Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-05

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in May 2007, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Additions: Done

Latest comment: 16 years ago224 comments53 people in discussion

scpanel.net

Commercial link that has been spammed repeatedly over long periods of time by multiple IPs/users in defiance of consensus and in spite of attempts to discuss. Just a few examples of the spamming: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] AbsolutDan 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

xshorturl.info

URL shortener/redirect site:

xshorturl.info

--A. B. ^(talk) 03:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 09:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

ChrisMorris.ws spam on Wikipedia

Still another unrelatedURL shortener/redirect site:

urlfreeze.com

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as you're blocking urlfreeze.com, can you also block:

chrismorris.ws

The urlfreeze.com domain's owner is being persistent with chrismorris.ws in spite of warnings. (See the essay on spamming Wikipedia at www.chrismorris.ws/category/positioning).

References:

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 19:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 09:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

clix.to, clik.to, devoted.to

Three more URL shortener from the list at Talk:Spam blacklist#700 URL redirection links to clean up (Permanent link). They're ready to be blacklisted:

clik.to
clix.to
devoted.to

--A. B. ^(talk) 03:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done put more in new sections —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 09:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

crocsclub.com

Cross spamming of one specific link by numerous IP over several foot and shoe related sites on the english Wikipedia. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Can something be done? Tikiwont 09:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 09:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

offensive blog

I'm not sure this is the right place to post. I'm an it.wiki admin, and I wish to propose for BL a blog (criccawikipediaitaliana.blogspot.com/ without "www"). This blog is managed by a storical it.wiki vandal, and contains offensive text about wikipedia and some admin in particular. The vandal is spamming it on it.wiki since two or three months, it edits as anonymous and it has a variable IP. These are some of the link he post. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

This are the spam-edit added within the last few hours. Could you insert it into the BL? or this BL is referred only to spam on multiple wikis? Thanks Jalo 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. This link has been already blacklisted this morning. Thanks anyway :-) Jalo 17:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done (already done :) ) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 09:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

searchtravel.biz/countrylist/italy.php

Link is currently being added to the articles about Italia on lots of wikipedias (fur, frp, tl, tpi, mk, oc, an ...). See e.g. http://tl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italya&diff=95236&oldid=93866 . — Pill (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done any reason I should not blacklist the whole domain? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

youtube.ag

This link is being added to articles about youtube in many languages, posing as the official TestTube, the youtube address to TestTube is however http://www.youtube.com/testtube, and a domain lookup (compare to youtube.com) reveals that it is not connected to YouTube, nor is the address promoted by YouTube. It must thus be some kind of forward looking spam, as at the moment the domain just forwards to http://www.youtube.com/testtube. Spamming diffs: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], and so on, I'm sure all Wikipedias who haven't locked down their article about YouTube either has this link or had it. --Dittaeva 14:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, thats bad! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

URL redirectors

From A.B.'s list below, these have been delinked so can now be blacklisted as url redirectors.

http://bravenet.com/webtools/redirect

The large hosting service Bravenet offers shortened URLs with these domains (.to is the top level domain for Tonga)
- interwiki linksearch: clik.to

~~22 links~~ OK to blacklist: clear except 3 user pages, where I left talk page notes about the problem

~~:**interwiki linksearch: clix.to~~ already listed

~~13 links~~ OK to blacklist: clear except 1 user page on id.wikipedia

~~:**interwiki linksearch: trak.to~~ already listed

~~1 link~~ clear

~~:**interwiki linksearch: trax.to~~ already listed

~~1 link~~ clear

~~:**interwiki linksearch: dear.to~~ already listed

~~8 links~~ clear

~~:**interwiki linksearch: takeoff.to~~ already listed

~~9 links~~ clear

~~:**interwiki linksearch: wakeup.to~~ already listed

~~1 link~~ clear

~~:**interwiki linksearch: embark.to~~ already listed

~~2 links~~ clear

~~:**interwiki linksearch: destined.to~~ already listed

~~3 links~~ clear

~~:**interwiki linksearch: devoted.to~~ already listed

~~32 links~~ clear

~~:**interwiki linksearch: get-me.to~~ already listed

~~2 links~~ clear

~~:**interwiki linksearch: committed.to~~ already listed

~~3 links~~ clear

~~:**interwiki linksearch: slingshot.to~~ already listed

no links

~~:**interwiki linksearch: continue.to~~ already listed

~~3 links~~ clear

JzG 11:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - all already on the blacklist. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Meatspin mirrors

wowomg.com
watchbritneyspears.com

See en:Special:Contributions/Cocoabot which appears to have been hacked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Done blocking these as redirect sites. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

More found

www.clokwise.com
www.hl2tweaks.cjb.net
www.cod-online.cjb.net
redknob.teamdot.com.au
www.terminalvelocityparkour.tk/
www.eq2nation.tk
www.gamearena-status.cjb.net/

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - more redirect sites >.> —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

anti2ch.blog61.fc2.com, arvel7aico.btblog.jp

Linkspam. (maybe affiliate purpose blogs)

[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] --Tietew 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Done should have been done sooner. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

www.lg-sl.net

or "www\.lg-sl\.net/GameQuiz/SNCSong" or "www\.lg-sl\.net/GameQuiz/SNCSong/SNCSongView\.jsp"

Used as vandalism again and again in jawp. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] and many many vandals. --Tietew 09:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Carandbikeforum/Autocrust

Car- and motorbike-related articles have been persistently spammed with links to a blog containing copyvio reviews and images. A selection includes:

carandbikeforum.com: [70]

[71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]

autocrust.blogspot.com: [85]

[86] [87] [88]

...etc...

The two blogs appear to be the same, albeit using different colour schemes and web hosts. --Yummifruitbat 06:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 11:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ffconsultancy.com

A total of 44 Flying Frog Consultancy related external spam links have been added by the socks below. A sampling of diffs are next to the domains.

Domains

ffconsultancy.com [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]
fsharpnews.blogspot.com [113] [114] [115]
ocamlnews.blogspot.com

Socks

en:Special:Contributions/Jdh30 - blanked user talk page 3 times
en:Special:Contributions/80.229.56.224
en:Special:Contributions/90.192.139.124
en:Special:Contributions/62.139.48.100
en:Special:Contributions/134.219.116.11
en:Special:Contributions/Petdoc

See en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#ffconsultancy.com for extensive details. (Permanent [116] link. There are a number of cross-wiki ffconsultancy.com links and I am cleaning those up right now. (Requestion 01:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the ffconsultancy.com blocking is working. It doesn't look like fsharpnews.blogspot.com was blocked though. Was that because it was only added 3 times or did I request the domains incorrectly? (Requestion 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

AdvisorsDirectory.com spam

4 different accounts spamming 5 different domains over 21 different articles on en.wikipedia:

Domains:

AdvisorsDirectory.com
debbiedoesdallasagain.net
jennafilms.com
kimkardashiandvd.net
oliviatape.com

Reference:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#AdvisorsDirectory.com spam (permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 03:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

art.lojadeluxo.com

pt.wikipedia [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] (and others)
it.wikipedia [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] (and others)
es.wikipedia [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] (and others)
de.wikipedia [139] [140] [141] [142] [143]
pl.wikipedia [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] (and others)
en.wikipedia [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] (and others)

For other details see w:en:Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#why the wikipedia delete links to my site. Mosca 16:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

YoungSikhs.net spam

en.wikipedia: 9 accounts spammed 4 domains over 47 articles. Also added 2 bogus articles. Domains:

SinghsandKaurs.com
YoungSikhs.net
ggssc.net
nokiastore.in

Accounts adding these links:

en:Special:Contributions/122.162.13.112 • talk
en:Special:Contributions/122.162.209.100 • talk
en:Special:Contributions/122.162.209.97• talk
en:Special:Contributions/122.162.210.40 • talk
en:Special:Contributions/202.164.52.13 • talk
en:Special:Contributions/220.227.48.17 • talk shared IP
en:Special:Contributions/59.161.74.129 • talk
en:Special:Contributions/Jasjitsinghkhalsa • talk
en:Special:Contributions/Khalsalions • talk
en:Special:Contributions/Sikhauthor • talk

References:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#YoungSikhs.net spam on Wikipedia (permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

More spam after a completed blacklisting

This is a continuation of the recently blackisted AdvisorsDirectory.com spam. See [154].

en:Special:Contributions/68.103.242.117 had block expire and began spamming again.

track.vivid.com - See [155], [156], and [157]. Mr.Z-man 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if track.vivid.com is sufficient. If not, I think you can blacklist the entire vivid.com domain. It appears that Vivid is expanding their use of affiliate marketing and referrals. While vivid.com's owned by Vivid Entertainment, the link we use for our Vivid Entertainment article is another Vivid domain, vividentertainment.com. As of this writing, there are no vivid.com links on the 57 largest Wikipedias. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done if there is anything else from vivid, I will blacklist the full domain (someone will need to tell me in a new section though). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

childrensangelflight.org/images -- hijacked subdomain

childrensangelflight.org is a legitimate domain for a major charity, however a anonymous IP (probably an open proxy) has spammed drug spam using childrensangelflight.org/images links that redirect to canadianmedsworld.com. There's been just one incident,^[158] but given the nature (use of an open proxy or zombie computer, disruption of an unrelated article, drug sales, etc.), I recommend blacklisting:

childrensangelflight.org/images (subdomain only -- probably has some hijacked pages)
canadianmedsworld.com

It's pretty hard to warn/block spammers that use open proxies. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

arabti.com

Continuous addition of spam links to this domain in Arabic Wikipedia (local code:ar) in different pages. [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] --Meno25 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

