains a fine tertiary source which is most of the time better than wikipedia's articles! This site is not just an external link, it is a source for a great many of our articles, and by removing it, one FA, Ahmose I, has actually lost a number of citations for an entire paragraph. Touregypt is not just good, it is vital. Thanatosimii 14:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The reason the site got added? its a site designed to sell tourism related stuff. New! Click Here For Tour Egypt Auctions and Click here to request best competitive Egypt travel rates from multiple, screened travel companies. point to the nature of the site. it is there to sell tourism not as a information source. those quotes were lifted straight from the main page. 4.160.213.146 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
However none of that material is linked to anywhere in wikipedia. Unless someone can come up with so much as one instance of the actuall commercial aspect of Touregypt being spammed, why on earth is a source which is more comprehensive and better than many wikipedia articles being removed, especially when it is not used as a link, it is used as a citation in featured articles no less!

Remove from blacklist. -- 62.220.237.57 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Remove I was puzzled to see that a link to this website on my talk page was altered, when that link was added by Leoboudv, whom I know is an established user on the English Wikipedia, & has not history of spamming. Doesn't the definition of spam include the fact that it is generated by one person or groups of persons? And from the history of the edits in question, I see that many of the links that were altered were added by a number of different users. If it is not, then the rules are flawed & need to be fixed. Further, spam links seem to be nominated on the basis on an opaque method: discussion on a specific IRC channel -- & many Wikipedians either do not have access to IRC or choose not to use it because it is not an official part of any Wikipemedia project. I am against spam, but listing a site on the block list, then requiring Wikipedians to argue for its removal subverts the core idea of Wikipedia -- we discuss things. -- Llywrch 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I randomly examined a on touregypt less than half the page text contains relevant material. the other half is ad's and navigation. Betacommand 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
And you will probably find that less than one of those spammy pages has ever been linked on wikipedia. Thanatosimii
I just looked at their page on ancient Egypt .net/ancientegypt/ to be exact I copied the whole pages content to my sandbox that page is 5731 characters of text. I removed the "article" about ancient Egypt what I was left with was 2894 characters. that means that only 49.50270459% of the page contained the relevant material the rest ~50.5% is advertising and navigation. 4.160.213.146 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
So what? The fact remains that 49% is perfectly legit. Spam must be 100% advertisment. 100%. If we do not abide by that rule, we lob out hundreds of vital sources. This blacklist has just quite literally made all the major Ancient Egypt pages lose key sources. Not just links that we can or cannot do without, but sources. This is doomed to go down about as bad as the fiasco. Thanatosimii

The fact remains that this is a useful web site with many helpful articles. I think that allowing it as a link would benefit Wikipedia more than it can possibly harm it.--Runcorn 19:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

