Proposed Additions

wargs.com

As per this discussion on WP:ANI. This site was being used in approximately 84 articles on Wikipedia-en, though I have removed some of these links. Site appears to be useful to cite material but fails to meet requirements set out in WP:RS (self-published, publisher claims "first draft", etc. etc.). --Yamla (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done --Yamla (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yamla, I disagree with blacklisting this many links added by regular editors without more consensus from the community and I am especially disagree with blacklisting them first before cleaning them up. This is going to disrupt probably 1000 pages. A perverse feature of our software filter is that when editors get the screen telling them they're editing an article with a blacklisted link, they lose whatever they were editing when they click on the "return to" link at the bottom.
I'm also wary of blacklisting links that regular editors are routinely adding. Perhaps they're not a good choice, but I don't think the blacklist is a good tool for raising editorial quality; it's a blunt instrument for blocking persistent, bad faith abuse by outsiders, not well-meaning poor judgement by our honest contributors.
Perhaps it would be better to add this to XLinkBot's revert list instead -- it's much less disruptive. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would absolutely not object to you removing wargs.com from the blacklist and adding it to XLinkBot. You clearly have a better handle on this sort of thing than I do. By the way, is there a way to remove links from bulk Wikipedia articles that is any faster than manual, one-at-a-time? I've yet to find a single wargs.com link that was actually appropriate, but the thought of removing them by hand makes me sad. Obviously any removal would require me to still check the validity. --Yamla (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen bots turned loose on similar problems a few months but it was messy, especially where the links were used in the article as opposed to the External links section. Perhaps someone has developed something -- if so, I'd love to know about it!
If links are used in the article, it's of course preferable to find a substitute reference, but you can always leave a ((fact)) tag. Also, sometimes spammers will add a footnote to something obvious: "Canada is a large country in North America.[1]" I just delete those and move on. If the link is in the External links section, I just delete and move on, leaving an edit summary such as "deleted spam.com link per [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#spam.com]]"
I'll go ahead and remove the domain from this list and add it to XLinkBot's list for now. Perhaps we can both work away at the links over the next few days. I'll also do an investigation to see how much of this was spam and how much was "innocent". If it was all spam, I'll look to see who added it and how many warnings they got; if they got enough warnings, we may want to add it back here (along with all the site-owners' other domains once the links are cleaned up.)
Thanks again for your work on spam. Please feel welcome to join us at WikiProject Spam
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Defer to XLinkBot --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


horizonpress.com

For logging purposes. See [1]

Yikes -- we have almost 300 links to clean up ASAP! Normally we do that first, then blacklist to minimize disruption to editors. I recommend removing this from the blacklist for now, cleaning up, then adding it back.
Also, if this might be a good reference in some cases, I suggest giving it to XLinkBot instead of totally blacklisting it. I suggest leaving note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine asking for advice.
Finally, we've had some success writing to the senior management of scientific publishing houses explaining the situation and asking them to have their staffs stop. Our regular editors need access to good refs and the publishers don't need the embarrassment of blacklisting.
In any event, we need to do something about all those now-blacklisted links. I'd help but I'm hitting the road now. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I think this listing may be a little premature given the number of articles affected. Maybe Guy would like to remove/rem out the listing for now? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a removal request from the editor below. I suggest removal, but the edits need cleaning. No need to link to a certain press if there is an ISBN available, except if that is the only link to that book available (and even then, we don't need to link). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the comments I've rem'd out the listing for now to allow clearing of articles. After that it can be activated & ISBN used, thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all your help. In future I will only use ISBN in any citations. Touchstone42 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am working hard correcting the references to the ISBN format. Any help appreciated! Touchstone42 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


boydabloc.blogspot.com

Several different SPAs keep inserting this link into Nancy Boyda. It's just one person's advocacy blog, not officially associated with Ms. Boyda. I'm tired of reverting it.--Father Goose (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed,  Done & thanks for the work --Herby talk thyme 08:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: SPA is now using boydabloc.com. Need that boydablocked too.--Father Goose (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monitored, putting it on XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Cafepress

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.


With the exception of the link from the article cafepress.com, every single one of the 300-odd links to cafepress would seem, on the face of it, to be spam. Guy (Help!) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At worst, IMHO, it's a crusade by JzG/Guy. JzG/Guy has repeatedly removed links apparently not meeting the definition of primary-purpose spam. See below the copy of Kizor's link evaluation report and followup debate in which obvious exceptions were simply ignored by JzG/Guy, to meet the header requirement here that all links must be removed in order to qualify for the blacklist.
Check JzG/Guy's contribs for recent (Apr 24) instances in which users objected to Cafepress link removal from talk pages.
Worse, after there were clear and rational objections, JzG/Guy continued to use AWB to mass revert the objecting editors, violating Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use "Don't do anything controversial with it". After seeing editors' objections, he should have engage them individually on a level editing field. Takes too long to engage them individually with manual editing? That's a sign to accept compromise. Reducing 300-claimed links to about 10% on talk pages for valid primary purposes is good enough unless one is crusading. Milo 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
support blacklisting see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/cafepress.com, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/cafepress.com, and m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/cafepress.com βcommand 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No reason for this site on Wikipedia. Seems to be 134 results left. If any remaining links reside in articles could be purged, I'll add it.--Hu12 (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not encouraged to believe I'm communicating with the reasonable when I see dismissive absolute generalizations like No reason for this site on Wikipedia.
The header above reads:
1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
What about Cafepress.com in article space? What about the Wikipedia Cafepress shop? What about official future fundraising use? And how about addressing the specific issue I raised which is evidence-tampering on talk pages?
2. .... Have other methods of control been exhausted? ....
Given the suddenness of this apparent crusade, I've seen no evidence of that.
3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages).
So why has JzG/Guy been removing Cafepress links from user talk pages? "discussion pages" implies that more than article space will be affected. Is that a fact? If so, blacklisting is too blunt a tool to be using.
Oh, yes— do you plan to show Jimbo who's boss by altering his talk archive? Milo 06:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blacklisting will prevent editing/discussions on article/user talk pages (the hyperlink "http://" should be removed). Archives typicaly are not activly edited so there is little concern about the links that remain "archived". I will whitelist the root (www.cafepress.com/index.aspx) for theCafepress.com article.
Cafepress.com links
  • Offers Affiliate Programs / affiliate earnings
  • Offers its Affiliates financial incentives to Link / increase page views
Cafepress.com links fail
Cafepress exists for the sole and primary purpose of promoting products, promoting online retail merchandise and promoting Affiliate services in apparent violation of anti-spam guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site or sell products.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

buddhabihar.com

buddhabihar.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Recurring and fairly obvious spam from dynamic IPs, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct 2#spam.buddhabihar.com and WT:WPSPAM#spam.buddhabihar.com. MER-C 12:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bump. MER-C 06:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree and  Done. Thanks --Hu12 (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picking up chicks and lobsters

Domains soammed
  • Google Adsense: 3645316179451463
  • Google Adsense: 3645316179451463

These IPs added several other dating sites but they appear to be unrelated.


Related domains
  • adult ad referral code: ?ainfo=MTEyNDB8MzB8MjUx&atcc=3
  • Google Adsense: 3645316179451463
  • Google Adsense: 3645316179451463
  • Google Adsense: 3645316179451463
  • adult ad referral code: ?ainfo=MTEyNDB8Mnw0OTk=&atcc=4&skin=24


Accounts


Reference

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sotheby's real estate spam on Wikipedia

Cheesy:

Spam domains


Spam account

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Additional related domains to evaluate
Blacklist or turn these related links over to XLinkBot?
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second batch  Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greektionary.com and bouzoukidvd.com spam

Spam domains
  • Google Adsense ID: 3392002598145138
Account

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:NHL Quartley Editor spam

Non-notable fan blog persistently spammed to support NHL Quartley Editor's unreliable, POV, potentially libelous edits to our Sean Avery‎ article.

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Financemanila.net

financemanila.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com -- spammer links this to all Philippine company articles. --Howard the Duck 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have the spammers accounts or IPs adding the link? thanks--Hu12 (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found several, they have been at it for some time;
Adsense pub-8709646741579941
121.97.150.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.212.124.237 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
203.167.66.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.212.50.33 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
 Done--Hu12 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More "Mesothelioma Entrepreneurship" spam

au-answers.com is already blacklisted:

Now another IP has spammed a link to a site that redirects to au-asnwers.com:

Still another site is also redirect:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wavetowake spam on Wikipedia

Spam account


Spam domains


Related domains

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A.B. has there ever been a site listed on here you haven't  Done? I am not arguing these sites here. I am just wandering if you are researching these edits and proposals. There is no way you have researched all this information accurately. You haven't had time. Please make edits to only the sites you can review and investigate. This is designed to improve wikipedia.org. We have high standards here and many eager editors willing to help out and research material. Anyone can say  Done without reviewing the material. It doesn't help anyone including yourself to just go through thousands of sites a day you didn't review. Yes you will get edit credits but they will come back to haunt you. You are doing the public a dis-service by not reviewing the information accurately.

CVDB.pk spam

Spam accounts


Domain


Spam article

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sequel: more CVDB.pk misbehaviour. See:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

donateiphone.blogspot spam

Spam domain


Spam account

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



batanguenos.com pinoyakoworld.com

More persistent dynamic IP spam. 212.116.220.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked, only to spam again. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done --Herby talk thyme 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

helloningbo.com ningbolife.com

There are two persons edit warring with each other to make sure their travel guide website is linked and the other is not on the article Ningbo. One is a single purpose account purely for spamming and reverts with no explanation.

As you can see nothing but making sure that his website is linked. Most probable spamming his own website. Checking the page history it looks like he uses sockpuppets to do this for almost a year.