David Ben-Ariel articles

This one's kind of messy. sorry. Spammed across multiple articles by multiple IPs in the 4.252.16x.x range. Adding links to ezine articles and blogs all by the same author for over a year. Author does not appear to be notable and none of the Wikipedia links I found to his articles were added by regular editors. URLS (all of the articles have been spammed, but some of the blogs have not):

ezinearticles.com/?id=99336
ezinearticles.com/?id=102968
ezinearticles.com/?id=103105 (added 2007-05-16)
ezinearticles.com/?id=110620
ezinearticles.com/?id=121252
ezinearticles.com/?id=162426
ezinearticles.com/?id=174894
ezinearticles.com/?id=186984
ezinearticles.com/?id=210707
ezinearticles.com/?A-House-of-Prayer-for-All-Peoples?&id=99366
ezinearticles.com/?Ariel-Sharon:-From-Zionist-to-Traitor&id=156032
ezinearticles.com/?Herbert-W.-Armstrong-Was-Ahead-of-His-Time!&id=110620
ezinearticles.com/?Diversity-Demands:-Segregate-Now!&id=280116
ezinearticles.com/?Lakota-Speaks-With-A-Forked-Tongue&id=366842
ezinearticles.com/?Martin-Luther-King-Day?&id=129123
ezinearticles.com/?PCG:-Carrying-on-Business-as-Usual&id=137041
ezinearticles.com/?Raymond-McNair-Rejects-Gods-government&id=136269
ezinearticles.com/?The-Rapture-or-Place-of-Safety?&id=122746
ezinearticles.com/?The-Plain-Truth-about-Herbert-W.-Armstrong-and-the-Worldwide-Church-of-God&id=210707
ezinearticles.com/?The-Two-Witnesses-of-Revelation-11&id=103105 (added 2007-05-16)
sharon-ariel.blogspot.com
daniel911.blogspot.com
daniel-911.blogspot.com
losttentribes.blogspot.com
lifeisatrek.blogspot.com
christmasandeaster.blogspot.com
plaintruthabouteaster.blogspot.com
yitzhakrabin.blogspot.com
shimonperes.blogspot.com
david-ben-ariel.blogspot.com
herbert-w-armstrong.blogspot.com
tentribes.blogspot.com
unresolution181.blogspot.com
europeunitedstates.blogspot.com
two-witnesses-revelation.blogspot.com
toledo-race-riots.blogspot.com
armstrongherbert.blogspot.com
kemplervideo.blogspot.com
templemountjerusalem.blogspot.com
christmascondemned.blogspot.com
beyondbabylon.blogspot.com
cometobeyondbabylon.blogspot.com
ronpaulpresident.blogspot.com

Sample diffs, more available at en:User:SiobhanHansa/Checks#Articles_by_David_Ben-Ariel: [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192]

-- SiobhanHansa 01:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, two things, any reason I should not just blacklist ezinearticles.com? Secondly what is with the beyondbabylon.blogspot.com|beyondbabylon.blogspot.com (the | symbol) in the urls listed above. I know its the OR operator for en:regex , but not all of those are different links.` Thanks —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 08:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with you blacklisting ezine.com personally, but it does have lots of links on en:wikipedia, some of them used (poorly in my opinion) as sources. I'm happy to go clean them out if blacklisting the whole domain is decided on. I haven't checked usage on any other projects.

Sorry about the poorly formed domain names. I did some lazy cut and pasting from my list in linksearch templates and I didn't clean them up properly. I've done so now. -- SiobhanHansa 21:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done all the blogspot links, I'm going to ask around and see what folks think about the benefits of blacklisting the former domain. (it appears by how you have shown some of the links that I can link to the same page with multiple URLs. (*ezinearticles.com/?id=210707 *ezinearticles.com/?A-House-of-Prayer-for-All-Peoples?&id=99366 come to mind). (note how there is a phrase infront o the id). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen there are two ways of linking an article, with the article title and without. The number at the end of the link appears to be the unique identifier, so ezinearticles.com/?id=99336 and ezinearticles.com/?A-House-of-Prayer-for-All-Peoples?&id=99366 both go to the same article. There may be other ways, but I haven't noticed them yet. If you could put a wildcard in the middle of the blacklisted text (ezinearticles.com/*99336) it should work, but I didn't think we could do that so I tried to list all the articles both ways. Of course blacklisting the domain is easier.... -- SiobhanHansa 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done I'm going to blacklist the whole ezinearticles.com domain. I'm seeing more spam from this site getting added. If I need to restrict this block to a specific section of the site later I'm willing to do so. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

tarjan.uw.hu - crosswiki spam

had been spammed in some sinclair spectrum related articles and a huge amount of video game articles, that have nothing to do with the system. e.g.: [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207] and a few dozens more... --80.145.120.205 14:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done yesterday. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

www.englandandenglishhistory.com

A user persists in adding this link spuriously to articles, talk pages, and vandalizes user pages with it as well. He has been warned about it multiple times, and simply switches usernames and/or IPs when he gets a fourth-level spam warning.

His original account is User:Troll666, where he made the following edits: [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], and [227]. He then switched to User:89.243.63.240, where he continued spamming the site: [228], [229], [230], [231], and [232]. Currently, he appears to be doing the same thing as User:86.140.243.33: [233], [234]. I feel blacklisting the site would be the easiest solution at this point. Thanks. --Ashenai 11:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

skimall.net

tellurideofficialguide.org
skimall.net

These are both the same. Skimall.net links were removed for a long time by several editors, & continually replaced by the same spammer. They have recently created "tellurideofficialguide.org" in an apparent attempt to appear more (at all) legitimate. A userblock &/or IPblock is inefective, as they use a dynamic IP (every time they log onto their DSL they get a different IP). Their only interest in adding this content is personal gain (advertising/pageranking). They continually claim that their "visitor's guide" (blog) is the "official" Telluride Visitor's Guide", putting theirs above other's, &/or just replacing other's with theirs. Please, block these URLs...

as User:65.101.220.144

as User:TellurideAdmin

as User:4.228.39.205

[235]

as User:4.228.123.245

as User:68.4.184.89

User:4.228.81.63 moving link above others

as User:4.228.39.106

as User:85.240.214.181

as User:4.228.39.114

as User:4.227.199.181

as uSER:4.228.123.62

as User:4.228.123.249

[236]

[237]

as User:4.228.123.38

And the list goes on...

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 12:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

scpanel.com

scpanel.net was previously blacklisted [238]. Now scpanel.COM has been added as spam, which points to the same website. Only one entry so far ([239]), but if left unblocked I imagine we'll see the same pattern of regular spamming of the unblocked link.

Done looks like a website to get around the spam blacklist. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 12:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily for May 2007

Wayne has returned with more bizarre domain redirects, which will eventually be redirected to his personal Myspace if left on Wikipedia long enough.

newslimited.org
wesmannion.Com
ziggyswitkowski.com

-- Netsnipe ► 04:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - any reason why some of his links are not on the blacklist (that are known on the long term abuse page?) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 12:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Media exposure. He was pressured into handing back domains related to en:Bindi Irwin and Australian Liberal Party politicians. -- Netsnipe ► 13:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

hoodiagordoniiplus.com

Repeatedly added to various articles on English Wikipedia by changing (but related) IP adresses over the course of several months. Here a few of the many examples: [240], [241], [242], [243]. Edgar181 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

etclinic.com, Crocs Club and mobiWays spam

23 accounts spammed 4 domains across 25 pages on en.wikipedia:

etclinic.com
crocsclub.com
crocsclub.info
mobiways.com

Reference:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#etclinic.com, Crocs Club and mobiWays spam (Permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That was fast -- thanks.

I just learned that crocsclub.com was already blacklisted, so you may have a redundant entry. Sorry about that. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

26 Boyko spam domains

26 domains spammed across almost 20 wikipedias. All of these domains are just parked domains for sale -- totally content-free except for the parking service's ads. Domains are registered to Eugene Boyko, Moscow, RU.

ankor.info
bems.info
bsbs.biz
cinn.info
conm.info
cret.info
diplomov.net
dufy.info
efraim.info
endre.info
fard.org
federalcreditunion.biz
jaki.info
juho.info
kapi.info
muci.info
nulo.info
olid.info
pape.us
salp.info
seacartel.com
snns.biz
tios.info
toed.info
vodu.info
yogacentre.info

Link additions:

Reference:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎#26 Boyko spam domains (Permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

andorraz.org and kwfm.net spam

37 different wikipedias spammed:

andorraz.org: Linksearch meta - en - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com
kwfm.net: Linksearch meta - en - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com

--A. B. ^(talk) 03:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

luketheking.2page.de / luketheking.zweipage.de

Just 3 examples: [244], [245], [246] out of hundreds - manually spamming 3-4 times a day on de.wp until the current IP gets blocked for more than one week now, seems not wanting to stop at all. --:Bdk: 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

dui-trix.com

Concerted effort by a spammer using open proxies or bots (in India) across multiple articles and biographies since May 21. Google search indicates that this spammer has been attacking blogs recently.

-- Netsnipe ► 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

sigord.blogfa.com

Spammed widely crosswiki to C++ articles. Examples:

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#sigord.blogfa.com spam (Permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 20:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

pargatravel.eu

Widely spammed crosswiki to articles about the Parga, Greece area. Examples:

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

tourismindochina.com spam

Spammed domain

tourismindochina.com

Affiliated sites:

passioncambodia.com
bayontours.com

Accounts:

Reference:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#tourismindochina.com spam (Permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 03:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done sigh —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 14:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

dlel.2s2s.com

The following discussion is closed: done

Please add, they are adding it as a 'more info' link. diffs: [247][248][249][250][251][252][253][254]..--The Joke النكتة‎ 03:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:47:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

italy-lowcost.com

Any wikipedia with an article about an Italian city seems to have had these links spammed.