To Betacommand, I again request that you remove touregypt.net from your blacklist. Those ads which you criticise are merely links posted at the top or bottom of its web stories which are easy to ignore and are geared mostly for finding travel companies to visit Egypt--not the aggressive pop up ads that one encounters on other sites. Google has no problem with touregypt.net sites and thinks it enhances their search engine results which is why they are listed in their Top 10 or Top 20 of search results. Why can't Wikipedia? I own* Bill Manley's 1996 book The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt and can tell you it too follows Tour Egypt's approach by giving out relevant material and then publishing its references at the end of the book. Do you want to close off this invaluable source of information on all the many personalities of Ancient Egypt such as Ramesses IV and Shepseskaf just because you dislike the fact that it gives out a few links of a commercial nature. How does this enhance our understanding of Ancient Egypt? If you follow this strict interpretation of touregypt.net, we might as well remove the Wikipedia posts on obscure but important kings such as Shepseskaf. At present, the information on Wikipedia for him is laughable--not one photo and minimal text. There are no images for hsi astatues on WikiCommons. And this is just one of many examples. The advantage of using touregypt.net would benefit Wikipedia more than harm it. In February, I re-wrote much of the article on Ramesses IV and gave specific quote citations from AJ Peden's biography on this king but I had to visit my University to access the book since public libraries would never carry it. Why? Because the TourEgypt article on him alerted me about his reign. How many Wikipedia contributors would have their interest perked enough on a subject to perform research in a library if you simply remove the touregypt.net reference articles on them? Have you seen Touregypt.net's excellent article on king Shepseskaf on Google? The information posted here CANNOT be accessed anywhere else on the Net. Frankly, touregypt.net is a useful web site and point of reference; it helps Wikipedia more than any harm it might cause. If Google approves them, it should be kosher for the rest of us too. Pls remove the blacklist on touregypt.net for everyone's benefit. It does not fit the profile of a spammer. Regards Leoboudv 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove from the blacklist, please. I've linked to Touregypt articles from several WP articles and this ban practically made those WP articles impossible to update. That ad on the top of the touregypt site is so insignificant I haven't even noticed it until now. (I guess after a few years spent online, everyone's brain gets used to ignore pictures that are about the size of a banner ad.) Alensha 01:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • keep Extensive spamming on articles related to Egyptian histiory.
You people have yet to actually provide one instance wherein touregypt is linked to wikipedia when the page in question is not being used as a citation. Therefore it cannot by definition constitute spamming.
Just because its a ref doesnt mean its not spam. I could link to walmart and use that as a ref. Its still spam. this is a simple case of a company using small amounts of info embedded in lots of ads to promote its self and sell products. Betacommand 03:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Your argument does not make sense. You apparently argue that a link to this site is spam no matter who adds the link -- whether a veteran editor who can be assumed in good faith to know what she or he is doing, or a Search Engine Optimizer/spammer -- only because of its content. Spam is determined primarily by its volume (which add to the load & cost of mailservers -- the reason sysadmins despite spam), whether or not th econtent could be plausibly desired, & only incidentally by the quality of the material sent or linked to. For example, if I mail 10,000 people with a copy of my favorite novel to each, it is considered spam because of the volume & that few would be expected to want an unsolicited copy of it -- whether my favorite novel is War and Peace or Battlefield Earth is not relevant. In this case, links to the touregypt.net website has been added responsibly & at the wishes of various established Wikipedians (which make it solicited); quality of the site is clearly a secondary issue -- & irrelevant. I can only wonder if this listing is based solely on one person's dislike for the website; this is simply a content dispute & putting this webiste on the spamlist could be considered an abuse of Wikipedia guidelines. -- Llywrch 03:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
de indent you have your priories mixed up the quality of the site comes before who adds the link. Just because Im an ause established user on en.wiki I could slowly over time add links to FooForSale.com because it has reviews for an item that doesnt mean that those links are not spam, they are spam either way. the quality of the site determines the suitability of the site, not whoever adds the link. its obvious that this site was designed to sell products over half of the page for an article is SPAM , just because a site has a few lines of info burred in ads doesnt mean that you can link to it. the evidence shows that this is a spam site 50> of the page is ads. how is this not spam? Betacommand 04:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is your ONE page sample you keep going on about! The particular page that brought me here is a gallery with 5 screens down of images of icons, with a little banner at the top you have to click to go to ads (touregypt.net/featurestories/catherines2a.htm). That's the one page page sample I'm using, so I can confidently say your conclusions are completely wrong.

87.194.23.18 04:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (Johnbod on en)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).

republica.com

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

Other discussions

Latest comment: 17 years ago22 comments11 people in discussion

Referral Profiteering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which page are you trying to include this link on? Naconkantari 05:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

en:Cicada (mythology) & en:Ecstasy (emotion)

I endeavoured to link en:trance with en:Ecstasy (emotion) and returned a dialogue box with Spam blacklist...Please could somebody debunk this 4 me?

Thanxta B9 hummingbird hovering 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to assume this is for the english wiki, give me a second. Eagle 101 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok I've fixed this article. Let me know if that is all... if you are trying to edit a second article let me know. Eagle 101 22:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this, but I was unsure exactly how to resolve this. My useracount "Merotoker" is blacklisted because it has the link obsessedwithwrestling.com. I do not use that link when editing pages, so I have no idea how it got there. I try to make proper edits, so if I can edit pages on my account, I would appreciate it greatly. Thank you and feel free to delete this message once I can edit again.