Hermant patel (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also the sites;
Accounts
125.115.91.188 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
220.188.201.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
60.190.21.82 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.115.84.129 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
60.179.167.114 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Jovialman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Jovialman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Jovialman3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
125.114.27.78 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.115.80.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
60.179.129.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
220.188.186.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
220.188.184.22 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.115.93.12 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.115.81.216 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.115.86.112 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.114.25.126 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
60.178.124.144 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

125.115.88.208 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.115.94.217 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
60.178.126.27 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.114.26.77 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
60.178.124.99 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.114.27.78 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.115.80.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
60.179.129.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.115.86.229 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
125.115.81.100 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
 Done--Hu12 (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is actually a spam war. I put together an "order of battle" at WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 12:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your timely action. They didn't do anything, didn't contribute anything to wiki except trying to promote their dodgy travel guide websites. Also thanks for getting the other sites I missed - its so hard to keep track of the spamming. Hermant patel (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

easeus.com

Domain
Accounts
Qiongeramber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
diff diff
216.40.204.138 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
diff diff
125.66.97.4 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
diff
125.69.27.67 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
diff


Recreated AfD deleted page Data recovery wizard 4 times today
log
Previous sockpuppetry and AfD discussion
Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/EASEUS
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EASEUS_Data_Recovery_Wizard_Professinal

The diffs and account involved above reveal the spamming history of the last week or so. But it appears to go back much further than that, at least several months... Elsendero (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, and  Done. Thanks for taking the time to document this abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mi-technologies.com

See related report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#mi-technologies

Domain
Accounts
Diffs (adding this link and moving it up)

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]

User(s) have been warned, but continue to re-insert link whose only purpose is marketing/spam. Note: When warned that they would be blocked the next time the link was added, the anon at User talk:81.152.171.33, demonstrated that the warnings are being read by replying "I think you will have a problem because I edit from my internet cafe'! See ya Mike." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional diffs from ongoing reverts: [13].
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additional IPs and diffs:
86.138.47.218 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Diffs: [14]
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed &  Done, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mylot.com/hatashe and MyLot.com/worldub

Domains
Accounts
Diffs(added and moving down)

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

repeated vadalism

[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]


User has been warned, but continues to re-insert link. - Amog |Talk 14:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also User:Freebee19 (edit | [[Talk:User:Freebee19|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), now deleted and user blocked as advertising-only account. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

postchronicle.com

I have added postchronicle.com to the blacklist for enWP due to a number of issues:

Post chronicle functions as a kind of tattle blog, much of the content is salacious gossip and a lot of the cites to it were for content about matters of controversial nudity or sexual misdemeanours - precisely the sort of content where the very best sources are necessary. Most were redundant to another cite to a much better source, fortunately.

Here's a classic example: www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/tittletattle/article_21219679.shtml - the content is "compiled from wire reports" (whose?) by a reporter of no known credentials, the header makes it look as if it might be syndicated but the copyright status is unclear, the original source appears to be a blog anyway, and there are so many ads that occasionally my browser crashes when viewing the site. The site states it carries syndicated and original content, but it's not clear which is which or indeed whether it is legitimately syndicated, rather than simply copied. The site plays fast and loose with copyright by its own admission, so this is a legitimate concern.

The site claims to be a news site, but has no obvious news gathering resources and no apparent accreditation as a news agency or source. Stories typically do not cite their sources, even when these are directly traceable to other sites or reputable news agencies.

Over a period of weeks I have removed all links in mainspace, the last hundred or so today. I am logging here for transparency and to ensure the addition is properly logged. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've logged this.--Hu12 (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to have offices in multiple states. So what if they pick up newswires? So does every other paper, AFAIK. -- Kendrick7talk 08:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In which case the source is the newswire, not Post Chronicle. See also smokefan2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), noting his deleted contributions to Marc Centanni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm. Yeah, same editor who sourced what I was looking at. OK, this is fair enough. -- Kendrick7talk 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dealreviews.net spam

Spam domains


Accounts

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


ecbattery.com spam

Spam domain


Account

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


 Done--A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HollywoodChicago.com spam

Spam domains
Accounts

This is a site that gets spammed to many film articles. The usual form the spam takes is "A Chicago critic wrote..." or a link in the External links section. Here are diffs of spamming with prose.[29][30][31][32]. Here are diffs of external link spamming.[33][34][35] You can look at the contributions of 68.72.112.61, 68.72.130.21, 216.177.119.154, 68.72.135.94, AdamFendelman and Happynesss. The page User:AdamFendelman says "I serve as [...] the publisher of HollywoodChicago.com. A WHOIS on GoDaddy.com says the site was created February 2007. Related to this are the AFD for HollywoodChicago.com, and the AFD for Adam Fendelman. This SSP report is also related. The account AdamFendelman has not edited since September 3, 2007. If you look here you can see that links to the site currently appear in 29 articles. Here is a thread from October 2007 by current WikiProject Films Coordinator Erik saying "What will it take to blacklist the site and purge Wikipedia of the promotional Adam Fendelman and HollywoodChicago.com?" This ANI thread from September 2007 is also related. --Pixelface (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HollywoodChicago.com
See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Fendelman
See also - Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/AdamFendelman
More Accounts

Happynesss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
AdamFendelman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
68.72.125.161 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
199.44.26.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
68.72.143.104 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
68.72.128.91 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
68.72.137.246 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
68.72.135.46 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
207.181.251.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
68.72.119.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
 Done--Hu12 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

lotaku.co.uk

Per [36], I have blacklisted this site due to spamming by a number of IPs all apparently the same individual. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

danadearmond.com

Request local blacklisting per Talk:Dana DeArmond#Official website. Apparently this is not her official website, but an unapproved impostor site. Insertions have already resulted in the Foundation being contacted, and anon IPs continue to insert link to this impostor site. Kelly hi! 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(permalink).
66.225.230.183 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
66.74.79.208 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
 Done--Hu12 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

only4gamers.com

This URL is being spammed repeatedly by an SPA to a specific pair of articles (see the IP's edit history). The URL is for a commercial job-recruiting site and has no value as a reliable information source; it is unlikely to be used as a valid external link from Wikipedia. The user has been given ample warning. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Persistant, thanks for all the reverts and keeping those articles clear of spam like this.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Removals

Request unlisting of GameStooge.com

Was already agreed upon, didn't know I had to formally come here to officially request it. I'm a regular contributor to the site. JAF1970 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you help with that site, you listing it here is a conflict of interest in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request unlisting of kmle.com

I am the main admin of the site, and it is nonprofit site for medical terminology. The site is of quality and really referenced in medical textbooks. Anyways I realize why the site was blacklisted: one of the admins made way to many references to it in several articles. To tell the truth I had full knowledge of this, and I will prevent this from happening again, anyways of note all the references really did reference the site and all articles were modified to be more accurate which I required the admin to do. I would hope that wikipedia can give us a second chance. Thanks, and sorry for disrupting wikipedia. Digirave (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the original spam report:
From reading the report, it looks like this went way beyond overenthusiasm to include making up multiple sockpuppet accounts to do this. Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine asking if anybody wants to use these links.
I'll leave this request open a few days to see if we get any comments. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completely understand wikipedia's stance. Anyways the overreferencing of our site which we even considered wrong, stopped long before the ban, but on our defense the articles accuracy were improved through editing and new articles were created which are still used, although the overreferencing was wrong. We knew it was wrong so we stopped, we did not have any warnings and stopped before any warnings were given, so I hope wikipedia could could unban the link and give the site address a second chance. Digirave (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes we hope wikipedian's find it a reliable source. We license the complete American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, metasearch for MeSH, Stedman's, Merriam-Webster's, and several other medical dictionaries. For searching medical terminology we are recommended in the translated text of The Language of Medicine 7th edition by Davi-Ellen Chabner, translated by Park K.H., ISBN 897331389. Digirave (talk)

Search aggregators are Links normally to be avoided. Perhaps the sources in which kmle searches may be reliable in their own right, however kmle is not. Obviously there are other Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. Along with kmle extensive history, this is no Declined --Hu12 (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request unlisting of commonpurpose

I have no idea why this charity's name has been blacklisted. Does anyone else? 78.86.157.63 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the original report:
This domain was spammed across multiple Wikipedias by an IP registered to the organization; this was despite a total of 7 requests to stop:
Because of the cross-wiki spam, this domain was not blacklisted here, but rather on the global spam blacklist maintained on Meta-Wiki.
Once blacklisted, we normally only de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use these links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and the links may well be removed.
The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in the organization's links; they should feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request unlisting of horizonpress.com

See [37]

  1. The site has validity to the projects. The site is the website of a respected academic publisher. Most links are to academic books which are references/citations for content added to Wiki
  2. No links have been placed after warnings/blocks
  3. Other methods of control have not been exhausted
  4. I have replied respectfully to the Spam report

I think the site was blocked because of several links (without content) that I added to wiki pages recently. I will ensure this does not happen again. In future I will only add content and, if appropriate, citations to the source books using ISBN rather than links. Your help here is greatly appreciated Touchstone42 (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request unlisting of nacion.com

This url is for Costa Rica's main newspaper, because of its good reputation and its daily circulation. Just go to www.nacion.com (La Nación) to confirm, really it must be someone's joke to have it as blacklisted as spam, for Costa Ricans this is the equivalent of blacklisting The New York Times or The Washington Post. This newspaper already appear as reference to several articles, and I myself have used a lot for Costa Rica's related articles in the past. Mariordo (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I absolutely agree with your assessment -- this one was pretty silly.
We have two blacklists: this one, which covers only the English Wikipedia, and the one on Meta-Wiki which filters spam for all 700 or so Wikimedia projects. nacion.com is blacklisted on the meta list. I hate to give you the runaround, but can you please repeat your request at:
I'll see that it's removed in the next day or two at the latest once you do this.
In the meantime, I have a favor to ask of you. I was surprised to this paper has no article on the English Wikipedia; someday, can you write something up, even if it's just a stub article with one or two sentences? Also I see we have articles about several papers of this name; it may be good to start a disambiguation page ("dab") to sort them out.
Thanks for all your work on Costa Rica articles here and on the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias -- I know en.wikipedia has really needed the deeper coverage that you've been giving this topic.--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done, on meta. Nakon 15:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for unlisting of keeper klan

I moderate a Dungeon Keeper (a computer game by EA/Bullfrog) forum (which has been blacklisted), and have traditionally had links on Wikipedia on both Dungeon Keeper and Dungeon Keeper 2 articles. In the past 6 months or so these links have been routinely deleted or edited slightly (so that the URL is incorrect and doesn't link to the site). I know who is doing this, because I had the unfortunate task of banning some members on the forum I moderate - they created their own forum and replace our link with theirs. I have childishly resorted to doing that in response, but I can't keep it up and realise how petty it is.

