Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by A. B. (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 7 June 2007 (→‎yamour.com: subsequently whitelisted on the West Frisian wikipedia). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 16 years ago by A. B. in topic Troubleshooting and problems
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. There is also a more aggressive way to block spamming trough direct use of $wgSpamRegex. Only developers can make changes to $wgSpamRegex, and its use is to be avoided whenever possible.

For more information on what the spam blacklist is for, and the processes used here, please see Spam blacklist/About.

Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, or Troubleshooting and problems, read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. In addition to that, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment. Other discussions related to this last, but that are not a problem with a particular link please see, Spam blacklist policy discussion.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

snippet for logging: {{/request|597250#section_name}}

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

Worthy of note: en:Wikipedia:Grief

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 16 years ago63 comments23 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.


cceq.org

http://www.cceq.org is the website for the Center for Corporate Equality. The wikipedia article Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has an anonymous editor w:user:71.166.159.75 who keeps adding this website back into the article. This is some brand new group. I suspect it may be linkspamming. --Evrik 17:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

universe-of-mp3.info

  • shlomif.wikiplanet.com/mediawiki/index.php/Mediawiki/index.php

Or just google universe-of-mp3.info to find hundreds.

I would like diffs of spam insertions please. I would find a ton of hits for other sites such as google books, and thats not spam. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Request from Russian Wikipedia - gay.ru

Could you please add site gay.ru to the black list of spam, as someone continues to add links to that website in the articles on ru.wikipedia.org. That site advertises pornography, gay prostituion services [17],[18], and gay sex shop[19],[20] which are illegal under Russian penal code [21], and can cause legal problems for Russian section of Wikipedia (translation of the text of this law from Russian to English can be done at babelfish online translation). Thank you.--Ram2006 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you have evidence of actual spam problems? Is someone actively inserting this? Has ordinary admin tools failed to prevent multiple accounts from adding this link? (IE, blocks with autoblock left on, small range blocks for a short time etc). —— Eagle101 Need help? 10:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I gave Eagle a list of places where the url exists, but I have not seen it spammed much when I looked. I will keep an eye out. Zscout370 03:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

philosopedia.org

Many links, almost all added by site owner. Sanity check, please. See [22].

  1. en: 71, [61 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * A. J. Carlson
   * Aenesidemus
   * Albert Schweitzer
   * Alfred Ayer
   * Algernon Charles Swinburne
   * All Souls Church, Unitarian
   * Amy Clampitt
   * Archie J. Bahm
   * Archie Randolph Ammons
   * Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
   * Baker Brownell
   * Bertrand Russell
   * Brand Blanshard
   * Cesare Cremonini (philosopher)
   * Charles Francis Potter
   * Conrad Aiken
   * Corliss Lamont
   * David Amram
   * De Soto, Iowa
   * DeRobigne Mortimer Bennett
   * Donald S. Harrington
   * E. E. Cummings
   * Emily Hahn
   * Faith Baldwin
   * Felix Adler (Society for Ethical Culture)
   * Frederick May Eliot
   * Geoffrey Bruun
   * George Boas
   * George Burns
   * H. J. Blackham
   * Harriette Simpson Arnow
   * Heinz Ansbacher
   * Hugh Hefner
   * Jack Beeson
   * Joseph Campbell
   * Joseph Hilbe
   * Joseph L. Blau
   * Joseph Warren Beach
   * Joseph Wood Krutch
   * Joyce Cary
   * Kay Boyle
   * Kenneth Burke
   * Louis Appignani
   * Louis Cornish
   * Max Lerner
   * Mike Reiss
   * Minburn, Iowa
   * Newton Arvin
   * Pat Tillman
   * Paul Edwards (philosopher)
   * Richard Kostelanetz
   * Rob Buckman
   * Robert Adamson (philosopher)
   * Robert Frost
   * Roger Nash Baldwin
   * Roy Wood Sellars
   * Rudolf Carnap
   * Rudolf Dreikurs
   * Ruth Millikan
   * Van Meter Ames
   * William Heard Kilpatrick
   * Image:Dr Robert Buckman.jpg
   * Talk:Alan Cumming
   * Talk:Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
   * Talk:Carl Sagan
   * Talk:Leo Tolstoy
   * User:Shmitra/photopermission
   * User:WASmith
   * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
   * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Belk
   * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 4
  1. de: 2, [2 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Paul Edwards
   * William Stewart Ross
  1. ja: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * アルベルト・シュバイツァー
  1. pt: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Molly Ivins
  1. zh: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * 伯特兰·罗素
  1. fi: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Brand Blanshard
  1. no: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Algernon Swinburne
  1. tr: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Bertrand Russell
  1. da: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Anarkister
  1. el: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)
   * Άλμπερτ Σβάιτσερ

JzG 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds right to me, if you need help doing the logging by all means ping me —— Eagle101 Need help? 10:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Though if you are going to blacklist something like this and there is no evidence of actual diffs of an account spamming the link, I would suggest that you remove the site yourself from the afflicted wikis. As you know we only tend to blacklist stuff that there is a documented case of abuse. Those links could have been inserted legitimately for all I know. (google cache has a ton of links but it is not spam) —— Eagle101 Need help? 10:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

multiple links

these links keep getting put into Art Bell, George Noory, and Coast to Coast AM articles (usually by unregistered IP users, just take a look at the history for the articles) ... most of these links are forums or blogs or networking websites ... i tried my best to find examples of them being removed from the articles (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • nighthawkzone.com
  • latenightforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=213
  • fantasticforum.com/1res/index.php
  • imaginativeworlds.com/forum/portal.php
  • myspace.com/c2cam
  • theusofe.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=3906d822105041d1491f07d0502d87b9
  • z8.invisionfree.com/Conspiratards/index.php?act=idx
  • groups.myspace.com/coasttocoastlistener
  • republicanoperative.com/blog/george-noory-has-got-no-freakin-clue.htm
I've protected both articles for 1 week, come back and post in this section if after a week it keeps up. —— Eagle101 Need help? 10:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

datasheet4u.com mirrors

Anonymous Korean spammer keeps returning to en:Datasheet using different IPs and different domain names for the already blacklisted site datasheet4u.com. Mirrors spotted so far include:

  • datasheet4u.net
  • datasheet4u.co.kr
  • datasheet.co.kr
  • datasheet.in
  • datasheets.in

WHOIS confirms that the above domains belong to Young-Su Kim, the owner of datasheet4u.com. --  Netsnipe  ►  03:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will semi-protect datasheet and see if that fixes the problem. —— Eagle101 Need help? 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I highly suggest blacklisting. He's been at it since April 24, 2006. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
For the record, he came back 5 days after page protection expired. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

cafepress.com

A bit obvious, really. As of now there are many many links to cafepress on multiple projects: [43]. None of them is ever going to be anything other than an advertisement; there is no conceivable encyclopaedic use for links to cafepress, other than to the home page itself in articles on cafepress. JzG 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Were they all inserted by the same IP? If not then it might be legit. A trick to try would be to try removing the links from say... the english wiki, and see if anyone cries foul. If someone does, then it might have merit. Who knows... —— Eagle101 Need help? 11:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I deleted a bunch of cafepress.com spam earlier this year and gave out warnings. Sounds like they had little effect. --A. B. (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC) My mistake: I was confusing this with another domain. --A. B. (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've deleted cafepress spam in the past, it occasionally gets spammed to multiple articles by a single user, but more often, it's a COI issue.. where a user has created a cafepress store with items related to a single, specific topic.. and they add the store link to a single article. The link is intended to promote a product and adds no encyclopedic value. It's highly unlikely that any cafepress link ever will add encyclopedic value to any article except the one that is about cafepress.com. That said, given the shared nature of the meta blacklist, and the ability to blacklist individual cafepress/storename urls as necessary.. I'm not sure that adding all of cafepress.com to blacklist is a great idea. --Versageek 18:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, most of them are COI. We can whitelist any that are not. The problem stretches across all projects, as far as I can tell. JzG 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Then I would ask that we list some examples of rampent problems. Do we have multiple anon users using this link? Likely socks? etc? —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have no strong feelings either way about blacklisting this site but I seem to remember that there is a Wikipedia/Wikimedia section on CafePress where one could buy Wikimedia-related coffee mugs, t-shirts & mouse pads. I would recommend against a complete blacklisting of this site until more information on this connection is provided here so a prudent decision can be made. -- Llywrch 21:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