Here's the spam report for Wikipedia's 57 biggest wikipedias. Beyond that, even wikipedians in really obscure places were treated to these links, including the Zazaki of the eastern Turkish mountains (diq:Special:Contributions/83.190.209.240). A sample of some more small wikipedia spam:

Domains:

italy-lowcost.com
filcoo.com

--A. B. ^(talk) 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you. --.anaconda 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

36 crosswiki spam domains

One way to find the really bad crosswiki spammers is to pick a very small wikipedia (not in the top 50) from the list of wikipedias, then see who's spamming it. Odds are, they're picking one article, then hitting every wikipedia with that article (as listed in the left hand corner). That's how I found this spam: eminemfanforum.com

Top 57 wikipedias with this spam:

Beyond the top 57, the following also have these links:

Some more digging turned up a total of 36 domains:

50centfanforum.com
academyawardsfan.com
akonfan.com
annanicolesmithfan.com
bachelorfan.com
beyonceknowlesfan.com
bigbrotherfansite.com
channingtatumfan.com
chrisbrownclub.com
clarksonfan.com
colinjamesfarrell.com
dogshowclub.com
eminemfanforum.com
googlefansite.com
hilaryerhardduff.com
hiltonfan.com
holydaysofobligation.com
idolfansite.com
jamesbluntfan.com
katharinemcpheeforum.com
keirachristinaknightley.com
madonnafansite.com
mannypacquiaofan.com
maumarcelo.org
michellewingkwan.com
pamelaandersonclub.com
pbbfan.com
pgatourforum.com
rachaelrayweb.com/
richardbrucecheney.com
runescapefanclub.com
smalltownlottery.com
stacyannmariekeibler.com
terilynnhatcher.com
theprojectrunway.com
tonigonzaga.org

Interwiki searches (top 57 wikis only):

In most cases. the links were added by one-edit throwaway usernames, usually with Anglo Saxon names. The domains' owner according to domaintools.com is listed at various addresses in New York, Philadelphia and the Philippines. Beyond the top 57 wikipedias, look for links in smaller wikipedias by looking at the list of wikipedias in the left-hand column of a spammed article (for instance, fr:Eminem).

Google adsense ID#: 9474678852583214

Reference (with more details):

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#You know they're hungry for Google love when they spam the Latin wikipedia (Permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - I'll add them all. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Websites owned by sockpuppeteer

Sockpuppetteer en:User:Peschong1 aka en:User:Peschomd aka Matthew Peschong has been spamming his websites for almost a year now. 2 accounts have been blocked (en:User:Peschomd for spamming and en:User:Peschong1 for sockpuppettry, see the case). He repeatedly gets around the blocks by anonymous IP editing. His websites include:

mankatowebdesign.com [255][256][257][258][259][260][261][262][263]

boredboard.org [264]

caffeinemarketing.com [265][266][267][268]

johnmarkkarrblog.com [269][270][271][272][273]

marketresearchmarketing.com [274][275]

emailmonk.com [276][277][278][279]

banfacebook.com (noted as "Caffeine Marketing Productions") [280] and facebook.caffeinemarketing.com [281][282]

smellywasher.com [283]

I really don't think he will stop short of banning the sites. He even tried to friend me on MySpace to convince me to allow him to stay on Wikipedia. Wyatt Riot 20:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

110 more deep crosswiki spam domains

110 more domains from the deep crosswiki spammer reported 14 hours ago (109 new domains plus one, purseboard.com, left off the earlier list).

References:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#A few more (109) from the same guy (permanent link)
Talk:Spam blacklist#36 crosswiki spam domains -- the earlier batch from 14 hours ago
- (Permanent link)

Google adsense ID#: 9474678852583214 (same as the 36 earlier domains blacklisted)

Domains:

aishwaryaraifan.com
amandapeetforum.com
amyelizabethfisher.com
angellocsin.org
arnoldaloisschwarzenegger.com
ashleesimpsonclub.com
bachelorfan.com
bigbrotherfansite.com
burberryworld.com
captainbarbell.org
cassieforum.com
chanelworld.com
cherylburke.net
christianbautista.org
christinaaguilerafan.com
clayaikenforum.com
danitykanelyric.com
davidblainefan.com
demimoorefan.com
dixiechicksonline.com
dondforum.com
dooneybourke.info
evalongoriaforum.com
falloutboyforum.com
fergieclub.com
gofaithhill.com
greysanatomyclub.com
gucciweb.com
halleberryforum.com
hi5-friend.com
howardallanstern.com
inthedb.com
jasminetrias.org
jeanreesewitherspoon.com
jenniferanistonforum.com
jenniferjoanneaniston.com
jeriryanfan.com
jessicaalbaclub.com
justintimberlakeforum.com
kapamilya.org
kapamilyadealornodeal.net
kapuso.net
katieholmesweb.com
keithurbanforum.com
kelliepicklerforum.com
kimchiu.net
kimchiu.org
kirstendunstforum.com
leasalonga.net
mariahfansite.com
mariasharapovapicture.org
mariolopez.info
marthastewartfans.com
mauitaylor.org
maumarcelo.org
michellerodriguezforum.com
mimirogersonline.com
myangelinajolie.com
mycarrieunderwood.com
myfendi.com
mypanicatthedisco.com
myspacefansite.com
nascarfish.com
natalieportmanclub.com
ncaafansite.com
nellykimfurtado.com
neopetsfansite.com
nflfansite.com
nicklacheyforum.com
nicolekidmanworld.com
nicolerichiefan.com
oprahfansite.com
philippine-idol.com
philippineidol.org
pinoydreamacademy.info
piolopascual.org
pradafan.com
purseboard.com
pussycatdollsforum.com
rihannaforum.com
rock-star-supernova.com
salmahayekworld.com
sammilby.org
scarlettforum.com
shakirafanforum.com
sharonstoneforum.com
simpsonfan.com
southparkclub.com
soyouthinkyoucandance.info
spearsfan.com
stephencolbertonline.com
theamazingracefan.com
theapprenticefan.com
thefacebookfan.com
thelostfan.com
themasters-tournament.com
thenbafan.com
tigerwoodsforum.com
tomcruiseforum.com
topmodelfan.com
triciahelferfansite.com
tylerchristopher.org
ufcheaven.com
vanessaminnillofan.com
wikipediafan.com
wwefanforum.com
youtubefan.com
zacefronforum.com
zhangziyiweb.com
zoesaldana.org

Interwiki search links for the 57 largest wikipedias:

--A. B. ^(talk) 04:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Oh wow... great job A. B. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 13:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Wow" yourself -- this would have been impossible without your interwiki search tool.

That one tool has transformed crosswiki spam detection and removal.

Is there any chance you could expand it beyond the current 57? You would not need to have the scroll box hit every integer to 253 -- perhaps after 57, just offer the options of 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200 and 253. As it is now, I find which article titles contain a link in the first 57, then open all versions of the same articles in the other wikipedias and inspect them one-by-one to remove any links.

This is just a request and I don't know how hard it is to implement; I'm very appreciative to have what we have now. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank GeorgeMoney. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

commercial site that spams his link

site: soulfinder.eu

Link has been found on multiple wikipedias on the article about reincarnation, but site contains no real information concerning reincarnation. Site is a commercial project and ask 25 euro for a single account in a database. Linkspam continues by anonymous and registred users. Request placement on blacklist MADe 10:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (mod nl.wiki)

Can you please show us some diffs? Just give us a few diff links of the spam? Or links to spam only accounts that have been abused to spam us. Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, on the dutch: logged in (spam only user), [284], [285]. On :en: [286]. On :fr: [287]. Continues placing the link on the first spot of the external links. MADe 10:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 13:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet spamming

www.wrestlingobserver.com/wo/news/headlines/default.asp?aID=19419

A sockpuppet of a banned user at the English Wikipedia is spamming this link. See en:Special:Contributions/Toryugate—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please just block that particular link, not the whole site. That is a legitimate site run by the leading wrestling journalist, who for some reason has hosted some crap by JB196. 81.153.134.174 00:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty more socks spamming en:Rob Zicari, en:Xtreme Pro Wrestling, en:Tommy Dreamer, en:Janet Romano and en:Extreme Associates. I won't list them all, but this should be sufficient? 81.153.134.174 12:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for now this site won't get blacklisted, but if barber keeps up, we might not have a choice. Needless to say a full blacklisting of the domain is not off the table. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just blacklist thar link? Check the history of the pages, it's been relentless spamming from different socks for the last 18 hours? 81.153.134.174 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Any update on this please? It's non-stop spamming and sockpuppetry each time the pages are unprotected. Thanks. 81.153.10.225 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, added specific page to sbl, relist if target changes. Naconkantari 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlingobserver.com

This site is repeatadly added by banned user JB196. JB196 has hundereds of socks and sleeper accounts through open proxies dedicated to re-adding this site. It would save us alot of time fighting this guy if he could just not add the link in the first place. Chrislk02 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some diff links to the spamming. Naconkantari 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the above section. A check of the history of the pages will show constant spamming and sockpuppetry in the days since, too many accounts and diffs to list. 81.153.10.225 02:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See these histories around 2am UTC on June 5. one two three. There are more pages like this, I'm sure. CBM 02:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, added specific page to sbl Naconkantari 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

sigh, if he keeps this up I will reblacklist the whole domain. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

yamour.com

Spammed across most wikipedias. The list below is just a partial list:

datasheet4u.com mirrors

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

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

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

I will semi-protect datasheet and see if that fixes the problem. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I highly suggest blacklisting. He's been at it since April 24, 2006. -- Netsnipe ► 13:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he came back 5 days after page protection expired. -- Netsnipe ► 17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