When adding the URL to the forum today, on the DK page, I was told it had been "blacklisted". Now, I don't know how one goes about blacklisting a site, but I'm sure the process was started by the aforementioned people. Who did it is rather unimportant, what is important is when the link will be unblacklisted. The forum is almost certainly the largest and most active DK community, and has a lot of useful resources and related projects, tournaments and exclusive interviews. I think it would be a shame if DK fans could not access this useful information. Our forum has prospered with the link to Wikipedia (and hopefully vice versa), and I hope this doesn't end because of sour grapes from a select minority of wiki users.

I hope this can be resolved speedily, in the mean time I've been using a dot.tk URL - but the additional web adverts are not pleasant for visitors. BonnieDonny (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would recomend blacklisting this new URL also then. βcommand 2 18:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From following the link, I'm guessing it's related to the invisionfree.com block. The link itself appears to be to a community forum, which is an issue with WP:ELNO. Personally, I agree that blocking this additional domain is appropriate too if it continues to be added to circumvent the block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh dear, this is the opposite effect to what I intended. I now understand that forums are not favoured by Wikipedia, but in this case it is detrimental to the Dungeon Keeper 1 and 2 community to remove said link. The forum itself has been praised by the lead designer of Dungeon Keeper 2, and also by a level tester and manual and guide writer for DK1. For me it is sad that petty bureaucracy can get in the way of what Wikipedia is about - providing free information to everyone. The information on my forum, whether it be files for download, exclusive interviews in its very own webzine, or access to discussion and debate, cannot be provided on Wikipedia, and so it is necessary, in my opinion, to link to this forum.
I understand, however, if bureaucracy takes precedence over common sense, for I am British and have experienced the realisation before. If you, the unseen and unaccountable moderators of Wikipedia disagree, then so be it. I shall have to set up a proper website! Good day! BonnieDonny (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reasons unrelated to bureaucracy, we don't link to forums. That's because they're self-published and we're looking for encyclopaedic quality, both internally and in the sites we link to. I'd like to say we get it right 99.99% of the time, but we fall a good bit shorter than that. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is mostly harmless and surprisingly useful despite our chaotic editing systems. Here's the reasoning behind our rules against linking to forums:
OK, well I guess that was sort of bureaucratic reading after all. Sorry. But even if you just skimmed it, I think you probably caught our drift.
It must be very frustrating to have your site fiddled with by competitors. If you have specific examples, I'm open to looking into it. No promises other than that. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers for the replies, I can understand why Wikipedia has such regulations. Just make sure they're universally applied. BonnieDonny (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As chaotic as our editing model is, it's hard to get consistent, especially when it comes to low-level transgressions and pettiness flying low on the radar. If you see competitors misbehaving, please let us know. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for unlisting of New Mexico Tourism Department

www.newmexicoDOTorg is the website of the New Mexico Tourism Department, a state agency. I have no idea why it's on the Spam blacklist, but it certainly shouldn't be. Almost every NM tourist attraction in Wikipedia has a link to a New Mexico Tourism Department page. Please unlist promptly. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, someone added it .. It was almost added to the meta one (or is it there?). The owner found it necessery to spam it to many wikis, generally to pages where its inclusion was questionable. I did have a bit of a discussion with him, I hope he stopped after that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is on meta, please see m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/newmexico.org and m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/nmmagazine.com (both of same owner, and sites share IP), User_talk:Beetstra/Archive_9#New_Mexico_Magazine.2FNew_Mexico_Tourism_Department. As far as I can see the spamming stopped with this discussion. Please request removal: m:Talk:Spam blacklist (I might beat you to it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done Obvious cross wiki spamming by related sites owner. Meta issue.--Hu12 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I removed it from meta. I presume that the owner got the message. Otherwise it will reappear .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Odd that a State agency would be a spammer -- but we're used to odd things in NM. Incidentally the site itself is badly broken -- all internal links come up dead -- even from the site search "feature". My tax dollars at work? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting delisting: www.paperlessarchives.com

This was a first - trying to edit the article about Robert F. Kennedy's assassination, principally to cleanup and add sources, and gradually remove the conspiracy stuff. The website http://www.paperlessarchives.com/rfk_assassination.html has some references that are very useful for this, because they are the LAPD notes, which would allow me to reference the events of the evening appropriately for the section "Assassination". But I'm blocked from doing so. I presume this is because paperlessarchives.com sells information, but unfortunately I can't find this source listed anywhere else reliable online, and don;t have many books to hand on the subject! I understand if this is rejected, but I would appreciate some comment on this. The listing of this site took place in 2004. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was added at the request of User:Angela (founder of Wikia, Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and Chair of the Advisory Board). I'm inclined to decline this as this is a high enough authority (next to jimbo). Others may wish to comment.--Hu12 (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done per Hu12. Nakon 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request unlisting of petrsoukal.profitux.cz/dnepr.htm

there is a lot of quality pictures from all around the Ukraine. I did the pictures myself. kind regards. thanks petr soukal petr.soukal@inmail.sk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorizace (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hello, please can you let me know the reasons for listing my links on the blacklist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorizace (talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unlist request of cruisedealership.com

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.


i am haveing a very fustrating time trying to get my message approved can someone help Hello,

i am the owner of cruisedealership.com which appears as a spamming which is not true we do not condone it and i have spoken to my it department about ever posting on your sites they were not reading all of your guidelines.

please remove us from the blacklist


I am having trouble getting someone to help. can u kindly help as i am very concerned when people are earching for my company information having that kind of comments related to my site. I spoke to my it department they tought in good standards they were trying to provide related content to subjects on wiki. or if you can foward this for immediate attention to the correct department--71.167.29.181 (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages.
See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_3#cruisedealership.com
See also - MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#cruisedealership.com
See also - Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Conflict_of_Intrest
Please take a look at the specific requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guideline. cruisedealership.com was added in apparent violation of anti-spam guidelines (including vandalism). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site. I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation.  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In response to Cruise dealership's comments, I have prepared this chronology with links. All times are UTC (Greenwich Mean Time):
  • 16:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added a link to Cruise ship
  • 17:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added more cruisedealership.com comments to Cruise ship. A regular editor erased this link as advertising a few minutes later.
  • 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added a link to Caribbean. A regular editor erased the link within a minute.
17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC) User:CSumit left the first message asking Cruise dealership stop
Welcomed to Wikipedia but told his edits were unconstructive and had been reversed. Referred to our Welcome to Wikipedia page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia
  • 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership deleted category information and added a link to Holiday. A regulareditor caught this action a few hourslater and reversed it.
  • 18:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added a link to Tahiti. This was also caught and erased a few hours later.
  • 03:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added a link to Carnival Cruise Lines. A regular editor spotted this and erased it as spam 5 minutes later.
  • 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added a link to Royal Caribbean International
  • 03:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership corrected a typo in his link on the Royal Caribbean International page. The link was deleted as spam 2 minutes later
  • 03:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added a link to Celebrity Cruises. This link was removed a minute later as spam.
03:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC) User:Barek left the second message asking Cruise dealership stop
Again welcomed to Wikipedia but informed his links were unacceptable and had been removed. Informed that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, so external links from Wikipedia are ingnored by search engines and do not alter search engine rankings. Told to discuss his links on article talk pages before adding them. (See our Talk page guideline). Referred to these relevant pages:
  • 03:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added his link back to Celebrity Cruises in spite of the warning. It was removed by a regular editor within a minute.
  • 04:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added a link to Muster drill
  • 04:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership fixed a typo in his link on the Muster drill page
  • 04:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership fixed a typo in his link on the Muster drill page. A regular editor removed the link as spam a minute later
  • 04:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added his link back to the Muster drill page.
04:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC) User:Barek left the third message asking Cruise dealership stop
Told to refrain from making unconstructive editsand his edits edits appeared to constitute vandalism. Referred this time to our Vandalism page.
04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC) User:Barek left the fourth message asking Cruise dealership stop
Told to stop. warned that further vandalism would result in his IP being blocked. Referred to:
04:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC) User:CambridgeBayWeather left the fifth message telling Cruise dealership the anonymous IP address was blocked for spamming in spite of multiple requests and warnings
  • 15:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added a link to Princess Cruises using a different anonymous IP, 71.167.29.181, the one now in use by Cruise dealership. This was deleted by a regular editor within a minute.
New anonymous IP editor welcomed to Wikipedia but informed his links were unacceptable and had been removed. Informed that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, so external links from Wikipedia are ingnored by search engines and do not alter search engine rankings. Told to discuss his links on article talk pages before adding them. (See our Talk page guideline). Referred to these relevant pages:
  • 03:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added a link to Cruise ship. A regular editor erased the link a minute later.
03:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC) User:MBK004 left the seventh message asking Cruise dealership stop
Again told (a bit more tersely) his links were unacceptable and had been removed. Reminded of our use of nofollow tags and the need to use article talk pages before adding any more links. Again referred to these relevant pages:
  • 03:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added his link back to Cruise ship anyway.
  • 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership fixed a typo in his link on the Cruise ship page. The link was immediately removed.
04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC) User:MBK004 left the eighth message asking Cruise dealership stop
Told to stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia and that such behaviour is considered spamming. Reminded of our nofollow tags and warned he may be blocked. referred again to our:
  • 04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added a link to Cruise ship
  • 04:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership fixed a typo in his link on the Cruise ship page.
  • 04:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Cruise dealership added additional material to his link on the Cruise ship page. The link was spotted 4 minutes later and removed as spam.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You state when trusted u will remove blacklist. the reason my employees repeated posting was they did not understand nor fully understand why it kept being deleting i have now instructed them as why and ask u delete all reference of cruisedealership.com from your company and i assur you our company will not utilize your forum. There was never an INTENT to spam, in all our years in business we never spammed nor will we intentionally do so so i ask once again to kindly delete cruisedealership.com from your site. If you are unable too, i request a legal address for my lawyers to respond too.--71.167.29.181 (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone realize what a mistake is. my employees made a mistake trying to post cruise information wrongfully so. And no intent on spamming u are catagorizing us as spammers and its not a joke as we take spamming very serious and can prove there was no INTENT to spam over 5 years of not spamming....so i ask once again delete cruisedealership.com or provide legal counsel to reply to. I am the owner Thomas and this was brought to my attention today.--71.167.29.181 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