centiare.com

Once part of a campaign by banned English Wikipedia user en:User:MyWikiBiz aka en:User:JossBuckle Swami aka Gregory Kohs, to spam his business site hither and yon (such as here and here, it's been taken up by en:User:Andman8 (such as here, here, and here) and whose motivations are stated pretty baldly here and here. These links aren't actually adding anything useful to the project, and it's past time they should be gone. --Calton 05:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Blacklisting is pretty drastic. I don't see any centiare.com links in the actual article space (en:Special:Linksearch/*.centiare.com) -- have any been added there recently? If not, I don't think we should blacklist this site. --A. B. (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
have any been added there recently? - They were taken out recently -- today -- by myself. But spam is spam, whether it's in article space or -- as I showed in the links above -- sneaked into and/or solicited in talk pages. Or is stealth spam somehow acceptable? --Calton 07:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I suggest that you report this to admins so that the admins can take appropriate action, be it blocking the accounts, or whatever needs done. —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Good idea. Wait, I already did that before coming here and I was pointed here. "[W]hatever needs to be done", you'll note, includes adding this site to the spam blacklist. --Calton 00:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Calton, you have received two responses above from independent parties that essentially advise that you tone it down a notch, but your response to both is to counter-argue the point even further. You have already been spotted canvassing on this issue, which (I thought?) is against Wikipedia policy. Clearly, you have taken up this issue of Centiare as a WP:OWN sort of thing, which is also against policy. The recent edits by User:Andman8 are those of a hyper-enthused recent high school graduate who sees a lot of opportunity with Centiare. While he took a rather testy route to get there, he has apologized to Wikipedia, and he assures me he will not try to "plant" Centiare links or references in the future.
I'm having trouble understanding why a site like Citizendium.org is allowed to have 301 external links from Wikipedia -- many from article space -- but a site like Centiare.com is not only stricken from having links from articles, but is being nominated for an outright "blacklist" status? There is good content found on Centiare. Clearly, your action smacks of a personal vendetta, and I'm troubled to see that your involvement with the Wikipedia project is being so thoroughly distracted by this off-site non-issue.
If anyone in an authority position with Wikimedia wishes to intelligently discuss this matter with me (I am certain that Wikipedia and Centiare can co-exist; actually, probably in a beneficial way to minimize spam efforts across Wikipedia), I am available by cell phone (302.463.1354). I've already had relatively productive "healing" conversations with Jimmy Wales and Erik Moeller, so clearly, I'm open to diplomacy. This offer includes you, Calton, and your co-agent, JzG. --Centiare 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Interesting I missed all this, yet my talk page was used as part of it. I originally took this up personally with Andman8 when, while just going through my travels on Wikipedia, noticed quite a bit of links to Centiare from him. I didn't even have to go to his contributions to find them, there were so many. This is clearly spam, and I acknowledged his efforts, and asked him to stop. I haven't followed up until I now, when I again randomly encountered this. If he has indeed stopped since I asked him to, then this is moot. If he hasn't after I gave him a fair warning, we definitely need to do something. Maybe blacklisting isn't the way to go, maybe an indefinite block or ban on the account will do, but I won't tolerate spam. Wikidan829 05:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I do note the username of yours Centiare, as long as the link is not spammed. If somoene shows evidence of linkspamming, then it might be time to blacklist. Just a word of warning ;) —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
If someone shows evidence of linkspamming - See above. That's what the links are for. And the "Centiare" is obviously the permabanned-on-Wikipedia en:User:MyWikiBiz aka Gregory Kohs, so why he should have the slightest shred of credibility I don't know.
You have received two responses above from independent parties that essentially advise that you tone it down a notch - Wrong, Kohs, I received two responses that disputed the need to the blacklisting -- one of which was, essentially, factually incorrect -- so I counter-responded. This is really not so difficult to understand, no matter how you try to spin it.
The recent edits by User:Andman8 are those of a hyper-enthused recent high school graduate who sees a lot of opportunity with Centiare - The correct way of phrasing that euphemism is "pimping to line his own pockets".
Everything else is pretty much a complete waste of time to respond to, but it's telling that, given how much you've bragged about how darned successful you're going to be and you don't need Wikipedia, you, like a bad penny, keep showing up, either in person or through his agents. Why is that? Still need the Googlejuice? --Calton 04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I was gogin to deny this as lacking evicdnce of cross-wiki spam, but as usual Kohs has persuaded me that he is sufficiently intent on self-promotio that unless we take action he will set about causing a problem. I am minded to add the site on that basis. I will consider this for a bit. JzG 06:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
An interwiki search shows no Centiare links in the 57 largest wikipedias except for the ones in talk and user space in the English wikipedia. I see no evidence of spamming article space in the last 4 months from searching Veinor's daily link reports. I agree with Kohs that Andman8 is an enthusiastic kid. I suggest that if Mr. Kohs can rein in Andman8, that he get on with his project and we get on with ours, leaving each other alone. Irritation is insufficient cause for blacklisting. Since our blacklist is used by 100s of other non-Foundation wikis that run MediaWiki software, I think we should avoid blacklisting for now. --A. B. (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Goading removed, per excellent advice from A. B.. My defenses of my character elsewhere are, indeed, sufficient. --Centiare 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Centiare, I suggest you stop goading various Wikipedia editors and admins; whether you think you're justified or not, you're not helping yourself or Centiare.com. You've made enough disparaging remarks off-Wikipedia that I think you can consider yourself "even" in the criticism and finger-pointing department. You've made your points. If you wish to avoid blacklisting, then, please, just go away quietly. If you want "level-headedness", then please show some yourself. You have a business to run and it won't benefit from squabbling at Wikipedia and getting Centiare.com blacklisted. --A. B. (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
While it's true that the bar for being listed here is higher than I assumed originally (as JzG's comments suggest), nonetheless history tells me that while the spamming is not a flood, it was and remains a persistent trickle, given how Koh's sockpuppets [and confederates like Andman8] keep popping up occasionally. And en:User:Andman8, despite being warned, still figures spamming is OK]. I'm sensing a slow-motion limits-testing, and it's getting tiresome. --Calton 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think the proper term is "meatpuppet" as Andman8 is (from what I understand) a separate person than Centiare. In either case, it seems that the promises made were empty, as shown in this recent edit. Andman8 has received an official warning, which if it escalates, and he persists, will result in a block. Centiare, it's time to stop the lip service and take action, and hold what is currently your user accountable. He is very poorly representing your site. Wikidan829 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
My comment was only concerning Koh's genuine sockpuppets that crop up and not Andman8, though given my careless wording it seemed as if I was suggesting they were one and the same. I apologize if that was how it was read, since I have no doubt that Andman8 is NOT Gregory Kohs and did not intend to suggest otherwise. He's got plenty of obvious flaws, but lack of existence isn't one of them. --Calton 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
First, the contraction "Koh's" is completely wrong above. The surname is "Kohs" -- there's no reason to put an apostrophe in the middle of it. Would you say, "Jone's"? Second, I've asked the User:Andman8 multiple times to stop trying to promote Centiare within any Wikimedia property. He is not part of management or ownership of Centiare. Wikidan829 suggests that I am responsible for the accountability of "my" user. If that's the case, Wikipedia is responsible for all its users that might post on "attack" sites, for example, and I'd ask you -- what is Wikimedia's management doing to "take action" and hold those users "accountable"? Honestly, it's not lip service to say that I have made it clear to User:Andman8 that he is requested to stop promoting Centiare within Wikipedia. I'm not going to drive to Texas to rough him up or something to make it "stick". What do you think I am, a mob boss? (Nice goading, with the "obvious flaws" comment, too.) Again, I have to just about laugh about all of this. Are we done now? --Centiare 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for that grammar lesson. The error was rooted in me believing at the time "Koh", as I am not familiar with this individual. We are not here to attack you, but to merely provide suggestions to keep your site from being blacklisted. If you look at it this way, we could simply just give Andman8 his warnings, block him, and BL Centiare without any form of mediation. Maybe you don't care, but not being blacklisted could be in your best interest. All we want is for the spamming to stop. If you want to laugh about it, then laugh, after all, being added to the spam list is hilarious. Wikidan829 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wikidan829, I'm curious why you would apologize for the "Koh" vs. "Kohs" issue, when it was Calton who made the mistake. I smell something fishy between Calton's and Wikidan's tag-teaming on this issue. Sockpuppetry, perhaps? Each account has edited Wikipedia at the same time, so it's likely not a sockpuppet, but still. Why apologize for someone else's mistake? --Centiare 15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would ask that you assume better faith. Unfortunately, I was confused about your response and could have sworn I saw myself make the mistake first, then Calton reflect it. On a second look, I didn't say it at all. I see you're up on stalking while you're at it. You might also note that I was the first one to make an issue to Andman8 on his talk page. While I wasn't watching, Calton replied and escalated it. I ran into Andman again for the same issue and saw that Calton was involved, which eventually brought me here. You shouldn't look so much into little mixups. Wikidan829 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I won't look so much into little mixups. "Stalking" you say, though? I wouldn't call a four-minute side-by-side glance at two Users' edit histories "stalking". Actually, User:Durova takes a lot of pride in her ability to do that. She calls them "complex investigations". Meanwhile, the real point of all this is that Calton has essentially taken "ownership" of anything related to Centiare, and JzG has taken uber-ownership of anything related to Gregory Kohs. Try as I might to just go about my business, these two Users always seem to draw me back into their game. Again, are we done now? --Centiare 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Meanwhile, the real point of all this is that Calton has essentially taken "ownership" of anything related to Centiare, and JzG has taken uber-ownership of anything related to Gregory Kohs. Son, as usual you're badly in need of a reality check. Let's cut through to smoke you're laying down: you're a spammer and an abusive sockpuppeteer, responsible -- through yourself and at least one naive confederate -- for serially spamming references to your business in order to attempt to churn up revenue/Google hits for yourself. You've been banned by Jimbo AND community-banned, a rare feat indeed, so playing the paranoia card doesn't change those facts one iota. --Calton 00:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thought I should bring it up, that Andman8 has spammed again just today. Wikidan829 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Let me get this all straight; en:User:MyWikiBiz is banned, then bypasses the ban with the en:User:JossBuckle Swami sockpuppet who gets blocked indefinitely, then violates the ban again by proxy with the en:User:Andman8 meatpuppet, and now User:Centiare is trying to get centiare.com put on the interwiki-map (see Talk:Interwiki_map#Centiare). Doesn't this whole scenario seem highly inappropriate? Can a website be blacklisted and be on the interwiki-map at the same time? Crazy. (Requestion 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC))Reply
I was unaware of the attempt to add the site to this. It seems that those attempts precede the topic at hand, however, and probably negate it. Wikidan829 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Jimbo Wales' most recent action with en:User:MyWikiBiz was to UNBLOCK him. Why does that event fail to enter your dialogue, Calton? Also note the use of the derogatory comment, "Son, as usual you're badly in need of a reality check," by Calton. I am not your son. I am a 38-year-old father. If this doesn't prove that a certain someone is incapable of being level-headed in his prosecution of this particular cause, I'm not sure what will. Once again, a couple of members of the Wikimedia/pedia project have themselves all up in a lather, over what essentially amounts to nothing. I try to go forward, minding my own business, and you keep coming up with more falsehoods and disparaging remarks. This really is a game to you, isn't it? If you are having a problem with en:User:Andman8, why don't you just block his account for a month, rather than going after a website that he favors? If I were to spam Wikia links all over the place, would you put Wikia on the spam blacklist? --Centiare 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to chime in here again. He did it because it was "asked nicely", only to get banned but a few days later. Jimbo Wales does not have ultimate authority on Wikipedia and he cannot violate policy, lest the community has his nuts. Both accounts were re-banned because whoever was on it elusively made legal threats towards another user. That's neither here nor there.
If Andman8 favors Centiare, he should stay on Centiare. And if your website is so great, I don't understand why he finds it necessary to keep linking to it. What does he accomplish? I am not for or against blacklisting the site, I just want the spam to stop. He is one of the users I feel I need to babysit, is this what your community consists of? Unfortunately, I am not an administrator, and even if I was, his spam is coming in slow enough to evade a block. Along that same vein of policy, continually having the need to revert spam to a particular site(in this case, Centiare) will result in a blacklist. It's as simple as that. While Andman8 may not be your user, he will be at fault for the blacklisting, which ultimately becomes your problem. He just needs to stop, it's really that simple! Wikidan829 15:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