A really large amount of users at Portuguese Wikipedia persists to insert spam links to yours on communities from orkut. This may stop it without block the entire orkut (like personal profiles from orkut at userpages). Examples: [289] [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] [295] [296] [297] [298] [299] [300] [301] [302] [303] [304] 555 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, before I blacklist something like this (that may get a bunch of people upset), lets have a bit of discussion if this is a good idea or not... I welcome any input. Eagle 101 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend blacklisting and selective whitelisting Naconkantari 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In Portuguese Wikipedia these links are prohibited by community policy. Porantim 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

philosopedia.org

Many links, almost all added by site owner. Sanity check, please. See [305].

en: 71, [61 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)

   * A. J. Carlson
   * Aenesidemus
   * Albert Schweitzer
   * Alfred Ayer
   * Algernon Charles Swinburne
   * All Souls Church, Unitarian
   * Amy Clampitt
   * Archie J. Bahm
   * Archie Randolph Ammons
   * Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
   * Baker Brownell
   * Bertrand Russell
   * Brand Blanshard
   * Cesare Cremonini (philosopher)
   * Charles Francis Potter
   * Conrad Aiken
   * Corliss Lamont
   * David Amram
   * De Soto, Iowa
   * DeRobigne Mortimer Bennett
   * Donald S. Harrington
   * E. E. Cummings
   * Emily Hahn
   * Faith Baldwin
   * Felix Adler (Society for Ethical Culture)
   * Frederick May Eliot
   * Geoffrey Bruun
   * George Boas
   * George Burns
   * H. J. Blackham
   * Harriette Simpson Arnow
   * Heinz Ansbacher
   * Hugh Hefner
   * Jack Beeson
   * Joseph Campbell
   * Joseph Hilbe
   * Joseph L. Blau
   * Joseph Warren Beach
   * Joseph Wood Krutch
   * Joyce Cary
   * Kay Boyle
   * Kenneth Burke
   * Louis Appignani
   * Louis Cornish
   * Max Lerner
   * Mike Reiss
   * Minburn, Iowa
   * Newton Arvin
   * Pat Tillman
   * Paul Edwards (philosopher)
   * Richard Kostelanetz
   * Rob Buckman
   * Robert Adamson (philosopher)
   * Robert Frost
   * Roger Nash Baldwin
   * Roy Wood Sellars
   * Rudolf Carnap
   * Rudolf Dreikurs
   * Ruth Millikan
   * Van Meter Ames
   * William Heard Kilpatrick
   * Image:Dr Robert Buckman.jpg
   * Talk:Alan Cumming
   * Talk:Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
   * Talk:Carl Sagan
   * Talk:Leo Tolstoy
   * User:Shmitra/photopermission
   * User:WASmith
   * Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
   * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Belk
   * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 4

de: 2, [2 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)

   * Paul Edwards
   * William Stewart Ross

ja: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)

   * アルベルト・シュバイツァー

pt: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)

   * Molly Ivins

zh: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)

   * 伯特兰·罗素

fi: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)

   * Brand Blanshard

no: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)

   * Algernon Swinburne

tr: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)

   * Bertrand Russell

da: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)

   * Anarkister

el: 1, [1 mainspace] (Special:Linksearch)

   * Άλμπερτ Σβάιτσερ

JzG 19:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds right to me, if you need help doing the logging by all means ping me —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Done - Additions are being made in a spammy way, one person who happens to be the site's owner adding links at many articles and making few other edits. That's "where can I put a link to my site on Wikipedia" rather than "which pages can I link to from this Wikipedia page", and thus spam. - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

mysh-game.de

Persistent spamming of a link to a browser game on de.wikipedia. Take a look at the last four days: [306] [307] [308] [309] [310] [311] [312] [313] [314] He uses a dynamic IP of a well used range, so please blacklist this website. --Sinn 14:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

en:Special:Contributions/84.191.205.179

--A. B. ^(talk) 15:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

compact.exe.su

Mass spaming in ru.wikipedia from different IP, for example [315], [316], [317], [318] . Thanks! --Morpheios Melas 10:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

gobacolod com

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

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

Done - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

way.to, up.to

The last of 30 redirect domains; the other 28 have been blacklisted as we've cleaned up the links. See the original notice:

Talk:Spam blacklist#30 webalias.com redirect sites to cleanup and blacklist (permanent link)

These last two can now be blacklisted as redirect sites (similar to tinyurl.com):

way.to
up.to

--A. B. ^(talk) 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

web2earn.com spam

Sample throwaway sockpuppet accounts used on en.wikipedia for one or two spam additions:

There are dozens of such accounts on many other wikipedias, too.

Accounts used for more than one or two edits on en.wikipedia:

One IP account used across many Wikipedias:

Italian checkuser case:

it:Wikipedia:Check user/Richieste/Archivio#Archivio Checkuser 2007

Latin wikipedia discussion:

la:Disputatio Usoris:UV#Spamming from Allcarparts

Previous blacklisting discussion for a sister domain:

Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/02#all-car-photos.com

Spam domains (25):

cordbloodhub.com
expert-dog-training.com
100studentloans.com
acnexpert.com
all-carparts.com
all-digitalreviews.com
all-home-security.com
all-pcgames.com
arthritis-hub.com
asthmaxpert.com
bulimia-expert.com
cartoon-secrets.com
cerebral-palsy-med.com
cruise-heaven.com
dating-guru.com
defibrillatorhub.com
engagementringreview.com
europe-top100.com
exerciseheaven.com
hidrosiscure.com
mortgage-top100.com
mylol.ro
platinum-first.com
rehabcourse.com
web2earn.com

all-usajobs.com^[319]

added by --A. B. ^(talk) 13:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#web2earn.com spam on Wikipedia (Permanent link)

Many thanks to Latin Wikipedia spamfighters (la:Usor:UV, la:Usor:Rolandus and la:Usor:Andrew Dalby) for flagging another big one.
--A. B. ^(talk) 04:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - The spam is definitely real, I'm taking your word for it that all these sites are involved. - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

acdc-forum.de

Crosswiki spam (en, es, it, nl, sv) spamvertising a German website. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

all-usajobs.com

Crosswiki spam ( ang, ast, be, bs, br, ca, cs, da, de, el, en, eo, sv, nn, tr). Registers a new user, but does usually not make a users page (so a red users name), ads the spam link to some article with USA theme, marks it as a minor edit. Last seen June 7 adding links to articles about New Jersey (like this: it). --Jorunn 23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - Had already been done as part of web2earn above

clogsclub.com

This is a new domain spammed today by the crocsclub spammer^[320]; other domains have been blacklisted previously:

--A. B. ^(talk) 22:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

voobys.com

Cross-wiki spam:

--A. B. ^(talk) 23:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

gemisimo.com

Cross-wiki spam:

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

--- Hi, I am the owner of this new site that has only been up for maybe a month and I am unsure who and how this happen but can I please be removed out of this list... it would really hurt my credibility in front of my clients this was not done by any person from my organization and i am shocked to see it here! I am willing to talk to anyone so you can verify the integrity of the business. We are new and we do not want such bad names especially when we did not do such a thing. Thanks and I hope you understand my position and sorry for this ridiculous abuse of wikipedia's resources 67.159.44.138 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

didimrehberim.com spam

Cross-wiki:

Domains:

didimrehberim.com
didimestate.net
didimhomes.net
didimelmak.org
didimproperty.net
altinkumhomes.net
didymapartotel.com

--A. B. ^(talk) 02:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also:

www.didimbeachresort.net

--A. B. ^(talk) 02:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

www.webalice.it/pigionantialfio

please see these edits (especially this) or this (from anon) or this (on Commons). thanks. --valepert 18:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, after talking on IRC. --.anaconda 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ecemaml.com and es.geocities.com/wikipedia_bibliotecarios

A page attacking a specific wikipedian was created and it's being posted across wikis (spanish wiki, spanish wikiquote, etc): ecemaml.com, related to it, multispanishwiki vandalism with the es.geocities.com one, so I'm requesting both to be added to the list to stop the vandalism spree. drini ^[es:]_[commons:] 23:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't jsut block the trolls, since they use dynamic IPs from major spain ISPs. drini ^[es:]_[commons:] 00:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So, we need 3 urls:

ecemaml.blogia.com
ecemaml.com
es.geocities.com/wikipedia_bibliotecarios
- [321] [322] [323] [324] [325]
- [326], [327], [328]
- [329] [330] [331]

drini ^[es:]_[commons:] 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - I'll let drini blacklist them. ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yah, I can do it, I was jsut dropping the info here for log purposes ;) drini ^[es:]_[commons:] 00:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

globaljihad.net

Spamming on numerous enwiki pages from multiple, dynamic IPs [332] [333] Aude 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Done Naconkantari 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

npizlog.org.yu

Cross-wiki:

--Jorunn 15:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

dailyyoutubeblog.blogspot.com

Daily spamming of popular celebrity articles from multiple IP addresses (from at least four different blocks, both in India);

-- Ohnoitsjamie 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also edited under Himanshuarora.--209.171.47.7 20:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

greenlandtravel.com

Spammed cross-wiki. Zero-content, domain parking page. Sample link additions:

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sleep in Lecce"

Bed and breakfast spamming cross-wiki:

~~lecce.it~~

A sampling:

There were more IPs, however I lost my list. --A. B. ^(talk) 06:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Note corrected domain:

lapiazzetta.lecce.it

Just the subdomain should be blacklisted.