threats of legal action will result in a block. your company violated Wikipedia policy, after being warned. Per policy we will take proper actions to prevent this, in this case we blacklisted. We will not remove a company from the blacklist on just their request. m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/cruisedealership.com is a report on all spamming done by your employees. the site will remain blacklisted until such time as the wikipedia community deems the site to be a reliable source, and there is no risk of it being spammed again. βcommand 02:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not concerned about being blocked but am concerned as showing a label of spamming being shown in google as my customers google cruisedealership. as their was not intent to spam as their was a misunderstanding of policy and the intent was to contribute cruise information on such cruise topics.... cruisedealership is not a spammer. Cruisedealership is a reliable source Recognized and written up as one of the Ten Best companies that give value and quality by National Geographic Passport to the Best the 10 Best of EVERYTHING - An Ultimate Guide for Travelers. --71.167.29.181 (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please look at the chronology I laid out above. I just added more detail to it since first posting it. It is hardly a simple "mistake" when someone keeps adding links and they keep getting removed. When they are repeatedly told to stop and they are shown the relevant rules for this site -- but then they keep spamming links over and over again. Eight times cruisedealership.com was told to stop. cruisedealership.com's editing access was even blocked at one point -- so cruisedealership.com's people just switched IP addresses and kept spamming. Everything I see in our spam records is factual; if something is incorrect, please let us know.
Google is picking this stuff up because every time someone from cruisedealership.com spams, a record is made. With over 2 million articles, Wikipedia is so big that we have to have such records to track what's going on and what edits may be harmful. Every time we ask someone like cruisedealership.com to stop spamming, a record is made. When they switch IP addresses to start over again, cruisedealership.com triggers the start of still another page of records about this stuff. When cruisedealership.com spams so relentelessly that we have to blacklist that domain, yet another spam entry is recorded. This spam record-keeping has all been driven by cruisedealership.com's actions.
If find yourself penalized in some search engine's rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting here, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. We do not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Received phone call today from this gentleman at the office. What needs to be done here is for "/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports" to be added to the robots.txt file. This way the information can be retained on Wikipedia, without the hassle of having to deal with companies who find out about it via search engines. While the information is factual, and verifiable, Wikipedia is a rather prominent site, and more often than not, these spam reports are going to figure way more prominently on Google search indexes than they ought. Adding this may be done at bugzilla. Bastique demandez 16:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will MediaWiki's search still include these pages? If so, I'm all for making those particular pages non-crawlable to outside search engines. I'm not especially concerned about entities that abuse us as egregiously as cruisedealership.com did but these bot-produced pages do generate false positives that may make innocent domains look bad.
There's been some discussion of renaming the bot-produced pages; if so, whatever is done with the robots.txt file should include the new proposed names as well. There are also similar pages on Meta that are produced by bots looking for spam.
I'm resistant to making our other spam-related pages non-crawlable. By this, I pages edited by humans such as this one or the blacklist itself. MediaWiki's search often misses stuff (for reasons I don't fully understand).
Thanks for fielding these calls; I know the ongoing stream of calls to the office can be a real productivity-killer. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clear violations of Wikipedias anti-spam guidelines. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Follow-up: subsequent discussions at User talk:71.167.29.181. Decision stands. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request unlisting of linexlegal.com

I work for the company that is based at this site, the main purpose of the site is legal search but we also host an extensive directory of law firms. These pages are maintained by people at the law firm's themselves, so will always be accurate and accepted material. For each firm we also list articles, events and press releases so it is a fairly comprehensive listing.

We had an overenthusiastic intern here recently, and I have a suspicion this he may have been trying to add a bunch of links to the Linex directory pages on Wikipedia, could this have caused the problem? Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.210.250 (talk • contribs)

this is a log of the spamming. recommend not removing. βcommand 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As mentioned I believe this was our colleague who was adding these links because he thought them of relevance to the given pages, they are directory listings and I see that for each law firm you often have one or more external directories as extra links. Can this domain be unlisted by any chance? The given directory pages hold further information regarding each law firm than is hosted on a Wikipedia page, offering original content produced by the law firm. Thank you— Blugano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC).Reply[reply]

See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_1#linexlegal.com
See also - More Linex Legal spam
See also - m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/linexlegal.com
no Declined Severe Abuse. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available--Hu12 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request unlisting of mehfiltube DOT magnify DOT net

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Please unblock the website mehfiltube DOT magnify DOT net. It was just blanked from the Mehfil article without the blanking editor making any comment at that article's discussion page about why s/he needed to blank this most crucially important website for this subject--leaving our users without this link that actually shows mehfils. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Badagnani (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WikiProject Spam report. Significant spam abuse demonstrated under 25 anon IP's / Accounts. Wikipedia is about content not about promoting external links to a "Page showing examples of mehfils", nor is Wikipedia a "repository for links". Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to promote a site. --Hu12 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I can't understand this. The editor blanking the link has still not contributed at the discussion page of Mehfil, explaining how the removal of the best site illustrating what a Mehfil is helps our users, or the encyclopedic quality of the article. Frankly, the individual who added the link is not of interest to me; having the best and most encyclopedic article possible on this subject is first and foremost. I ask kindly that you replace the site. Thank you for your consideration. Badagnani (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, magnify.net actively promotes getting paid for links. Such sites should be strongly disencouraged as they are very spam/coi-prone (see similar for suite101.com, lulu.com). Maybe the whole domain should go. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Qouting: "We do the work, you get the traffic. Your ad network does the rest." - "With AdShare, you simply put your own ad network tags into the Magnify.net pages, and you'll get 50% of the ad impressions delivered directly to your ad network. No new accounts to set up, no waiting for a "rev share" check." --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upon rereading the post above, I am, in fact, not even sure the blanking editor has actually read the article Mehfil. Further, the accusation that I am promoting any site is outrageous, and I ask that it be withdrawn immediately. Badagnani (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments:
  1. Badagnani is clearly a very trustworthy, valued editor.
  2. magnify.net has a couple of problems:
    1. Its writers are financially incentivized to spam us.
    2. Its material is essentially self-published with little editorial oversight so its content will seldom meet our Reliable Sources Guideline and may or may not meet our External Links Guideline.
  3. Our spam mitigation work should go on as unobtrusively in the background as possible with as little hassle for our regular editors as possible.
The Spam-whitelist is designed for situations where a reliable, established editor wants to use a particular page from an otherwise blacklisted website. Badagnani, at the risk of hassling you still further with another hurdle to jump, if you'll list the specific page you want to use at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, I'll be happy to whitelist it for you.
 Defer to Whitelist --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the link was to remain it would cause disruption and prevent any all editing on the article.
magnify.net links
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
  • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
There has been as yet no contribution at the discussion page of the Mehfil article, explaining how the blanking of this link increases our users' understanding of this topic, and leading me to believe that the blanking editor still has not actually read that article, or even my comments above. As stated above, this is the most crucially important website actually showing Mehfils, and, thus is necessary to have in the article regardless of who added it. Videos of actual Mehfils are not "unreliable," as the editor claims; in fact, such a claim is so ridiculous that it is even more clear that s/he did not actually read the article before blanking. Further, the defamation of myself as an editor was not withdrawn, as expressly asked just above. I ask, again, that that comment be withdrawn. Badagnani (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like Hu12, Badagnani and I all had one big edit conflict just now. I was not looking to contradict either of you. Hu12, we have whitelisted suite101.com links when little editorial oversight was required -- specifically interviews and photos. I'd say a video falls in the same category. We can't say every blacklisted domain is a reliable source of interviews and images -- folks can lie about what was said or Photoshop a photograph -- but that's the kind of thing a POV-pushing site might do, not a more mercenary and presumably litigation-averse site like suite101.com. I think whitelisting one deep-linked page on that site for Badagnani is a safe bet, given its content (video) and the requesting editor. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
mehfiltube.magnify.net related;
Adsense pub-4763110844767107
Sounds like "deep-linking" to one example for the Mehfil article would be reasonable. However I would strongly caution against whitelisting the entire channel (mehfiltube.magnify.net), it was one of the the most pevasive violator of our anti-spam guidelines. For those reasons along with concerns of possible Linking to copyrighted works, perhap Badagnani could provide us with the best example to use?--Hu12 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Closing, reffered to whitelist for "specific" link consideration. --Hu12 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request unlisting of cabinda.net