globaljihad.net

Spamming on numerous enwiki pages from multiple, dynamic IPs [44] [45] Aude 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you give me a ew more examples? —— Eagle101 Need help? 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.i-see-why.com

Spaming German Wikipedia eg. in QM-Article:

Please put it to black list. It is a CRM product.
Thanks 13:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Any other instances of spamming? Why not just semi-protect the article for a week and come back if there are still problems. :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Website

Can someone blacklist this website please www.thesecretcastle.com/ it keeps being added to wikipedia article which breecaes wikipedias WP:EL cheers 77.100.66.115 07:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you have diffs of it being added? Thanks :) —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

mysh-game.de

Persistent spamming of a link to a browser game on de.wikipedia. Take a look at the last four days: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] He uses a dynamic IP of a well used range, so please blacklist this website. --Sinn 14:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Concur. I was just getting ready to report the same spammer. Extensive cross-wiki spam, randomly sticking his link into section headings in totally unrelated articles in various wikipedias; may be a bot. I first noticed this in a very small wikipedia yesterday. Unfortunately Luxo's cross-wiki contribution tool (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=84.191.205.179&lang=en) is not reporting all the cross-wiki edits that it reported yesterday; I don't know why. Here are the English spam edits for one of these IPs:
--A. B. (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Merriam-Webster's Open Dictionary