Spam in ref tags

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circle_of_stars&diff=prev&oldid=111825822 saved OK, but sunsequent saves were spam blacklisted. Was there a temporary blacklist issue, or is this a bug? Thanks, 62.73.137.190 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Remove blacklisted link

Could you please remove the blacklisted link please. It would be much obliged. It's hhtp://moyabrennan.forumfree.net.

Looks like forumfree has been blacklisted due to spam on one wiki. I will have a closer look later, for now I would just request whitelisting on your respective wiki. Eagle 101 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sytes.net

There seems to be no reason why sytes.net ought to be blacklisted...please consider removing it

Please request in the right section above. Most likely it was blacklisted due to spamming of it. Eagle 101 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Renal tubular acidosis

Appears to just have been blacklisted, probably as I was pasting the same message onto a few medical editors message boards as a request for comment. If that is the case, could it be unblacklisted please?134.59.105.218 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

We don't blacklist articles, please ask on your respective wiki. If it is a blacklist request, please ask in the right section. Thanks. Eagle 101 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Landofthelegend.net

A link that has been consistently spammed on Wikipedia as a source. No notability asserted, noticeable opposition to its usage, fan site, and two different people have attempted to replace pages such as IGN with the link to it. While it could simply be removed through a lengthy RfC, it would be easier and cleaner for the web site to be blacklisted instead. - ALttP 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, while this is just hearsay at the moment, a Wikipedian claimed that the web site has since been blacklisted from being invited to Nintendo's E3 and GDC presentations. - ALttP 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

artnet.de/artist

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

jcsm.org blacklisted?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was trying to add an informative link to an article and I was told that jcsm.org links were blacklisted. However, I couldn't find the ban in the archives anywhere. Can someone tell me where it is? If there was no vote to ban, then please unban the link. I'm not sure why it would be banned, anyway. --Tyuley 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, I do not see this link here [132]. --Tyuley 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, used for cross-wiki spam Naconkantari 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

obsessedwithwrestling.com

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

User:JB196 was banned many moons ago and since then has used over 100 sockpuppets[133], and now has a long-term abuse page, has - over the past two weeks - spammed Xtreme Pro Wrestling, Extreme Associates, and Rob Zicari too many times to count with links to obsessedwithwrestling.com followed by /columns/jonathanbarber/00.html], to the point that the three pages have had to be semi-protected and that link was added to the meta spam blacklist. However, now he has resorted to just linking to the main page (obsessedwithwrestling.com, without the columns/jonathanbarber/ followup) of that web site[134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143], and multiple other times. We thought with the semi-protection of the aforementioned articles, everything was protected, but then today he started posting from an account (User:ApeonDrugs) and was able to add the links to those articles even while they were protected.== 198.138.41.54 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 03:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I strongly diagree with this and protest it. OWW is a very useful site for sourcing info on wrestlers and sourcing results for PPV pages. While reverting some vandalism, I had to remove a link to the page as well (thus taking another reliable source out of the article). Blocking it just because a banned user keeps adding it to some articles is ridulous and uneeded. This would be like blocking cnn.com because a blocked user keeps adding it. Unblock it. TJ Spyke 05:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with TJ Spyke, there's no reason to ban a legit source just because a known spammer inserts it.24.14.196.6 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this, but I was unsure exactly how to resolve this. My useracount "Merotoker" is blacklisted because it has the link obsessedwithwrestling.com. I do not use that link when editing pages, so I have no idea how it got there. I try to make proper edits, so if I can edit pages on my account, I would appreciate it greatly. Thank you and feel free to delete this message once I can edit again.

User accounts are not affected by entries on the spam blacklist. Your local wiki should be able to help you if you have problems editing. Naconkantari 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the information. However, how do I go about contacting my local wiki? Thanks again and sorry for any incovenience.