Why is the official site of the Republic of Cabinda www.cabinda.net blocked by "some" wikipidia individuals "administrators". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.228.112 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Confused" by the "suggestive use" of "quotes".  Defer to Global blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Request unlisting of thehoosiersfanclub.com

This site was added and then removed some time back. The forum is the Fan Club of the Band. Additionally Irwin, Alfonso and the other band members use the site. In addition to the band members, a member of Sony BMG also use it and send over information and updates about The Hoosiers, often before other outlets such as their own site or the myspace blog etc. As such, this is an informative and active resource used by the fans and the members. It is felt that this is relevant to the entry for The Hoosiers as a result. If my stated reasons are not good enough, perhaps I could be pointed in the direction of some documentation that states how an item becomes relevant to an entry? :) Thank you very much! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.197.7 (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fansites are Links normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request unlisting of iltuobenessere.com

I am Dr Andrew Salomoni, one of the admin of the site, we are an organization that do research for stress related problems. Our site offers a lot of free informations to people that suffers of stress, anxiety and depression. It is a quality well known website and referenced in medical textbooks. Looking that it was blacklisted from wikipedia, i was really surprised, since we were adding just few references in the right places for stress, anxiety and depression. So I attempted to understand what was happening…it looks like no one of us had never added more links or references to wikipedia, since last year. So our technical stuff, told us that probably the admin of some commercial website, attempted to spam with our website name on wikipedia to make us to be banned, and to create us some damage. I want to ask to you all sorry for all that happened, and I hope you will keep out from the black list our website, since it s really happening a lot of people with stress related problems, and what happened is just an attempt to create some damages to us. The truth is that they created damage to all the people that we could help in the future. Thank you very much for your time and your good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.177.200 (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' or admins' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. Second this is a foriegn language comercial site which are both Links normally to be avoided. Lastly, there ia some serious cross wiki spamming invoved origionating from the same IP ranges, as your post.
  1. (pt_wikipedia) 2008-04-03 19:32:27 -- http://iltuobenessere.com added to: [Vida] by Lijealso -- diff
  2. (pt_wikipedia) 2008-04-03 20:02:20 -- http://iltuobenessere.com added to: [Vida] by João Carvalho -- diff
  3. (ar_wikipedia) 2008-04-07 11:06:15 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [صحة] by 91.80.139.206 -- diff
  4. (bg_wikipedia) 2008-04-07 11:09:17 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Здраве] by 91.80.139.206 -- diff
  5. (eu_wikipedia) 2008-04-07 11:14:50 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Osasun] by 91.80.139.206 -- diff
  6. (he_wikipedia) 2008-04-07 11:20:11 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [בריאות] by 83.225.0.190 -- diff
  7. (he_wikipedia) 2008-04-07 11:25:24 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [בריאות] by 83.225.0.190 -- diff
  8. (hi_wikipedia) 2008-04-07 11:27:11 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [स्वास्थ्य] by 83.225.0.190 -- diff
  9. (id_wikipedia) 2008-04-07 11:45:51 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Kesehatan] by 83.225.187.69 -- diff
  10. (tr_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:21:30 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Panik atak] by 83.225.12.121 -- diff
  11. (pl_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:25:54 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Zespół lęku napadowego] by 83.225.12.121 -- diff
  12. (fi_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:29:24 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Paniikkihäiriö] by 83.225.72.31 -- diff
  13. (pt_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:31:49 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Transtorno do pânico] by 83.225.72.31 -- diff
  14. (no_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:35:49 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Panikkangst] by 83.224.243.21 -- diff
  15. (bg_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:37:59 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Фобия] by 83.224.243.21 -- diff
  16. (bs_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:39:07 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Fobija] by 83.224.243.21 -- diff
  17. (sr_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:42:14 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Фобија] by 83.224.243.21 -- diff
  18. (sk_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:45:34 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Fóbia] by 91.80.72.85 -- diff
  19. (sh_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:47:38 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Fobija] by 91.80.72.85 -- diff
  20. (pl_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:51:36 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Fobia] by 91.80.72.85 -- diff
  21. (cs_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 01:55:15 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Fobie] by 91.80.72.85 -- diff
  22. (hu_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 02:07:18 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [Fóbia] by 91.80.94.230 -- diff
  23. (ar_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 02:10:23 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [رهاب] by 91.80.94.230 -- diff
  24. (he_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 02:15:11 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [פוביה] by 91.80.94.230 -- diff
  25. (he_wikipedia) 2008-04-16 02:15:13 -- http://www.iltuobenessere.com added to: [פוביה] by 91.80.94.230 -- diff
no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: this domain is blacklisted on Wikimedia's global spam blacklist, not this one.
The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of global blacklisting, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. We do not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative.
It also looks as if we missed a related domain:
I'll take care of that one later today.
Please do not spam us any further. It's a nuisance for us and potentially bad for the value of your domains.
Regards, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request unlisting of ac-baidu.com

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

AC-Baidu.com is a search engine similar to Google.com and Baidu.com. It also provides pay-per-click advertising services similar to Google's Adwords and Adsense. I am one of the admin of the site. We do not know why our site is on the blacklist. The only reason we can think of is that we add references to our sites under some of our competitors' wiki entries, entries about Google and Baidu. Since we offer similar services as them, we think it is OK to add references of our sites under their entries. (The references were deleted, we did not know why, so we added again). If this violates any rules, please let us know. Meanwhile, we will really appreciate if you can remove ac-baidu.com off blacklist. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.107.19 (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relevant records:
It looks like you ignored several messages to stop adding your links.
no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the comments. But can you explain what you mean "you ignored several messages to stop adding your links" ? We had not registered, so we had never received any messages to tell us "to stop adding links". If we know there were such messages, we would had stop trying to add our links. Thanks again, we will really appreciate if you can remove ac-baidu.com off blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.107.19 (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:TALKPAGE, IP's also have these. In addition, this links fails Wikipedias specific inclusion criteria and requirements of our External Links policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site--Hu12 (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request removal of Photovolcanica.com from global blacklist

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Presumable blacklisting due to multiple international links. The site is scientifically recognized in the field of volcanology as a detailed resource for photos and detailed researched information. Consequently this is a valuable resource for wikipedia users to access. The links were to specific volcano-related pages with detailed scientifically researched and referenced texts. The quality of the text research has been recognized by the smithsonian global volcanism program which has used information provided by the author in one of its bulletins. Please proceed via "Volcano Info and Photos (Alphabetical)" on front page and then click on any of e.g. Santiaguito, Stromboli, Dallol, Erta Ale etc. to see pages which have now been removed from wikipedia in multiple language versions as a result of the blacklisting. I note the discussion on this page regarding linking behaviour as opposed to site content (i hope that the value of the site as a wikipedia link resource it at least beyond doubt) and consequently viewed the section on external link spamming again. I assume this is the basis for the blacklisting. I had not considered this applicable to an essentially scientific and documenting site, since the spirit of this rule is presumably to prevent companies abusing wikipedia to get free advertizing. The links to photovolcanica.com were highly specific and to an essentially non-commercial site with no advertizing. Hence, I think the site should be removed from the blacklist. If the addition of links thereto on wikipedia is generally considered not in line with wikipedia policy i will refrain from adding multiple links in the future and apologize for the linking. I simply thought users would appreciate the links. Request (i) feedback from more experienced wikipedians with regard to whether any offense against wikipedia guidelines has taken place, and (ii) removal of blacklisting.

Dr Richard Roscoe

Dr. Roscoe, removal from the global blacklist can only occur at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. This is the discussion page for the local blacklist that covers only the English Wikipedia. Comments:
  1. I like your site and think links to it could be useful.
  2. You ran afoul of these guidelines:
    1. Conflict of Interest
    2. Spam -- a campaign of adding links to your own site constitutes spam as we define it here.
  3. If your site is removed from the blacklist, I encourage you to make participants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology aware of it as a possible resource. Others can add your links to actual articles but you may not. You can also suggest them on the talk page of individual articles.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info. I will follow your suggestions. I wasnt aware that adding purely technical links is not permitted and didnt try and conceil the linking in any way. Didnt know about the Wikiproject pages either - sounds interesting.. Richard

 Defer to Global blacklist -- now removed from the meta blacklist. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request unlisting of www.galatta.com

galatta.com is a reliable source of information on Indian movies, mostly south Indian movies, there is absolutely no reason why this site shoud be blacklisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.57.226 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 May 2008


Here are links to the extensive history and discussion of the site-owners's spamming:
galatta.com and related Dot Com Infoway domains are blacklisted both here and on the global spam blacklist. Given the site-owner's extensive history of abusing Wikipedia, I just can't see removing this domain from the blacklist.
no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request unlisting of boatlinks.com

It is a useful source of information, referenced by Robert Jenkins (master mariner). --Bowlhover (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This domain does not appear to be on any blacklist:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, the actual link is http://www.boat-links dot com