--A. B. ^(talk) 06:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are more examples:

--A. B. ^(talk) 06:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam# lapiazzetta.lecce.it spam on Wikipedia (permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, subdomain only. Naconkantari 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

it-aly.com + others

Totally worthless, content-free sites:

it-aly.com
usatn.com
australiagate.com
cana-da.com
fr-ance.com
turkeygate.com
uk-time.com
usaak.com
usamn.com

Another domain, spaingate.com, was blacklisted June 2006:

Spam blacklist/Log#June 2006

Link additions:

--A. B. ^(talk) 01:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

hour.ws

Useless Adsense pages spammed across multiple Wikipedias. A partial list:

Domain:

hour.ws

Adsense ID: 1757719950149040
--A. B. ^(talk) 15:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 19:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

wainscoting.info spam

Domains:

wainscoting.info
host-plan.com

Cross-wiki spam:

Reference:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#wainscoting.info on Wikipedia (permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 19:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ostuni.tv

Continuously added by Franco Sponziello in both English [334] and Italian [335] versions of Wikipedia. Some diffs:

From English Wikipedia: [336] [337] [338]
From Italian Wikipedia: [339] [340] [341]

Thanks in advance. --Angelo.romano 22:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 19:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

TopQuest Investment Group spam

Domains to be blacklisted::

www.painkillers.com
www.wheelsinternational.com
www.appraisalcenter.com
www.Mashup.com
bastardpop.com
tqscore.com

Blacklisting previously requested 14 June 2007:

www.greenlandtravel.com
- Talk:Spam blacklist#greenlandtravel.com (permanent link)

Previously blacklisted

youtube.ag
- Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Additions: Done#youtube.ag

Cross-wiki spam examples (just a partial list):

Reference:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#TopQuest Investment Group spam on Wikipedia (permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 19:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

More Attila Uyanik spam

Attila Uyanik turns out to be the owner of some domains just blacklisted plus additional widely-spammed domains.

Sample link additions by just one of the 10+ IPs used:

Spam domains previously blacklisted:

www.australiagate.com
www.cana-da.com
www.fr-ance.com
www.greenlandtravel.com
www.hour.ws}}
www.it-aly.com
www.spaingate.com
www.turkeygate.com
www.uk-time.com
www.usaak.com
www.usamn.com
www.usatn.com

Current blacklisting request:

germanygate.com
bookistanbul.com
j-apan.com
egypt-Ian.com
cafeDeyIm.com
minibus.ws

Affiliated domains with the same whois point of contact but not yet spammed here (to my knowledge). I'm listing them here for the record in case there are issues in the future:

cennet.ws
oluyor.com
istanbulgate.com
englandgate.com
okul.ws
otokiralama.de
otel.ws

Domains above show "Attila Uyanik" as the point of contact in Whois records.

Adsense ID: 1757719950149040

Cross-wiki edit histories:

References:

Talk:Spam blacklist#greenlandtravel.com (Permanent link)
Talk:Spam blacklist#it-aly.com + others (Permanent link)
Talk:Spam blacklist#hour.ws (Permanent link)
en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Attila Uyanik spam on Wikipedia (Permanent link)
Spam blacklist/Log#June

Complaints on other Wikipedias:

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, current request only Naconkantari 15:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

allstarnba.es

Crosswiki fansite spam on de [342], en [343][344], fr, pl [345][346], pt, sv, tr and others. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 15:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

truehealthy.com

Redirects to xfile007.blogspot.com (Munblog), which is currently in the blacklist.[347][348] Dancter 14:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 15:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

www.gamegoldspace.com

Spammed the sonikmatter wiki here

Many more instances can be found by doing a google search of gamegoldspace.com +mediawiki eg here examples

1 2

Done Naconkantari 14:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

010897078278572180631

I don't know if this is possible or implemented without problems. At least if we search width Google at Wikipedia we don't have results for that. Previous regexp \bgoogle\..{1,5}\/cse\b block this but doesn't block:

These edits are hard to detect and hard to block because they use different external links. I think it's the same user. At least we can block is current Google Coop account "010897078278572180631". More information in my previous post about this (look at Referral Profiteering? in Additions: Done)

We got a similar problem at these ones too:

(In many other pages) Can or should be blocked? I can give more links for those. We got to find a way to stop this things or we will be blocking case by case. For now they are few. We can suggest to all Wikimedia projects to protect en:Wikipedia:Book_sources pages but spamers can do that in other pages (templates for best results to them, for example) Mosca 07:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Done added "010897078278572180631" to blacklist. Naconkantari 14:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

mergerinvesting.com

The site contains a list of stock quotes / pointers and paid advertising links, clearly nothing but linkspam. Serial repeat wikipedia spammers added dozens of links to this site from anonymous accounts that seem to exist only to add the link, after being warned to stop and pointed to wikipedia articles; called one editor an "overzealous moderator" and told to "get a life". Two such examples are:

The individual articles have been cleaned up, sometimes after multiple reverts by the spammers, but the spam attack is continuing so it would save everyone's time to simply block the domain. There is no legitimate information there and the spammers are persisting after being warned.70.1.204.87 10:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 02:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

look-for-albania.com

Spammed cross-wiki. Here's a partial sample of edits:

--A. B. ^(talk) 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 02:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

datasheet4u.com mirrors #2

Please refer to previous blacklistings here.

alldatasheet.com
datasheet.kr

recently added by en:Special:Contributions/125.190.227.62. -- Netsnipe ► 08:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 02:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

ethanol-news.de

Multiple IPs (84.128.89.90 - 84.128.92.39 - 84.128.85.91 - 84.128.72.12 - 84.128.125.24 - 84.128.122.1 and many more) adding ethanol-news.de to multiple articles over multiple days. A few recent examples: [349] [350] [351] [352]. See also the report at the English WikiProject Spam [353] Blocking IPs is ineffective and page protections would be overkill. Please blacklist. Thanks. 148.177.1.211 12:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 02:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

unleashmypower.com

Also:

squidoo.com/subconscious-mind-power
squidoo.com/positive-affirmations-today
goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=491744
goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=491759
goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=491755
goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=491764

All seem to be related to Andrew Stone - Author on Squidoo and goarticles - unleashmypower.com is linked to as his site from goarticles. Over 15 related IPs (122.164.x.x range) are adding and editing a mixture of the links on at least 5 different en:Wikipedia articles. Sample diffs: [354] [355] [356] [357] [358] [359] More detail available at en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Andrew_Stone_spam. -- SiobhanHansa 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 02:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

sega-universe.de

German site, cross-wiki spam, primarily by 194.95.177.123. I seem to remember other users on en, but cannot find them at the moment. User has been warned multiple times, but continues regardless. User regularly reinserts the link when it has been removed. User has recently been banned on en, see [360] for AIV report. For proof of cross-wiki spam, see (only checked Wikipedias with 10,000+ articles) [361] [362] [363] [364] [365] [366] [367] [368] [369] [370] [371] [372] [373] [374] [375] [376] [377] [378] [379] [380] [381]. --Dreaded Walrus 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See also, a linksearch for the URL. --Dreaded Walrus 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the smaller wikis (not in the top 57) and there are no links there -- but lots in the top 57 will need cleanup.

Done Naconkantari 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

prosumersystems.com

Cross-wiki page and link-spam on smaller Wikipedias. (Spammed their Main Pages in some cases). Samples:

--A. B. ^(talk) 23:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 02:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

dreamcrowd.com

Spamming to multiple articles by multiple IPs as well as some single purpose account registered users. Sample diffs: [382], [383], [384], [385], [386], [387], [388], [389], [390]. -- SiobhanHansa 14:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 02:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

arkleywatch.blogspot.com

Has been spammed into w:en:Humboldt County, California, and once into w:en:Eureka, California by w:en:User:Times-standard (blocked indef) and w:en:User:63.192.11.254 (blocked for 2 days).

Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4 FunPika 12:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 05:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

volliter.quotaless.com and wikitell.quotaless.com

Read this before browsing either of the above links; New accounts keep cropping up which add these links to various popular articles; if you browse the links from Firefox, the site repeatedly tries to install an ActiveX control, getting it stuck in a loop that requires a browser restart. I'm guessing it's some sort of malware install. All of the accounts below have been blocked, but it might be prudent to blacklist them to prevent a potential malware infection. I did a link search for *.quotaless.com (presumably a free host); only one other link on a user page. Ohnoitsjamie 22:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, added entire domain to blacklist. Naconkantari 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

ronpaulforum.com

A user and an IP address (possibly others) have repeatedly added links to ronpaulforum.com to w:Ron Paul and other associated pages. The forum has been in existence for around a month (the domain was only registered in May) and it unquestionably does not meet en's requirements for external links. The user has asked for meat puppets to assist in spamming - see ronpaulforum.com/showthread.php?t=692. Thank you. --BigDT 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Naconkantari 04:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

fredthompsonforum.com

The same IP that was spamming ronpaulforum.com (see request) is also spamming fredthompsonforum.com. Both sites have the same color scheme, copyright notice, etc, so I am assuming they are probably owned by the same person or group. This domain was created June 13, 2007, so it's not exactly noteworthy. --BigDT 12:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 07:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

menwith.blogspot.com

Spammed on enwiki [391], [392], [393] - blog attacks living individuals and user is block evading. No conceivable use for this blog other than the attack and POV-pushing. JzG 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 07:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ae18.com

Persistent spammers that keep coming back to the same articles over and over. Especially pesky because they revert past any good changes to get to the last version that contained their spam. Will also just write their own link over somebody else's, good or bad. This site was previously reported at Wikiproject:Spam here and here. Linksearch here. These guys spam tiger penis, Asian models, and home-network articles; it was amusing for a while but now it's getting old.

ae18.com spammers (recent only)

--CliffC 04:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Done - Andre Engels 07:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

muratpasa.com

Massive crosswiki spamming from residential DSL IP address:

Thanks. --Brownout^(msg) 01:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you. --.anaconda 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

economichostels.com

Cross-wiki spam.

da
et
es
fr
ja
nl
nn
no
pl
pt
sv
zh

--Jorunn 08:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you. --.anaconda 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Additions: Not done

Latest comment: 16 years ago83 comments27 people in discussion

myspace.com

Since blog.myspace.com is blocked, myspace.com should be blocked too. Otherwise it is an access door to the blog subdomain there. en:Rjgodoy 21:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done. See en:WP:POINT. JzG 21:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read en:WP:POINT and I do not understand how is it related with my proposal. en:Rjgodoy 22:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The blogs were blocked by request of Jimbo. MySpace is not the same as MySpace blogs. This much should be obvious. JzG 12:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

cceq.org

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

Not done One anonymous user on one page. Sounds like a case easily dealt with through soft protection. Also, he has done it exactly twice now, and not been warned about it either. - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Open Dictionary

www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/

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

Not done No evidence of spam. - Andre Engels 08:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Request from Russian Wikipedia - gay.ru

Could you please add site gay.ru to the black list of spam, as someone continues to add links to that website in the articles on ru.wikipedia.org. That site advertises pornography, gay prostituion services [394],[395], and gay sex shop[396],[397] which are illegal under Russian penal code [398], and can cause legal problems for Russian section of Wikipedia (translation of the text of this law from Russian to English can be done at babelfish online translation). Thank you.--Ram2006 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of actual spam problems? Is someone actively inserting this? Has ordinary admin tools failed to prevent multiple accounts from adding this link? (IE, blocks with autoblock left on, small range blocks for a short time etc). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave Eagle a list of places where the url exists, but I have not seen it spammed much when I looked. I will keep an eye out. Zscout370 03:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done, please don't try to blacklist sites to win a quarrel. MaxSem 12:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

universe-of-mp3.info

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

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

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

Not done, no evidence of spamming on wikimedia's wikis. Naconkantari 19:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

multiple links

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

nighthawkzone.com

[399]

latenightforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=213

[400] [401]

fantasticforum.com/1res/index.php
imaginativeworlds.com/forum/portal.php

[402] [403]

myspace.com/c2cam

[404] [405] [406] [407] [408] [409] [410] [411] [412] [413] [414]

theusofe.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=3906d822105041d1491f07d0502d87b9

[415]

z8.invisionfree.com/Conspiratards/index.php?act=idx

[416]

groups.myspace.com/coasttocoastlistener

[417]

republicanoperative.com/blog/george-noory-has-got-no-freakin-clue.htm

[418]

I've protected both articles for 1 week, come back and post in this section if after a week it keeps up. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done, no reply after protection Naconkantari 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

cafepress.com

A bit obvious, really. As of now there are many many links to cafepress on multiple projects: [419]. None of them is ever going to be anything other than an advertisement; there is no conceivable encyclopaedic use for links to cafepress, other than to the home page itself in articles on cafepress. JzG 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Were they all inserted by the same IP? If not then it might be legit. A trick to try would be to try removing the links from say... the english wiki, and see if anyone cries foul. If someone does, then it might have merit. Who knows... —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 11:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

~~I deleted a bunch of cafepress.com spam earlier this year and gave out warnings. Sounds like they had little effect. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)~~ My mistake: I was confusing this with another domain. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted cafepress spam in the past, it occasionally gets spammed to multiple articles by a single user, but more often, it's a COI issue.. where a user has created a cafepress store with items related to a single, specific topic.. and they add the store link to a single article. The link is intended to promote a product and adds no encyclopedic value. It's highly unlikely that any cafepress link ever will add encyclopedic value to any article except the one that is about cafepress.com. That said, given the shared nature of the meta blacklist, and the ability to blacklist individual cafepress/storename urls as necessary.. I'm not sure that adding all of cafepress.com to blacklist is a great idea. --Versageek 18:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, most of them are COI. We can whitelist any that are not. The problem stretches across all projects, as far as I can tell. JzG 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I would ask that we list some examples of rampent problems. Do we have multiple anon users using this link? Likely socks? etc? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings either way about blacklisting this site but I seem to remember that there is a Wikipedia/Wikimedia section on CafePress where one could buy Wikimedia-related coffee mugs, t-shirts & mouse pads. I would recommend against a complete blacklisting of this site until more information on this connection is provided here so a prudent decision can be made. -- Llywrch 21:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done, try blocking/sprotection first. Naconkantari 19:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

centiare.com

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

Blacklisting is pretty drastic. I don't see any centiare.com links in the actual article space (en:Special:Linksearch/*.centiare.com) -- have any been added there recently? If not, I don't think we should blacklist this site. --A. B. ^(talk) 06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

have any been added there recently? - They were taken out recently -- today -- by myself. But spam is spam, whether it's in article space or -- as I showed in the links above -- sneaked into and/or solicited in talk pages. Or is stealth spam somehow acceptable? --Calton 07:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you report this to admins so that the admins can take appropriate action, be it blocking the accounts, or whatever needs done. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Wait, I already did that before coming here and I was pointed here. "[W]hatever needs to be done", you'll note, includes adding this site to the spam blacklist. --Calton 00:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Calton, you have received two responses above from independent parties that essentially advise that you tone it down a notch, but your response to both is to counter-argue the point even further. You have already been spotted canvassing on this issue, which (I thought?) is against Wikipedia policy. Clearly, you have taken up this issue of Centiare as a WP:OWN sort of thing, which is also against policy. The recent edits by User:Andman8 are those of a hyper-enthused recent high school graduate who sees a lot of opportunity with Centiare. While he took a rather testy route to get there, he has apologized to Wikipedia, and he assures me he will not try to "plant" Centiare links or references in the future.

I'm having trouble understanding why a site like Citizendium.org is allowed to have 301 external links from Wikipedia -- many from article space -- but a site like Centiare.com is not only stricken from having links from articles, but is being nominated for an outright "blacklist" status? There is good content found on Centiare. Clearly, your action smacks of a personal vendetta, and I'm troubled to see that your involvement with the Wikipedia project is being so thoroughly distracted by this off-site non-issue.

If anyone in an authority position with Wikimedia wishes to intelligently discuss this matter with me (I am certain that Wikipedia and Centiare can co-exist; actually, probably in a beneficial way to minimize spam efforts across Wikipedia), I am available by cell phone (302.463.1354). I've already had relatively productive "healing" conversations with Jimmy Wales and Erik Moeller, so clearly, I'm open to diplomacy. This offer includes you, Calton, and your co-agent, JzG. --Centiare 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting I missed all this, yet my talk page was used as part of it. I originally took this up personally with Andman8 when, while just going through my travels on Wikipedia, noticed quite a bit of links to Centiare from him. I didn't even have to go to his contributions to find them, there were so many. This is clearly spam, and I acknowledged his efforts, and asked him to stop. I haven't followed up until I now, when I again randomly encountered this. If he has indeed stopped since I asked him to, then this is moot. If he hasn't after I gave him a fair warning, we definitely need to do something. Maybe blacklisting isn't the way to go, maybe an indefinite block or ban on the account will do, but I won't tolerate spam. Wikidan829 05:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I do note the username of yours Centiare, as long as the link is not spammed. If somoene shows evidence of linkspamming, then it might be time to blacklist. Just a word of warning ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone shows evidence of linkspamming - See above. That's what the links are for. And the "Centiare" is obviously the permabanned-on-Wikipedia en:User:MyWikiBiz aka Gregory Kohs, so why he should have the slightest shred of credibility I don't know.

You have received two responses above from independent parties that essentially advise that you tone it down a notch - Wrong, Kohs, I received two responses that disputed the need to the blacklisting -- one of which was, essentially, factually incorrect -- so I counter-responded. This is really not so difficult to understand, no matter how you try to spin it.

The recent edits by User:Andman8 are those of a hyper-enthused recent high school graduate who sees a lot of opportunity with Centiare - The correct way of phrasing that euphemism is "pimping to line his own pockets".