  • www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/

Merriam-Webster has started it's own "Wiktionary" or pretty much its own Urban Dictionary. Abuse is very likely an issue as users can make up shit there and bring it to our local projects. Current thread at en-wp can be seen at w:en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Quick Note Re: Merriam-Webster Online—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

compact.exe.su

Mass spaming in ru.wikipedia from different IP, for example [55], [56], [57], . Thanks! --Morpheios Melas 10:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

gobacolod.com

Several users have been appending gobacolod.com external links to various English Wikipedia articles:

Suspected spamming users have been previously warned regarding linkspamming (repeatedly by several registered English Wikipedia users), yet the activity persists. One (or the same) users have engaged in vandalism after having their edits reverted. One, 210.213.147.150, has been blocked for a period of 24 hours. Spamlinking activity continues even after this block action. -- Kguirnela 13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 16 years ago35 comments19 people in discussion
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a link is not a vote, please do not bold the first words in statements.


ruswar.com

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

Any other reason? Spam in this case is not a subject, but rather a verb. Things go on this list because the site owner attempted to promote his own site across foundation sites. As I did the original blacklisting, someone else can look into this, but I recommend against blacklisting. If there is a specific use of the site use deeplinking (ie ruswar.com/something). You can request that specific pages be allowed vie local whitelisting. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The content is war photography which would fit perfectly on the war photography site. But perhaps local blacklisting would be a good idea, if there's something specific there isn't okay.Isakk 09:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
As I've stated you may request local whitelisting. 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

tutorialspoint.com

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

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

--

I have found this site very informative for all software developers. The tutorials available on this sites are really very simple, clear and easy to understand. This site would work great for freshers ( new in software industry ) to understand the latest technology and to cope up with the market.
I dont think this site should be blacklisted. So I also recommend to move this site out of blacklist.
Thanks,

Paul

I agree, this is not a site which should be blacklisted...Just wondering why it happend so. I would alos recommend remove this site from blacklist if it has been put in blacklist because of some unintentional mistakes done by someone.

amit Hi,

I'm so thankful to all the guys recommending tutorialspoint for whitelist. I already had requested to wiki admin and I had stated that I did not add all the links which are assumed to be spaming. Now whoever had added those links agreed on his/her mistake and other people also find that this site should not be blacklisted. So I again request to Admin that tutorialspoint should be removed from black list.

Mohtashim for TutorialsPoint.com

Hi JzG!

I cross checked this report, there are two IP addresses who submitted these link (i) 206.126.170.20 (ii) 59.144.74.128. Out of these IP addresses, first one belongs to Cincinnati, USA and another belongs to Chennai, INDIA. Both are not the owner of this site. In above recommendation one person accepted his/her mistake so may be this is one of them who did this mistake.

I belong to Andhra Pradesh, INDIA and I maintain my site from this place only. Further, I would request you to go to my site and you will find its completely educational site and useful for IT beginners. So my request is to remove this site once from black list and I hope and expect from my site visitors they would not repeat this mistake.

Best Regards Mohtashim for TutorialsPoint.com

  • It doesn't actually matter who spams a site, if it is spammed. And it must be said that requests from site owners based on their own assertions of usefulness are not exceptionally persuasive. JzG 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi JzG! Then it means my site would never be borough up back to white list ? What's solution now. I should not be blacklisted because of others. Same time when other people are recommending then it should have some consideration. When I checked your given report link then I find that w3school also has put a link on an dutch article, I have seen many other links from this site to many other wiki pages with different languages. You can check it.

I'm not sure if this comes under cross spamming according to WIKI spam policy but w3schools is never been blacklisted and my site was blacklisted because someone had added one link somewhere. Rule should be same for all and there should not be any partiality from a WIKI Admin.

I'm looking for a fair judgment from your side. So please let me know the solution to come out of blacklist.

Best Regards Mohtashim

  • Hi,

I'm still waiting for your kind response.

Best Regards Mohtashim

wannasurf.com

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

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

fremderfreiheitsschacht.de

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

I'm going to refer you to this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cais-soas.com

  • this is the circle of ancient iranian studies, and it is only a scientific website without any viruses and anything. also shapour suren-pahlav is iran's most important modern iranian painter, so his site shouldn't be filtered.
  • from their website, "The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS), established in 1998 by Shapour Suren-Pahlav and Oric Basirov (Department of Art and Archaeology), under the name of "Ancient Iranian Civilization at the School of Oriental and African Studies" (AIC at SOAS) and later changed to "The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies" (CAIS at SOAS) of the University of London, to act as a forum for the exchange of information about the art, archaeology, culture and civilization of Iranian peoples. CAIS no longer has any affiliation with SOAS."

... May or may not be neutral, but definitely not spam: why are they on the list? Found because there are informative links about archaeology etc on the en:Persepolis page; it'd be a shame to remove them. -- phoebe 17:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's also used a lot on fr, by many different people (no spam attempt or anything, just a convenient source). Is there any legal issue here? GL 21:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • additional discussion on this domain:

Accidently blocked by \bcais-soas\.com  ?

This is the Circle of Ancient Iranian Website (CAIS). It should not be blocked. I think its blocking is being triggered by this entry in the list: \bcais-soas\.com Can someone fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.81.252.14 (talk • contribs) .