Proposed unlisting of Priory-of-Sion.com

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Hello, Please can the website Priory-of-Sion.com be considered for removal from the Wikipedia Blacklist. The website in question is not related in any way to pseudo-science and has served as a primary source of information on the subject matter for numerous authors and documentaries. A lot of the material found on the website already currently exists on Wikipedia through the citing of books and documentaries that have used the blacklisted website. The website became blacklisted not for its content but because of political reasons on WP involving myself using my website as a source for my contributions. I heard that blacklisted websites get removed by Wikipedia if the rules are abided. Can Wikipedia please consider removing Priory-of-Sion.com from the blacklist if I adhere to WP rules and guidelines. Thank you. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aside from the conflict-of-interest issue, I don't see how that site would meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we either whitelist individual pages or de-blacklist whole sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and deep links to your site may well be whitelisted on a link-by-link basis. Note that any link will have to meet our Reliable Sources guideline to be approved for whitelisting.
no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Several WP editors would use the Priory-of-Sion.com website as source for the articles. But I repeat, the material already exists on WP by way of citing sources from books and documentaries that have used the Priory-of-Sion.com website. So the material is still found on WP that ultimately originates from a blacklisted website. Thanks, Wfgh66 (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I have gone back to review the records based on your insistence that your domain was wrongly blacklisted. Here are relevant records:
I see zero support for the notion that these are desirable links -- rather I see wide consensus to the contrary along multiple blocks and spreading dismay at your behaviour on Wikipedia. I note in particular the comment by Sarah about your edit-warring over your links since March 2005. Note also that using archive.org links to bypass the blacklist only dig you and your domain a deeper hole.
You are trying the community's patience. Please back off. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Respectfully, the sockpuppet event relates to a one-off incident, for which I very quickly admitted to and apologised for. But the Priory-of-Sion.com website was used as a standard Link to Priory of Sion article for years before I became a regular contributor, and when I became one, I genuinely did not know that Editors were not allowed to link to their own websites. I only found this out several months ago for the first time. This is the honest truth.

With respect, the following WP editor can confirm that the website was used as a standard source before I became a regular editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Loremaster I promise that in future I will not commit the same mistakes ever again. I wish to become a positive contributor to WP and hope, in the light of my regret and admission of my past mistakes, that the website could at least be considered to be removed from the blacklist, perhaps even in a temporary measure, in order for me to demonstrate my good intentions for the future. I am back on good terms with Sarah. Please consider my request. Thank you, Wfgh66 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How are you and I "on good terms" now??? Until I received your message today asking me to help you get your site removed from the spam blacklist I hadn't heard a word from you since you spammed my email address with abusive rants when this issue was last discussed on ANI at the start of the year. I don't have any grudges against you or anything but claiming we're "on good terms" seems a stretch of the truth and it just makes me wonder what other truths you're stretching. Anyway, as far as this site goes, I don't really see a reason to remove it at the present time. The earliest incident I can find pertaining to this site is this account wfgh444 (talk · contribs) used in December 2004 to vandalise and retaliate against editors who rejected this link signing messages as "Paul Smith" [38]; followed by a series of emails you sent the Foundation and the Board of Trustees on 8 March, 2005. This means this issue has been going on for nearly four years, at least, most likely even longer. If you've had a change of heart and now wish to become a "positive contributor", that's fantastic and I welcome you, but I still don't see a reason to remove this site at this time. Particularly not when the site owner, a previously aggressive and abusive spammer is the one requesting it. Also see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wfgh66. Sarah 09:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three different editors have declined your request. If you continue to post about this topic, you may be blocked for disruptive edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For as far as the COIBot report above is correct, you, and an apparent sockpuppet of you, Rocky2276 are the main contributors that use this link. One was added to the wiki-page Priory of Sion, the remaining two edits are one addition of the link, and one vandalism revert. So I don't see many uninvolved, established editors who have used the link before blacklisting. If an uninvolved, established editor asks for unlisting (or you find back-up on an appropriate wikiproject, then unlisting can be considered, until then I endorse A. B.'s decision to decline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, here are some of our records on this domain and its owner:
There's much more scattered across many user and article talk pages -- see Special:WhatLinksHere/User_talk:Wfgh66.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also endorse A. B.'s decision to decline, this seems to be a wide scale aggressive campaign which employed WP:SOCK accounts to insert links through brute force, in apparent violation of anti-spam guidelines. Closing.--Hu12 (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed Removal of Blacklisted Site, and User

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
none of the links being reffered to are blacklisted, closed--Hu12 (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admins other than Hu12: I think it has been established by an independent third party (see Talk:Forensic_accounting) that these sites are indeed valuable to wikipedia and not spam. Can this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#R.T._Edwards.2C_Inc_links listing be removed? Thanks! Jheiv (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have a clear conflict of interest, and yet persist in introducing links to your employer's publications. You are not a very good advocate for de-blacklisting this firm, when its employee (you) continues to do this. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I no longer work for the company, and my edits have all been fair and justified by 3rd party opinions. Please see the talk pages referenced. I expect people to judge the edits for their merits, as with any edits. Further, I have realized that this site is not actually blacklisted, just on the WikiSpam project. I'm sorry for the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheiv (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This discussion page is for blacklisted links, none of the links being reffered to are blacklisted. You are Forum shopping, repeatedly asking for additional outside opinions until you get an opinion you like. Our records are required to be transparent for accountability. We are the seventh largest site in the world and when you submit content you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. nBased on your edit history, you exist for the sole and primary purpose of promoting R.T. Edwards publications in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Troubleshooting and problems

lulu.com query

ABC News reported on April 9, 2008 that "the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency." The article states that those involved included:

Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.[1]

He says I use "www.lulu.com", have no idea why and certainly that link is not being used. Could somebody look into this and/or explain the deeper meaning of this incorrect refusal? TIANomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somewhere on that page is a lulu.com link. Until it's removed, you can't save your edit, even if it's not included in your material. What page are you trying to edit? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is on enhanced interrogation, oddly enough I edited there previously without any such notice. If you could look into it I appreciate that. Thanks.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tried removing the link from the page[40] and as you said I can edit the page again. Thanks for helping out.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

veganz.pl.net

I am getting spamfiltered on Veganism for this link: www.veganz.pl.net/introduction.htm

This has been a source in the article for some time, but only in the last two days does it seem to have been filtered. Problem is, I can't find it or something else that might catch it in either the WP or the meta blacklists. Hope me! KellenT 10:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed.--Hu12 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! What was the pattern/whatever that caused the error? KellenT 12:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh, actually you appear not to have fixed it. You just removed the reference from the article. That was absolutely not what I was asking for. The URL doesn't appear to be "blacklisted" because I can't find the URL on the message at all, so removing it isn't an acceptable solution. KellenT 13:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh, so now I find it on meta. Neeeeeeevermind. KellenT 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now it's been unlisted. KellenT 13:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

???

This is what I am trying to post:

I dont want to drag a great article into a revert war, so I'm bringing it up here. To me, "Rest of the world" seems very off hand-ish. Almost as though the "rest of the world" doesnt matter. Whereas "Other parts of the world" seems as though they are being included and not in an afterthought kind of a way. It could just be me, but since it was reverted, someone else thinks otherwise. Comments? (on a side note, this post was blocked twice due to a spam filter... that I was adding some odd link... I'm not, and this was a direct paste of the last time I tried to add this) Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wont post saying that I'm adding an indy media link... I'm not. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To which page are you trying to post? Most likely, that page has an older link on it that needs to be removed because it's now blacklisted. You're not adding it with your edit, but your edit contains the link that's already on the page, so it won't let you save the edit window. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed it... although the filter shouldnt activate if the link isnt in the post that you personally are trying to insert. Thats just my two cents. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

Request for additional administrator input on blacklist status of asiafanclub dot com

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.


It's been made very clear in the discussion above that the "asiafanclub.com" link stands on its own merits, is an officially authorized site of the band Asia and offers distinct and useful information, and thus adds to the article. The behavior of user(s) or site owners is irrelevant here. I'm requesting this an impartial editor. Please consider this on the merits outlined above. Hu12 has argued against its inclusion on this basis, and once his/her arguments were refuted, simply closed the discussion and declined the request. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extensive abuse of wikipedia
Asiafanclub.com is simply a privatly run site which obtains any 'official' content from the Official Asia Fan Club site originalasia.com. It is neither owned by or qualifies as ASIA's official site.--Hu12 (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again you have your facts wrong, I get official news, photos etc, by managment in my mailbox along with about 7 other authorized affiliates. I also have some exclusive material not found on the other sites as I pointed out. I'm not not some Yahoo club who is runiing over copying stuff off Daves site, I am part of the trusted athorized bunch.. You have no idea, who or what we are & made it clear that you were uninformed about the change of management hands. You keep repeating the false charges I'll keep repeating the truth. There was no ASIA fan club spam... that was an edit war, I was reinstating a long time link that was removed by a phantom IP address who wrote you to go on his side. The Yes thing were private invites long before the link was in this wiki article, the owner wrote me and it was settled in an adult type manner, and has nothing to do with the relavance of the link here and the fact that it is now authorized. The ASIA club is not spam, it is a non profit orgaization & according to wiki policy, has relavant material that would not normally be included in the wiki article. That is grounds for it's inclusion in the external links section.
The evidence showed I was falsely banned for 2 months for that, here is the OFFICIAL investigation report that cleared me of that, there is no rule that one has to use the same PC throughout the day,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mondrago sockpuppet means to pretend to be someone else, I never did. The 3rr rule got me banned for 3 days, twice during that edit war, so I paid the price for that then, The legal threat was way at the start of the heated edit war, I didn't know the rules then, so I read them and wiki mentions the withdrawal of the leagal threat, I did withdraw it as wiki says to do and I apologized a long time ago for that sir. Yesterday I made a post that described I was banned for 2 months for reason of sockpuppet/modrago, and I was not him. I was also falsely accused of COL, COL is Citing oneself, Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, (the ASIA Fan club does not promote the private or commercial interests of the editor) & it is not promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Falsely accused of SPAM & other bogus charges that I explained above are false and were thrown out there just so the ASIA Fan Club is not inluded in the article. Even if they were true, & they are not, that is not judging the link on the merits of the wiki external guidelines policy, What I did wrong was lose my temper a long time ago and engaged in an edit war and I was banned for 3 days twice at that time, I am human, was banned for 3 days then and apologized for that. Since than I did not edit anything in the external links section, but wish to discuss this with those that oppose me in an adult type manner. This page was locked to grandfathered users for like 2 months, so I was unable to state my side here. The IP you banned was 70.188.184.84. Please reverse it, no hard feelings