Everything else is pretty much a complete waste of time to respond to, but it's telling that, given how much you've bragged about how darned successful you're going to be and you don't need Wikipedia, you, like a bad penny, keep showing up, either in person or through his agents. Why is that? Still need the Googlejuice? --Calton 04:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was gogin to deny this as lacking evicdnce of cross-wiki spam, but as usual Kohs has persuaded me that he is sufficiently intent on self-promotio that unless we take action he will set about causing a problem. I am minded to add the site on that basis. I will consider this for a bit. JzG 06:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

An interwiki search shows no Centiare links in the 57 largest wikipedias except for the ones in talk and user space in the English wikipedia. I see no evidence of spamming article space in the last 4 months from searching Veinor's daily link reports. I agree with Kohs that Andman8 is an enthusiastic kid. I suggest that if Mr. Kohs can rein in Andman8, that he get on with his project and we get on with ours, leaving each other alone. Irritation is insufficient cause for blacklisting. Since our blacklist is used by 100s of other non-Foundation wikis that run MediaWiki software, I think we should avoid blacklisting for now. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Goading removed, per excellent advice from A. B.. My defenses of my character elsewhere are, indeed, sufficient. --Centiare 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Centiare, I suggest you stop goading various Wikipedia editors and admins; whether you think you're justified or not, you're not helping yourself or Centiare.com. You've made enough disparaging remarks off-Wikipedia that I think you can consider yourself "even" in the criticism and finger-pointing department. You've made your points. If you wish to avoid blacklisting, then, please, just go away quietly. If you want "level-headedness", then please show some yourself. You have a business to run and it won't benefit from squabbling at Wikipedia and getting Centiare.com blacklisted. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While it's true that the bar for being listed here is higher than I assumed originally (as JzG's comments suggest), nonetheless history tells me that while the spamming is not a flood, it was and remains a persistent trickle, given how Koh's sockpuppets [and confederates like Andman8] keep popping up occasionally. And en:User:Andman8, despite being warned, still figures spamming is OK]. I'm sensing a slow-motion limits-testing, and it's getting tiresome. --Calton 21:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the proper term is "meatpuppet" as Andman8 is (from what I understand) a separate person than Centiare. In either case, it seems that the promises made were empty, as shown in this recent edit. Andman8 has received an official warning, which if it escalates, and he persists, will result in a block. Centiare, it's time to stop the lip service and take action, and hold what is currently your user accountable. He is very poorly representing your site. Wikidan829 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My comment was only concerning Koh's genuine sockpuppets that crop up and not Andman8, though given my careless wording it seemed as if I was suggesting they were one and the same. I apologize if that was how it was read, since I have no doubt that Andman8 is NOT Gregory Kohs and did not intend to suggest otherwise. He's got plenty of obvious flaws, but lack of existence isn't one of them. --Calton 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First, the contraction "Koh's" is completely wrong above. The surname is "Kohs" -- there's no reason to put an apostrophe in the middle of it. Would you say, "Jone's"? Second, I've asked the User:Andman8 multiple times to stop trying to promote Centiare within any Wikimedia property. He is not part of management or ownership of Centiare. Wikidan829 suggests that I am responsible for the accountability of "my" user. If that's the case, Wikipedia is responsible for all its users that might post on "attack" sites, for example, and I'd ask you -- what is Wikimedia's management doing to "take action" and hold those users "accountable"? Honestly, it's not lip service to say that I have made it clear to User:Andman8 that he is requested to stop promoting Centiare within Wikipedia. I'm not going to drive to Texas to rough him up or something to make it "stick". What do you think I am, a mob boss? (Nice goading, with the "obvious flaws" comment, too.) Again, I have to just about laugh about all of this. Are we done now? --Centiare 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that grammar lesson. The error was rooted in me believing at the time "Koh", as I am not familiar with this individual. We are not here to attack you, but to merely provide suggestions to keep your site from being blacklisted. If you look at it this way, we could simply just give Andman8 his warnings, block him, and BL Centiare without any form of mediation. Maybe you don't care, but not being blacklisted could be in your best interest. All we want is for the spamming to stop. If you want to laugh about it, then laugh, after all, being added to the spam list is hilarious. Wikidan829 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikidan829, I'm curious why you would apologize for the "Koh" vs. "Kohs" issue, when it was Calton who made the mistake. I smell something fishy between Calton's and Wikidan's tag-teaming on this issue. ~~Sockpuppetry, perhaps?~~ Each account has edited Wikipedia at the same time, so it's likely not a sockpuppet, but still. Why apologize for someone else's mistake? --Centiare 15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that you assume better faith. Unfortunately, I was confused about your response and could have sworn I saw myself make the mistake first, then Calton reflect it. On a second look, I didn't say it at all. I see you're up on stalking while you're at it. You might also note that I was the first one to make an issue to Andman8 on his talk page. While I wasn't watching, Calton replied and escalated it. I ran into Andman again for the same issue and saw that Calton was involved, which eventually brought me here. You shouldn't look so much into little mixups. Wikidan829 17:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I won't look so much into little mixups. "Stalking" you say, though? I wouldn't call a four-minute side-by-side glance at two Users' edit histories "stalking". Actually, User:Durova takes a lot of pride in her ability to do that. She calls them "complex investigations". Meanwhile, the real point of all this is that Calton has essentially taken "ownership" of anything related to Centiare, and JzG has taken uber-ownership of anything related to Gregory Kohs. Try as I might to just go about my business, these two Users always seem to draw me back into their game. Again, are we done now? --Centiare 18:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the real point of all this is that Calton has essentially taken "ownership" of anything related to Centiare, and JzG has taken uber-ownership of anything related to Gregory Kohs. Son, as usual you're badly in need of a reality check. Let's cut through to smoke you're laying down: you're a spammer and an abusive sockpuppeteer, responsible -- through yourself and at least one naive confederate -- for serially spamming references to your business in order to attempt to churn up revenue/Google hits for yourself. You've been banned by Jimbo AND community-banned, a rare feat indeed, so playing the paranoia card doesn't change those facts one iota. --Calton 00:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought I should bring it up, that Andman8 has spammed again just today. Wikidan829 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this all straight; en:User:MyWikiBiz is banned, then bypasses the ban with the en:User:JossBuckle Swami sockpuppet who gets blocked indefinitely, then violates the ban again by proxy with the en:User:Andman8 meatpuppet, and now User:Centiare is trying to get centiare.com put on the interwiki-map (see Talk:Interwiki_map#Centiare). Doesn't this whole scenario seem highly inappropriate? Can a website be blacklisted and be on the interwiki-map at the same time? Crazy. (Requestion 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

I was unaware of the attempt to add the site to this. It seems that those attempts precede the topic at hand, however, and probably negate it. Wikidan829 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' most recent action with en:User:MyWikiBiz was to UNBLOCK him. Why does that event fail to enter your dialogue, Calton? Also note the use of the derogatory comment, "Son, as usual you're badly in need of a reality check," by Calton. I am not your son. I am a 38-year-old father. If this doesn't prove that a certain someone is incapable of being level-headed in his prosecution of this particular cause, I'm not sure what will. Once again, a couple of members of the Wikimedia/pedia project have themselves all up in a lather, over what essentially amounts to nothing. I try to go forward, minding my own business, and you keep coming up with more falsehoods and disparaging remarks. This really is a game to you, isn't it? If you are having a problem with en:User:Andman8, why don't you just block his account for a month, rather than going after a website that he favors? If I were to spam Wikia links all over the place, would you put Wikia on the spam blacklist? --Centiare 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here again. He did it because it was "asked nicely", only to get banned but a few days later. Jimbo Wales does not have ultimate authority on Wikipedia and he cannot violate policy, lest the community has his nuts. Both accounts were re-banned because whoever was on it elusively made legal threats towards another user. That's neither here nor there.

If Andman8 favors Centiare, he should stay on Centiare. And if your website is so great, I don't understand why he finds it necessary to keep linking to it. What does he accomplish? I am not for or against blacklisting the site, I just want the spam to stop. He is one of the users I feel I need to babysit, is this what your community consists of? Unfortunately, I am not an administrator, and even if I was, his spam is coming in slow enough to evade a block. Along that same vein of policy, continually having the need to revert spam to a particular site(in this case, Centiare) will result in a blacklist. It's as simple as that. While Andman8 may not be your user, he will be at fault for the blacklisting, which ultimately becomes your problem. He just needs to stop, it's really that simple! Wikidan829 15:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There were no legal threats made by Kohs after Jimbo Wales' unblock. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide the diffs. In fact, Kohs bent over backwards to assure the offending user in question that he was decidedly not interested in any legal action. It's this type of perpetuation of falsehoods that keeps me coming back, to correct the historical record. Please don't add to the mythology any more, Wikidan829. As for Andman8, he is one of over 200 users on Centiare. If one-half of one percent of our users are spamming Wikipedia, and you choose to blacklist the entire site because of that, rather than just block that user, I think we have a clear case of your failure to be proportional in your actions. --Centiare 23:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there's plenty of room for users to edit on both sites simultaneously as long as they don't persist in disrupting one or the other. I welcome Andman8's contributions here, but without his plugs for Centiare since it's clear they are rubbing the community here the wrong way. If he really feels negatively about Wikipedia, then perhaps he should concentrate on Centiare for now and everyone will be happier. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done, relist if spamming continues. Naconkantari 19:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

www.i-see-why.com

Spaming German Wikipedia eg. in QM-Article:

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qualit%C3%A4t&diff=prev&oldid=32562969

Please put it to black list. It is a CRM product.