Nacon, could you please allow OWW again? It's a legit site that is used as a good source in many articles, so it shouldn't be blocked because a spammer keeps putting it in some articles. Just block the spammer and his IP. TJ Spyke 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • We have. Over a hundred times. But he keeps coming back, again and again and again. We have his column on OWW blacklisted, he's used redirection sites to get round that (which is almost a community service: we've blocked three or four proxies as a result of that abuse). Give it a couple of months and see if he gets the message, but right now Barber is causing substantially more pain than the OWW site gives benefit to the project. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You could always contact OWW and explain the situation, they might be willing to remove Barber's columns to get off the blacklist. 81.155.77.73 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You're seriously going to blacklist an entire site because of one spammer? 24.14.196.6 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
How come others can edit these articles? I have had to revert vandalism on several pages, and have had to remove the OWW link (or at least remove the www. part) in order to save it. How come these anon IP's were able to vandalize the page? I will contact OWW and ask them to remove his colimns. TJ Spyke 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
If it helps, I contacted the webmaster of OWW. He wasn't too happy about what Jonathan Barber did, and said he will e-mail JB about it and tell him this isn't acceptable. Whether he will remove JB's columns or not (he hasn't done a column since 2004) is unknown. TJ Spyke 09:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with putting the site on the blacklist. It's a poor site, put together very haphazardly. It is full of spelling errors and isn't professional by any means. It's not an WP:RS and it's good for pics, but nothing else. Please keep it on the blacklist. 69.218.255.54 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It IS a reliable site. It is very useful for bio info and PPV results (especially PPV results) since they are accurate. TJ Spyke 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is the webmaster from Obessedwithwrestling.com (Brad Dykens) -- I hope I'm doing this right... blacklisting OWW because of Jonathan Barber is like the MLB blacklisting the New York Yankees for something the bat boy did. Barber does not represent OWW, we merely posted a few of his columns back in 2004 (and rejected twice as many since then). He is one of literally thousands who have written columns for us in the last six years. This is a portion of the email I sent to the Wiki guy who emailed me. I invite him to post the entire email if he deems it appropriate. Thank you for your time.
Jonathan Barber told me this by email: "Hey Brad, to reiterate I (Jonathan Barber) haven't "vandalized" or "spammed" Wikipedia. At one point in 2006 I was a constructive editor if that's what you want to call it but quite honestly my "Internet wrestling fix" has decreased (to a large degree) due to real-life obligations."
He's lying to you, as he's done so many other times here; I ask you to look at this link [144]. The over ONE HUNDRED accounts that have been blocked. Or the history of these articles. [145] [146] [147], some of the many articles Barber has vandalized in an attempt to promote "Bleeding Was only Half the Job" and his columns. 24.62.82.234 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Deleted duplicates

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the belief that it takes less work to process a smaller file, I've deleted all the duplicates in the blacklist, reducing the page by 1 KB. --BRIAN0918 13:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Zorpia

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi Eagle or Naconkantari, Those results are only from zorpia media wiki. When i typed only Zorpia i didn't see any spam results. I even typed Zorpia in Yahoo search and i still don't see any spam results. That proves that Zorpia doesn't have spam. I've never experienced spam on Zorpia. Zorpia doesn't even have pop-ups. I still want you to remove Zorpia.com from the spam blacklist. Please think about it. For us it's important to have Zorpia.com back on wikipedia. btw, how come hi5 is not on your blacklist? Everybody knows that hi5.com is infected with spam/spyware. Waiting for your reply.

Thanks

The search returned all of the mediawiki installations that the Zorpia domain has been spammed on. As this blacklist is used on many wikimedia installations, blacklisting it will protect not only Wikimedia's wikis but the wikis of many other people. Naconkantari 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


And what can we do to have Zopia back on Wikipedia? Should we wait for some time or Zorpia.com will stay forever on the blacklist? (i'm just asking cause i don't know about these things)

If the Zorpia administrators can reduce the amount of spam generated from its domains, however they go about doing that, it is possible that the site can be removed from the blacklist in a few months. Naconkantari 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


Thank you very much for the information Naconkantari!

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=544545"