The ASIA Fan club was part of the article for a very long time, actually was #2 in the external links section. I noticed it was moved to #4, so I moved it back to the #2 slot where it had been for a while ( I was requesting a 1st in line should hold it's spot thing. A user with just an IP address not identifying themself in any manner, from Canada, removed the long time link. I replaced it back, after about 2 hours of going back and forth, this IP address then removed the myspace link. After another hour this IP address wrote certain administrators and told them I was adding spam to the article. The administrators thought they were acting accordingly to one adding spam. So they banned me twice for the edit war, and then blacklisted the site. They acted under the impression that I was adding something new that day. They now know that I did not add the link, I was replacing it, it was there for a long time, but they made their call before they got the entire story. What I should have done was not engage in the 4 hour long edit war, but should have wrote an administrator to say that someone is removing a long time link that was in the article. The IP address I was in the war with wrote administrators, beat me to the punch, twisted facts to make it sound like I was adding spam. Now that they know what happened, but after all hell had broken loose, and they wish not reverse their call. I stated this before as you can see above, and CIreland took my side and removed the site from the blacklist, he even tried to reinstate the link, but we couldn't understand why the warning was lighting up. Being told it was removed from the blacklist I added another page of the website until it cleared up. I was then accused trying to cleverly revert a blacklist site or something to that effect. That is not true. History proves it is not the case, you can see when I added that, I was told it was removed from the blacklist, I even mentioned what I did about the other link in the open until the glitch, which we thought it was, cleared, I was open about it and did nothing in hiding. See it here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asia_%28band%29#Fan_club_link_blacklisting What happened was as soon as he removed it from the blacklist, someone re-listed it, and we had no idea. Yesterday I asked hu12, about the myspace links, if they are not allowed, why is one on JP wiki page he responded "As much as I agree with you, AP, that wikipedia is not the place for Any myspace links (repeat...any!), it is an official page of the articles subject and John Payne's personal myspace —and isn't prohibited by restrictions on linking. Unfortunately john Payne official myspace does belong on his specific page (any other page would be inapropriate). See the External links policies first statement within Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided section.. ("Except..." )". So this is valid under the except clause. I agree. We were also told there is to be no fan clubs. However, there is one on Tom Pettys wiki page and one on Barry Manilows wiki page in the external links section. If mine was a violation and it was reported and removed, why are not these fan clubs removed from the external links section, I have officially reported them. I don't believe they should be removed, I'm making a point. Please be fair across the board and judge my link on the wiki policy, and treat the ASIA wiki page fairly like every other artists page and treat the ASIA authorized club like those of other artists on wikipedia. Based upon the wiki policy, the "except" clause that hu12 and Bondegezou agrees validates a link to be included in the external links section. Please judge my link fairly and honestly and address each point with reason as to it's relation with the wiki "except" clause for the inclusion of a link. 1. It must be from a an authorized source, and contain relavant material that would not normally be included in the wiki article. I provided the evidence that my site is a management authorized site and is in the official biography. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v71/Soles/ca1200_sm.jpg 2. It must contain such material such as reviews and interviews. If you go to Asiafanclub.com we have official interviews with band members that are not and would not be included in the wiki article. 3. I have a management authorized reviews that was sent to me by management for publication. See the Trump Marina Press Release on the main page! 4. We have exclusive news, such as the announced Carl Palmer interview today on New Jersey's Own Rock Radio - 105.5FM) only I announced this! This was important for ASIA fans, ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? 5. We had an exclusive live chat in the fall of 06 with John Wetton & Geoff Downes authorized by management, ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? 6. We have exclusive professional photos that are authorized for my club that can't be found anywhere else that illustrate, what the ASIA article speaks of. Those photos can not be included in the article, remember, wiki says it must be relevant material that would not normally be included in the wiki article. Took a look at this example http://pub18.bravenet.com/photocenter/album.php?usernum=1471820109&album=49939 ask yourself, are you hurting ASIA fans by withholding this information from wikipedia readers? 7. We are a non profit authorized organization, we have given out at my cost, concert tickets, DVD's, rare videos, & two winners of the CD. Yea there were many misunderstandings, I did engage in an edit war and for that I apologize, I am human and lost my temper. It was proven as you see above I was not modrago, but was banned for 2 months for it. Ask yourself if this is relevant exclusive authorized material. If no fan clubs are allowed, then take the same action against those I reported as you did mine when it was reported. Thank you all for your time. A mistake was made here by false report and the twisting of facts, and actions were made after hell broke loose, now that we all caught our breath, look at everything for what it really is and what really happened. Please remove this site from the blacklist and put it back where it was for a long time, in the external links section. Hu12 & AB are the ones that banned me I ask for a neutral opinion that in unbias an uninvolved in this case70.188.184.84 (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) ASIA Pres.

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2008#asiafanclub.com declined #1
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_asiafanclub_dot_com_to_be_removed_from_blacklist declined #2
MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_unbias_opinion_for_removal_of_asia_fan_club_from_blacklist declined #3
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

unblock the SS Free

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Self admited sock of User:Xgmx [[42]]--Hu12 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no reason to block the SS Free (http://www.ssfree-DOT-NET-DOT-TC-FORWARDSLASH).--4.244.36.79 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a non-notable forum. I can't possibly imagine where it would be appropriate to post in Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
" I'm gonna have to agree with 4 on this one, The SS Free is notable and it is the world's most popular community.--4.244.36.143 (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


lol you've never even been there James.--4.244.36.143 (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By your rationale, we should also unblock every other forum site. I don't think so; forums are (a) full of unverifiable stuff, (b) possible BLP/copyright vio links, and (c) have no editorial control. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lmfao this noob thinks the SS Free is a forum, XD.--4.244.36.143 (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only person proving himself a noob is you, and you aren't in all-black. "Community" in relation to non-Wikipedia websites means "forum" to us; you certainly aren't helping your case by insulting people and reverting to IM-speak. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Personal attacks redacted by Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum)) I hate racism.--4.244.36.143 (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not racist, and if you'd read the link you'd understand what I meant. Also, insulting administrators is not going to help you any. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"and your not all-in-BLACK"--4.244.36.143 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Black-clad. Now stop throwing out racism and read the link to the left. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wtf

\b175799\.aceboard\.com\b \bamericanrevolutionarywar\.zoomshare\.com\b \bcbox\.ws\/?reforum\b \bcreateforum\.com\/phpbb\/?mforum\=reenactor\b \bfandomcomics\.com\b \bfinance\.groups\.yahoo\.com\/group\/Reenactor\b \bforums\.delphiforums\.com\/reenactor1\b \bforums\.delphiforums\.com\/reenactor2\b \bforums\.zoomshare\.com\/viewtopic\.php\?id\=15507&Reenactor%20Entertainment%20Tech%20Support\b \bforums\.zoomshare\.com\/viewtopic\.php\?pid\=113522#p113522\b \bfreeforum101\.com\/forum\/xgmx\.html\b \bfreewebs\.com\/beyondcomputing\b \bhalo-forum\.net\.tf\b \birc\.freenode\.net\/#reenactor\b \bmaxpages\.com\/ackuron\b \bmaxpages\.com\/planetgnome\b \bmaxpages\.com\/reenactor\b \bmaxpages\.com\/tache\b \bnewsimuniverse\.net\.tc\b \bplanetgnome\.net\.tc\/\b \breenactor\.forumer\.com\b \breenactor\.net\.tc\b \breenactor\.zoomshare\.com\b \breenactorentertainment\.websitewizard\.com\b \bs6\.invisionfree\.com\/Reenactor\/index\.php\b \bserenityonline\.websitewizard\.com\b \bssfree\.net\.tc\b \bssfree\.wikia\.com\b \bstardestroyer\.net\.tc\b \bswnsu\.com\b \bufda\.net\.tc\b \bus\.undernet\.org\/#reenactor\b \bxeboards\.com\/reenactor\b \bz10\.invisionfree\.com\/Civilization_At_War\b \bz13\.invisionfree\.com\/international_poker\b \bz7\.invisionfree\.com\/Beyond_Computing\/index\.php?\b \bz9\.invisionfree\.com\/Trollz\/index\.php?\b \blogitech.com\b \blucasarts.com\b \bssfree.net.tc\b \bstarcraft.ua.tc\b \b.wikia.com\b \b.invisionfree.com\b \b.fox.com\b \b.blizzard.com\b WTF!!!!!!!!--4.244.36.143 (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of curiosity, are these all blacklisted links? -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ya, i copied and pasted the ones taht should be unblocked taht i fuond.--4.244.36.143 (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem is, almost all of these are forums or have been so aggressively spammed that blacklisting is the only option. Please give a reason they should be unlisted, please. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you gonna call that guy black too now?--4.244.36.143 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're treading on thin ice. Keep it up and you'll be blocked for trolling. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your the one calling me a (Racial slur redacted by Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum)) this whole article is racist, why isn't it called WHITE LIST or RED LIST, BLUE LIST, GREEN LIST, is it because you associate BLACK with inferior or something?--4.244.36.143 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but I'm starting to associate "4.244.36.143" with "troll". -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought u were being racist.--4.244.36.143 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never was being racist. I'll even take the liberty of removing the racial slur from your comment above.