Please read this discussion on en.wikipedia prior to removing this domain from the blacklist, there were some specific issues that caused it to be blacklisted. --Versageek 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

ishipress.com/royalfam

ishipress.com was added last August by Naconkantari based on this. I don't know whether the reason for the general blacklisting is valid, but Sam Sloan seems to be the maintainer of a genealogy tree of European royal families ( www.ishipress.com/royalfam/pafg01.htm ) which definitely should not be blacklisted. --Tgr 08:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

MySpace Blogs

I think a blacklist prevented me from linking my wikipedia user page to my myspace blog? Myspace now has too significant a share of the blogosphere I think to maintain that.:(Warning, User has bias) Mathiastck 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It could be done in a less blanket manner.:There's nothing wrong with with WP users linking to their own blogs on their own userpages.:I agree halfheartedly with preventing MySpace links in articles. The problem with it is that many notable bands and other people have migrated to MySpace for their official web sites.:The issue isn't that very few blogs can qualify as sources at all (it is certainly true that very, very few blogs are generally reliable sources); it is that virtually all blogs are not reliable sources for much of anything — but the inverse of course is that any blog authored by someone notable, MySpace-based or not, can be a reliable source, for something about that notable party that isn't subject to p.o.v.-pushing under W:WP:COI (e.g., the simple fact of the upcoming release date of a notable band's album can be reliably sourced from their official website, be it blog-based or MySpace-based, or not).:Blogs are simply a publication format, like any other.:Yeah, I know this is not the venue for a deep discussion of this, but I find the "ban blogs from Wikipedia!" meme rather silly and irritating.:That said, MySpace itself had become a problem with regard to overuse of links to it in articles; perhaps it could be addressed at W:WP:EL in some way instead of with such a broad blacklisting. It ought to be appropriate, under WP:EL, to use official websites, blogs, etc., including MySpace, to source facts that can be reliably sourced by them, and to use them on user pages, and not to use them for anything else at all. (End rant). — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is a full listing of where blog.myspace links have been mentioned.

1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/02#blog.myspace.com
2. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/02#Talk.3AReparative_therapy
3. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/02#blog_dot_myspace_dot_com
4. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/03#Adfunk_spam_on_Wikipedia
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Feb#Adfunk_spam_on_Wikipedia
6. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#MySpace_Blogs
7. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04#Contents
8. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/05#Contents
9. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Ffirerescuelieut
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Fblaqkaudio_and_blog.myspace.com.2Ftigerarmy
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Fkylecease
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Userspace_wuotan_blog_link
15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Fmarthajonesuk
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Disinformation_myspace_blog
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Femorangers
18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Fmikebennion
19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#schoolofart
20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#ezinearticles.com

If users have myspace accounts they can feel free to link to that account (which will have a link to the blog I'm sure). I'm really not looking at removing this for now, if there are any blogs you would like to use just ask for local whitelisting. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

ezinearticles.com

This is a legit site of independently-authored and often well-researched articles on various topics, which can (but like anything else are not always) useful as cited sources. Never seen any evidence they are spammers at all and doing a search on the site name does not reveal enough articles to suggest a massive campaign of linkspamming, though I imagine that one or two bad WP editors who have written questionable articles over there could be linkspamming them on a limited basis; such behaviour should be dealt with at W:WP:AIV, not by blacklisting the entire site. W:Cue sport and W:William A. Spinks cannot be edited without removing two of their references (both articles' correction of false information about billiard chalk from an episode of CSI cannot be fully sourced without links to ezinearticles.com working here; while the correct information is probably available from other than the good ezinearticle cited, a different, bad ezinearticle was itself the source of CSI`s error, and is cited as such.) I have commented out the reference citations to ezinarticles.com at W:Cue sport, which is frequently edited, but this affects quite a number of other articles, none of which can be edited without similar hijinks, which many editors won't understand. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at:
  1. en:User talk:150.216.133.196
  2. en:User talk:207.97.160.53
  3. en:User talk:221.19.108.118
  4. en:User talk:221.38.194.8
  5. en:User talk:4.252.161.202
  6. en:User talk:58.7.252.46
  7. en:User talk:60.227.65.62
  8. en:User talk:60.227.69.147
  9. en:User talk:67.161.178.47
  10. en:User talk:67.172.117.142
  11. en:User talk:67.182.187.220
  12. en:User talk:69.159.240.244
  13. en:User talk:86.4.122.201
  14. en:User talk:Acecomp
  15. en:User talk:Amahdigital
  16. en:User talk:Atiq321
  17. en:User talk:BostonRed
  18. en:User talk:BreakdownCover
  19. en:User talk:Ebooks
  20. en:User talk:Egleason
  21. en:User talk:Fan-1967/Archive7
  22. en:User talk:Kburton
  23. en:User talk:Kempler Video
  24. en:User talk:Lesimo2
  25. en:User talk:Rtussey
  26. en:User talk:Treacle07
  27. en:User talk:V9designbuild.com
  28. en:User talk:Wisteriapress
Where you see a copyright violation cited on a talk page, in most cases, it's been the ezinearticles.com contributor submitting the same text from his article, then linking back to it.
Sample cross-wiki spamming:
Previous discussions:
While I did not propose blacklisting, I think it's probably a good idea. As an alternative, I've tried to pursue a more careful strategy of evaluating ezinearticles.com links and articles one-by-one and removing "surgically" over the last several months. In my experience, we're accumulating them faster than I've been able to delete them this way. Furthermore, I've read perhaps 75 to 100 of these articles and not found one that met our requirements as a reliable source. There is no editorial supervision of article quality. If you research the company, you'll find that this is all about search engine marketing (see en:User talk:V9designbuild.com). The article writer gets a link with some "Google-love" (an increase in page rank). Ezinearticles.com gets Google ad revenue. Readers get something that anyone could have submitted (including your 10-yar old or the used car salesman down the street).
--A. B. (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's disconcerting, as SMcCandlish pointed out, for editors to encounter the blacklist filter while trying to edit a page that contains a blacklisted link. Typically, the person requesting blacklisting will delete or at least disable existing links across various wikipedias before blacklisting. I guess this did not happen with this request.
I have gone ahead and cleaned up links on the following wikipedias:
Can someone else help clean up en.wikipedia?
--A. B. (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I concede that too much of the ezinearticles material is junk, and am no longer opposed to the blacklisting. I will take up the W:Cue sport and W:William A. Spinks artcles' needs at W:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, request withdrawn. Naconkantari 16:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

mobipocket.ru

mobipocket.ru.--87.118.102.154 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This site is a low-class, but I really haven't reasons to see it blacklisted. A link to this site exist at the article about famous Russian writer Boris Vasiliev and it doesn't allow add а new link to the thematical article (I want add a link to http://www.writer.fio.ru/index.php?c=1351). Thank You beforehand.
Someone fixed it with this [59] edit. (Requestion 02:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

www.quotesandpoem.com

I am one of the webmasters/owners of quotesandpoem.com and I was doing some searches on Wikipedia and Google when I came across the fact that quotesandpoem.com was blacklisted on Wikipedia in Aug 2006. This came as a surprise to us. www.quotesandpoem.com is a main stream website with a large database of quotes, poems, literature etc and we have never intended to spam Wikipedia in any way.

In its early years, quotesandpoem.com had many volunteers who were helping us gather the content for the website and several developers who were coding the scripts for the website. Over the years we also have had many hard core patrons who have liked what they have seen on our website and benefited from it. It is possible that one or several of them had added links on Wikipedia for quotesandpoem.com and/or violated the Wikipedia rules for posting.

I would like to categorically state that we have no intention of spamming on Wikipedia or personally adding links to quotesandpoem.com on Wikipedia’s pages. We would like to be removed from the Wikipedia black list simply because we believe we have done nothing wrong and do not want to appear on Wikipedia’s black list on public searches. We also believe that being on a public Wikipedia black list may impact our ranking with the search engines and it may result in many people not benefiting from the wealth of knowledge and information that is available on our website in one of the easiest searchable formats.

Thank you for your consideration. If there is any information that I can provide that would help you in making this determination please let me know.

Best Regards

blog.myspace.com

I'm not sure I understand why this url should be blacklisted over sites like livejournal or blogspot. If the subject of an article maintains a myspace blog, as many do, wouldn't it make sense to link to them? This is especially important if they make announcements or statements not readily available elsewhere. I understand that there's a whitelisting process, and some myspace blogs have been whitelisted. But it seems a troublesome and unnecessary process. While it can occasionally contain spam, it is by no means spam as a rule. --58.110.246.243 16:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done, use Local whitelisting. Naconkantari 16:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

omninternet.com

I really dont understand why this site is blocked, please enter the site, is a very complete directory of history, biographies, universities and a lot of cultural things. Maybe someone try to add a lot of links here on wiki and that causes the block.

Please unblock the site, i think is a site that really help to make even more rich this beautiful Wiki, its not fair that someone block one link without check if the information can help people...Omninternet.com its a site that can help people to know so much more about his country (newspapers, radio, biographies, HISTORY, universities, travels, etc) and others country.

group-games.com

Not sure why this site is blacklisted. I am one of the regular contributors to this site - it's a collection of instructions for many icebreakers, group games, and teambuilding activities for classrooms, parties, and other settings. I think the breadth of entries makes it a worthwhile site. Admittedly there are a bunch of ads, but they're not popups and there are no "tricks". Please unblock.

xrl.us

xrl.us is the domain for the Metamark (http://metamark.net/) URL-shortening service, and as such xrl.us URLs may redirect to any arbitrary (but much longer) URLs. Blacklisting it impedes our ability to succinctly link to sites with obnoxiously long URLs; please unblock it. -- Earle Martin 16:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done, URL shorteners are not allowed. Please search the archives (try tinyurl.com) for more detailed reasons. Naconkantari 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

nefac.net

A link to this site is currently in List of anarchist organizations. I am not sure why someone would add it to the blacklist. Please remove it, so that I can continue to update the list of anarchist organizations. Thank you! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.95.223.159 (talk)

Fixed. I removed the blacklisted nefac.net links in the en:List_of_anarchist_organizations article. You should be able to edit it now. (Requestion 00:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC))Reply
Sorry, I meant remove nefac.net from the Spam blacklist. There is no reason for it to be on the blacklist. Thank you! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.170.6 (talk)
Sorry but there's always a good reason why something gets added to the blacklist. What do you think Wikimedia is? Some sort of anarchist organization? (: (Requestion 16:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments10 people in discussion
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).


700 URL redirection links to clean up

As a matter of policy, domains such as tinyurl.com are routinely blacklisted since they not only can be used innocently as URL shorteners but also as a means of bypassing our spam blacklist. I keep the en:URL redirection article on my watchlist since someone adds another site to the external links section every week or two that I list for blacklisting. These additions are not necessarily spam -- some folks post them just to be helpful.

Today we had an editor add several links that, when linksearched across 57 Wikipedias, present major cleanup challenges:[60]
1. http://fd.tc

  • no links

2. freedomain.co.nr

  • 610 links

3. surl.co.uk:

  • no links

Mindless blacklisting will create chaos across hundreds of gridlocked articles so the links need to be cleaned up for each domain before blacklisting. Mindless link deletion in turn will delete many useful links and references since most probably were added in good faith by editors using these domains for short URLs. The right thing to do is to find and substitute the actual site link for the redirect URL.