removal

Why was the SS Free added in the first place?--4.244.36.143 (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't precisely know (I didn't add it), but links are generally blacklisted for one of three reasons: constant spamming, attack site, or concerns of legal trouble by BLP subjects. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link Blacklisting vs. User Blocking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy--Hu12 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't understand why you can't separate the behavior of a user and the value of a link. Can someone explain to me why a link would not be considered on its own merits, regardless of the behavior of the user who's attempted to add it? I'm concerned in general of the practice, but in the specific case of "asiafanclub.com" it seems that the reasons given are mostly in regard to the user, which in my mind should be an entirely separate issue to the value of the link in reference to the article. It almost seems, in this case, that it's an attempt to further "punish" this user, by not allowing the link. It seems to me that if we're being reasonable, we would consider the user and the link separately. Can anyone explain reasons otherwise? Thanks. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:AN#Community ban of self proclaimed "Asia Fan Club President". seicer | talk | contribs 15:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does that answer the question? That thread seems to concern itself with the user behaviour only; I see nothing about the site itself other than that it is blacklisted. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you look at the links within, and the topics above? Numerous reasons were offered, including COI, SPAM and so forth. It's a fan site, nothing official, nothing more. seicer | talk | contribs 17:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did YOU read the discussion above? It's clearly an officially authorized fan club. Hu12's contention that it receives its info from another site is unfounded, and his information that the other site "originalasia.com" is a "fan club" site is completely incorrect, as it's actually the band's official site, which is a completely different thing. As unrefined as the site may look, it has been demonstrated here and in the Asia (band) discussion page that it's a legitimate site and resource. I can see why conflict of interest and spam would be cited in relation to the user's behavior, but, again, I don't see the relevance of the link itself. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...and? It's not an official web-site by Asia. It's a fan club web-site. The actions of the users involved, plus cries for help in inserting the web-site en mass to Wikipedia via their forum, is not only unprofessional, but degrades the quality and reliability of their link. You are more than welcome to challenge this by filing (a third) request above, but based upon the comments at AN and here, it doesn't seem likely that the fan club web-site would muster another pass. In addition, I can't find a strong consensus at the talk page for Asia, outside of possible sock/meatpuppeting. seicer | talk | contribs 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus? "*Asia Fan Club Site (asiafanclub.com) - dead heat among editors, and at last check, still blacklisted. in my view its validity has been clearly demonstrated and should be removed from the blacklist. but there's no consensus either way, and the power lies with administrators here." seicer | talk | contribs 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Funny, I find nothing in that thread that says "not official" ... — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time for discussion

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

I would like to comment on this issue the issue discussed immediately above, but the discussion has been closed very quickly. By the time I knew this discussion was ongoing, it had already been shut! Can I ask that (a) the discussion be re-opened, (b) the discussion is allowed to continue for a few days to allow interested parties to take part, and (c) Hu12, as an interested party, hold back from closing the discussion him/herself. Bondegezou (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a larger issue about methods of editing and administrator behavior, and my original question in the above discussion remains entirely unanswered. Certainly a discussion should be open for more than THREE HOURS before it's closed, especially when the issue presented hasn't been properly addressed. It may be helpful to have some outside perspective and allow the discussion to continue, and to allow someone besides Hu12 to decide when it ends. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. "AFCP" has been banned as was his site months ago. Here are some of the relevent violations.

The fact that you both have been "campaigning" for "AFCP" tendentiously since january is also becoming disruptive, and can be seen as Meat puppetry. Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption by those who edit on behalf of a banned user or acts as proxy for another editor's interests. This has exhausted the general community's patience, and discussion is closed. Further repostings on this topic will be closed or removed immediately, with little or no warning.--Hu12 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes to Template:Spam-blacklist header

This template provides the header for this page.

Changes I made to the instructions for admins:

  1. Added to the section's beginning:
    • "If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up."
  2. Added
    • "Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step?"
  3. Added
    • "Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages)."
  4. Made format changes to open it up and look less cluttered.

Comments? Suggestions? Feel free to revert or modify.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Further changes:
  1. Removed:
    • "Any developer may use $wgSpamRegex as another method to prevent the addition of spam links. However, $wgSpamRegex should rarely be used. "
  2. Reformatted and moved "Instructions for editors" section
As before, feel free to revert or modify. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Suggested new instruction box for this page's "Proposed additions" section

Current MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions message box


Current Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam instructions

From Template:WikiProject Spam header:

When reporting spam, please use the appropriate template(s):
As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed.
Shortcut
  • ((IPSummary)) - to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
((IPSummary|127.0.0.1)) --- do not use "subst:" with this template
  • ((UserSummary)) - to report registered users suspected of spamming:
((UserSummary|Jimbo Wales)) -- do not use "subst:" with this template
((LinkSummary|example.com)) -- do not use "subst:" with this template
Do not include the "http://www." portion of an URL inside this template

Also, please include links ("diffs") to sample spam edits.


First attempt at a revised instruction box for the Proposed additions section

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:A._B./Sandbox17&diff=206339791&oldid=206339580


Comments:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tweaked your sandbox template, cut alot of the fluff out, kept the content--Hu12 (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks better -- thanks. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've moved this to Template:Spam-blacklist proposed additions and added it to the "Proposed additions" section above. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

www.kernel.org is blacklisted???

This is bizarre -- I just got blocked from editing a page because it claims http://www dot kernel dot org is blacklisted (dots added as otherwise I can't make this edit). (This is the main page for the Linux kernel development, and it is ridiculous to block it.)

I can't find any log explaining this crazy blocking; is it possible you have a bug?

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was blacklisted on meta for an hour or so for some reason. Looks fixed now. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

www dot letraslibres dot com/???

Why is this site blacklisted? It looks like a very useful online journal. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blacklisted on meta. see m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/letraslibres.com, cross wiki spammed. It looks like a Spanish blog, not a journal, but if we are mistaken, see m:Talk:Spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. Thanks for the response. Quite clearly not a blog. (Though there are blogs associated with it.) I'll go over to meta. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A general policy question

This is a question which was deleted by Hu12. Prior to that, it had also been previously and swiftly closed for discussion by Hu12, and it remains unanswered. Assuming good faith, I'm willing to accept that Hu12 has simply misunderstood my intentions on this subject, however, I can't help but wonder about his/her neutrality on the subject. Though I have previously referenced one particular case as an example, this is a question about policy and its enforcement, not about that specific case. The question is restated below. I ask that feedback be given on this issue by administrators other than Hu12, as it seems he/she is clearly opposed to this being discussed at all.

I am restating the question in as neutral a manner as possible: Simply stated, my question is: Should article content not be considered with a neutral viewpoint? Or do other factors come into play?

Is there existing policy or precedent that dictates that the inclusion of a link should NOT be considered on its own merits, and with the support of neutral editors, when a conflict exists with one editor seeking to add that link, and that conflict results in WP:SPAM violations on the part of that user? It seems to me that if we all make edits under the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that content should be considered with a neutral point of view, INCLUDING cases in which an editor or administrator would have the tendency to "punish" another editor for breaking the rules by refusing to include the content that the offending user wishes to be included. Am I wrong about this? Is there a policy that suggests otherwise?

Also, if this is not the correct venue for this question to be answered, please direct me to an alternate venue. This is an issue that needs clarification for myself and other editors to be able to make the most of Wikipedia.

Thank you. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive139#Community_ban_of_self_proclaimed_.22Asia_Fan_Club_President.22
  • Note: that Shubopshadangalang, is continuing his "campaign"[43] for "ASIA Fan Club" (banned user) link despite Ad nauseam evidence of abuse and clear statements of policy. An obvious and continued at an attempt to Gaming the system, specificaly, "..improper use of (or appeal to) a policy, to purposefully derail or disrupt Wikipedia processes, to claim support for a viewpoint which clearly contradicts those policies, or to attack a genuinely policy-based stance.". (emphasis added).
  • To answer your question. While some external links may be permitted by the External link guidelines, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy whatsoever to be included. Arguments of "Merit" is neither a trump card nor does it make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. Links to this site were repeatedly added despite the obvious community disapproval. Rationale for placing any link becomes quite secondary to the behaviour, when it reaches this stage of community disapproval. --Hu12 (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shubopshadangalang, please stop beating a dead horse. MER-C 06:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am in NO way "campaigning" for that cause! Please do not implicate me as such - I have tried to make that clear, and that I am merely seeking to clarify policy, so that I can make reasonable edits in the future. Neither am I "beating a dead horse"; the above explanation of policy from Hu12 is the first response I've seen that even remotely approaches an answer to my question. Thanks. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I'm gathering from this (trying to separate Hu12's case-specific references from policy in general) is that content in an article may, in fact, be blocked/banned/blacklisted by administrators based on violations/abuses of an editor, and that it could hypothetically be blocked (or otherwise barred from being included) despite a consensus for its inclusion, because " "Merit" is neither a trump card nor does it make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy". If this is inaccurate, please clarify (other admins?). Otherwise, I'll accept this is at face value and change my "philosophy" of editing to reflect it. Thanks. --Shubopshadangalang (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem

I need to post a vandalism warning at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.12.95.224 but I'm informed that I cannot do that due to this talk page being blacklisted. This seems ridiculous; can this please be undone post haste? Badagnani (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. should be fine now--Hu12 (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ White House approved enhanced interrogation
More