As each domain is cleaned up, I suggest listing it in the Proposed additions section above. --A. B. (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedias with .co.nr links to be removed

Wikipedias with .co.nr links to be removed:

Links remaining in the 57 largest wikipedias: '429
(That includes perhaps 100+ outside mainspace).
Last updated: --A. B. (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

co.nr links removed from mainspace on these Wikipedias

co.nr links removed from mainspace on these Wikipedias:

Last updated: --A. B. (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

cais-soas.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red&action=submit This discussion moved to here, please continue discussion there. --Versageek 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

workforall

I understand why this site was blacklisted and am not requesting to have it lifted as this link was littered throughout Wikipedia. However, I do actually have a legit use for it as a reference but can not add it. I was trying to undo this change. Morphh 19:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please request local whitelisting of that specific page of that site. Thanks. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous IP claims Workforall think tank repudiates workforall.net domain and spamming

See this note posted on en:user:BozMo's talk page:

Public workforall.net registration record:

owner-contact: P-MJG120
owner-organization: P. Vreymans
owner-fname: MFPH
owner-lname: Geurts
owner-city: Wingene
owner-zip: 8750
owner-country: BE

Public workforall.org registration record:

Registrant Name:Eric Verhulst
Registrant Organization:Lancelot research nv
Registrant City:Leuven
Registrant Postal Code:be-b3010
Registrant Country:BE

--A. B. (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also see this disclaimer posted on workforall.org:
WorkForAll as an independent thinktank maintains the website www.workforall.org
WorkForAll.org has nothing to do with workforall.net...
--A. B. (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.forum.bordosov.net

I only saw it once, but it seems to be placed by a vandal bot (typical spam bot lemma: be:W/w/index.php). Does the blacklist also work if someone just puts "www.forum.bordosov.net" on a page (thus without http://)? (If yes, I would propose to list that one and to move this section to the requests above.) --Thogo (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.the-planets.com

Not in the list but blocked. Why? Consequently, I cannot edit http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabrina_Ferilli --125.24.142.66 01:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC) (user:media_lib)Reply

Not a brilliant site, but doesn't look like spam.--Poetlister 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Reference:
--A. B. (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

30 webalias.com redirect sites to cleanup and blacklist

See http:// webalias.com. As each of these domains are cleaned up, please note this fact below, then list the domain in "proposed additions" above.

--A. B. (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

A. B. If you have finished these, and they are on the blacklist, go ahead and put a {{done}} template on here, so that the bot may archive this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Article on Persia

In the further reading section of this article, I endeavoured to link the name of one of the authors, Tom Holland, to his own Wikipedia by inserting the code Tom Holland, but I was told that this was a black-listed link. Clearly this seems to be an error.

TanburSociety.com

Why has this site been placed on the black-list? It is a non profit society devoted to preserving the history of one of the oldest stringed instrument in the world. How do we remove it from the black list? We think somebody is playing games. How do we fix the problem?

I'm not sure that I agree with everything that the site says, but it seems an innocuous link.--Poetlister 14:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Public Organization "Belarusian Association of Gypsies

The site are blocked. This site no in list.

www.bel-roma.pochta.ru/english/index.php.htm Public Organization "Belarusian Association of Gypsies" --Knyf 08:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Site registered as spam that is not spam

I'd like to signal this site www.telefanatic.com that seems to be in the black list. I'd like to insert it as source in an italian wiki voice dedicated to serials because it's a site dedicated to this tv genre (with news, dictionary, episode guide, serials cards etc) but the wiki system is blocking it as spam. But Telefanatic.com is not a spam site, it speaks about serials and it's one of the most famous italian site dedicated to this genre. How can I add it in the italian wiki site and remove it from the black list?

Unable to save page due to spambot error

After making some substantial edits to my userpage I was unable to save my changes to it with Wikipedia returning this error: "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." I know that the only external link on that page is to the actual userpage itself (as part of the "this is a wikipedia userpage..." section)... I thought it would be best if you could see the actual content of the edit to best remedy the situation but the only place I could put it was on Uncyclopedia. Nevertheless, here it is. I'd really like for this problem to be solved soon because at the moment my userpage is in a kind of limbo state half-way between its old layout and the new one.... Thanks. D4g0thur 18:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

yamour.com

At <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/12#.2A.yamour.com> it says explicitely that this one is not going to be on the blacklist. However, it is, and someone is removing it from the page <http://fy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&action=edit&undoafter=79717&undo=80608> without us being able to put it straight again. How can this be resolved? Mysha

Please see [61] Naconkantari 16:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Mysha, as that "someone" that removed the link, I can answer this. Here is what Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/12#*.yamour.com actually says about blacklisting that domain:
  • "Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient."
In fact, this domain owner has abused Wikipedia in multiple ways across multiple Wikipedias on a scale far beyond what was understood when the earlier request was declined:
  1. Extensive cross-wiki spamming as documented at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Additions: Done#yamour.com. (Cross-wiki spamming is impossible to stop without blacklisting.)
  2. Abusive, uncivil behaviour: en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive132#linkspammer from yamourdotcom
  3. Content deletion from pages
  4. Illegal use of Wikipedia material in violation of Wikipedia's GFDL license: en:Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#yamourdotcom
As part of the blacklisting process I deleted these spam links on various wikipedias; otherwise articles with these spam links are "locked up" and uneditable until blacklisted links are removed.
Mysha, I am surprised that, given all that has been written about Wikipedia,1,2,3,4,5,6 someone on fy.wikipedia would want this one link, www.yamour.com/evolution/wikipedia.html, added by a flagrant cross-wiki spammer[62] to be their one and only external reference about the project.
I encourage you to also consider the lists of other references I cited above, but if you still want to use the yamour.com link, by all means, feel free to have it whitelisted locally at fy:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --A. B. (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=597250"