Thanks 13:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Any other instances of spamming? Why not just semi-protect the article for a week and come back if there are still problems. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 14:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done, try semiprotection and relist if spamming continues. Naconkantari 19:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Website

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

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

Not done, no evidence of spamming. Naconkantari 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

wikiabuse.com

wikiabuse.com is a huge new site started that documents abuse by wikipedia administrators and it also collects personal information on them too like real name, age, location, personal history offline, email address, personal websites, birthdates, physical addresses, phone #s, etc. It should be blacklisted. Realother 05:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree ban it. 65.102.34.153 05:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ED predicted it would be banned within one hour. So far the whole thing has been ignored. I don't know what the real deal is, but I guess nobody reads this page anymore or maybe time doesn't flow linnear here but lateral. Realother 08:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

lol I get it. <3 <3 <3 XD 65.102.34.153 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of where links to this site have been used excessively in spam or vandalism? We don't simply blacklist sites preemptively because they say things we don't like--the spam blacklist is meant only to curb spam. AmiDaniel 01:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Spam and Encyclopedia Dramatica. A winning combination! --159.149.155.89 06:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(159.149.155.89's edit made using Tor --A. B. ^(talk) 00:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

Actually, WikiAbuse has stated a policy against publishing the real names or pictures of people if they haven't appeared directly in Wikipedia mainspace, so they say they're not an "outing" site. I don't know of any cases of this site being spammed onto Wikipedia, so if it gets banned here it will be a clear case of Wikipedians trying to suppress criticism. This blacklist is targeted very specifically against spammers, not just sites people personally don't like. Dtobias 13:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So far, there are no links on any of the 57 largest Wikipedias. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a link on Criticism of Wikipedia but it was reverted after five minutes [420] by Theresa Knott without explanation. 76.186.75.226 03:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC) - otherwise known as Casey Abell

They've actually adopted a policy of not outing anyone whatsoever[421]. I don't see why we should blacklist them at least now. JoshuaZ 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done, no evidence of spam. Naconkantari 02:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

gnaa.us and gnauk.co.uk

This site is directly responsible for off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedia user's family, forcing him to leave Wikipedia. The harassment was in direct retaliation for the site's article being deleted from Wikipedia. Per the precedent of ED being blacklisted, blacklisting these sites is more than appropriate. Blueboy96 02:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of spamming. Naconkantari 05:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Here ya go: www.gnaa.us/pr.phtml?troll=gnaa-hybc, where they revel in their harassment of a user's family. Like I mentioned before, attack sites have been blacklisted in the past, and considering this directly led to a user leaving Wikipedia, there is no reason to allow it to be linked. Blueboy96 13:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not "evidence of spam"... do you have evidence they've been trying to spam that (or any other link in their site) onto Wikipedia / Wikimedia? This is a spam blacklist, not an attack site blacklist, and it's for all Wikimedia projects (and many other wikis that use it too), not just English Wikipedia. Anyway, the address you cited is in gnaa.us, not gnaa.com or gnaa.co.uk. Dtobias 13:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't an exception be made to process just this once, out of respect and sensitivity to someone who's been harassed? Blueboy96 13:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

gnaa.co.uk is a British company selling "architectural antiques"; it has no known connection with the troll organization you're targeting. As far as I know, the .us domain is the only one they use; looking at 'gnaa' in other TLDs turned up no sites seeming to belong to them. Dtobias 14:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake ... happens when you make a nomination before going to bed. Changed it to the correct domain, gnauk.co.uk. Blueboy96 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I also see that the French Wikipedia has an article on that organization, with a link. Dtobias 15:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done, this is the spam blacklist and the site has not been spammed. Naconkantari 22:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

www.aviation.ru

About 316 links as you can see here

Not done, these links are legitimate. Naconkantari 22:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

www.w3schools.com

Found a sentence over Wikipedia that its not a vehicle of advertisement. I don't know if someone has to pay or what to add their link into external link area of WIKI. I have seen many cases when wiki admin banned so many site because they had put their page on cross language pages. Similar case I have found here. Its not just one or two pages, if you will search this whole site is available on WIKI. Following are few examples. Just check these pages and you will find that these all pages are having direct links to w3school.com. So this is the proof of cross spamming.

Let me tell you more about this site, this site is having so high advertising rates and each page will be more covered by advertisements than actual content. So if they are allowed to put their links on wiki then please remove your statement Wikipedia is not a vehicle of advertisement, otherwise I strongly recommend to remove their links from wiki and ban it forever.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Services_Description_Language
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDDI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSDL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSLT
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMLScript
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/XSL-FO

Not done Naconkantari 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Removals: Done

Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments10 people in discussion

www.singaporeair.co

This isn't even a real URL, however, it prevents any references from being added to www.singaporeair.com for Singapore Airlines material. 137.165.214.233 07:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done the link was never blacklisted, it was a mistake on User:Shizhao's part adding \jijija\.com to the spam blacklist, I have now modified that to \bjijija\.com, so this should not be a problem now. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

www.icd9data.co

I cannot actually find this in the blacklist, nor is it a real link, but its blacklisting prevents me from fixing a problem with w:Hyperlipidemia. —217.42.68.132 07:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done the link was never blacklisted, it was a mistake on User:Shizhao's part adding \jijija\.com to the spam blacklist, I have now modified that to \bjijija\.com, so this should not be a problem now. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

www.redspike101.net.tf

this is my website i have a user page on wikipedia and what to put a link to it can it be unblack listed thanks. dont post comments on this user talk page use my wikipedia account [422]RedSpike101 12:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Done - site was not blacklisted. fixed regex. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

www.fuelcellmarkets.com

This site hosts the Website of the London Hydrogen Partnership (www.fuelcellmarkets.com/london hydrogen partnership), a legitimate site. Can't see any obvious reason why its blocked. It appears to be the block is actually on the similar www.fuelcellmarket and that this is causing the block. 80.42.7.137 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done the link was never blacklisted, it was a mistake on User:Shizhao's part adding \jijija\.com to the spam blacklist, I have now modified that to \bjijija\.com, so this should not be a problem now. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

www.awn.com

I found this spamblocked when attempting to revert vandalism on animation pages. en:Animation World Network is an organisation very useful to the animation industry, and deserves linking to from animation-related pages. AWN itself does no spamming, if any such is found it is done by individuals not associated with AWN. -- en:User:Janke 18 May 2007

Done the link was never blacklisted, it was a mistake on User:Shizhao's part adding \jijija\.com to the spam blacklist, I have now modified that to \bjijija\.com, so this should not be a problem now. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

www.snopes.com

Before going as far as suggesting removal, I'd rather hear why it's blocked (i.e. if it's so severe). I've linked to it in the past and would like to be able to do so again in the future. (Besides, it slightly sucks that I suddenly get problems with using and archiving my talk pages because there happens to be such a link on it... which I'd rather not throw out because it makes a valid statement in a good discussion.) Thanks, Ibn Battuta 08:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done the link was never blacklisted, it was a mistake on User:Shizhao's part adding \jijija\.com to the spam blacklist, I have now modified that to \bjijija\.com, so this should not be a problem now. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ibn Battuta 00:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

SEGA-Universe.de

Please delete www.sega-universe.de from blacklist. This is one of the biggest SEGA specific sites around and work together with the SEGA Corporation. I dont know, why this site is on blacklist here in wikipedia. Thanks in advance... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.72.222.157 (talk • contribs) .

Wow, this one goes back a long way. No real clue why it was in there and the blacklisting admin has "left the building". Not sure. JzG 21:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - bona fide site, unclear why it's on the list, but whatever it is, it was a long time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andre Engels (talk • contribs) 08:11, 30 June 2007.

Hold on, the history lists quite some reasons. It's actually quite annoying to see someone adding a German website over and over again to the English Wikipedia. --32X/87.234.91.120 13:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I was the nominator in the example linked to above by 32X. This site was blacklisted only 5 days before this current request to have it unblacklisted. This is a German site that had been spammed to many of the top 57 Wikipedias, as noted in the above link. Why not just whitelist the site on the German Wikipedia? Spamming links hundreds of times across many Wikipedias, to a German-only website, is not appropriate. It should also be noted that the user who posted this request, hours later added links to planet-snk.de (an affiliated site) on the English Wikipedia. The meta linksearch doesn't seem to be working currently, but a quick user contribs search of only the 250,000+ article Wikipedias indicates a similar thing with fr, nl, ja, and pt. It's just ridiculous. It seems to be done with a different IP for each spamming session, but in May, there was this, too. How are edits like this and this, to a German-only site on an English-language encyclopedia, anything but spam? And again, a quick user contribs of the other 250,000+ article Wikipedias reveals [423], [424], and [425]. I genuinely fail to see what use these German-only links are, on Wikipedias other than de. Whitelist them on de, but please blacklist them here (re-blacklist sega-universe, and add planet-snk if possible. If I would need to file a separate entry for that, that's fine). In fact, even with my original request, I would have fully supported a whitelisting at de, as I imagine that for a German reader, these links would be helpful. But inserting hundreds of German links across tens of non-German-speaking Wikipedias in the space of hours, how can this not be classed as spam? --en:User:Dreaded Walrus 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

SEGA-Universe is no spam website! There is no Pop-Up Advertising or other stuff on it. There are good informations about SEGA and all related stuff you cant found on english speaking websites. And many english speaking wikipedia user can speak german too. Why this more detailed informations is spam? This is all how wikipedia link policy want. Cheers -- User:Kanakura

I did German language studies for en:GCSE, though I went no further than that. I appreciate the language, it is probably my second-favourite language, but I am a long way from being fluent. But that is neither here nor there. The fact is, that while the website may be a good German-language resource, this link had been inserted without prejudice into articles on a large number of the top 57 wikis, the vast majority of which were not from German-speaking countries. I removed many of these links myself when the site was blacklisted, and you have reverted my changes on de since the site was taken off the blacklist. Again, I have nothing at all against the site being used on de (hence why I recommend, if this is re-added to the blacklist, that it be whitelisted on de). One of our main policies on the English Wikipedia is to avoid foreign-language external links unless the information is essential. You even have a similar guideline on the German Wikipedia. You claim that "many English speaking Wikipedia users can speak German too". Can you also claim that the same is true of Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch, Japanese, Polish, Portuguese, Finnish, Swedish, Chinese, Catalan, Czech, Danish, Galician, Korean, and Hebrew speakers? --en:User:Dreaded Walrus 21:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and now that the spam search is working again, see also a search for planet-snk.de. These sites are spammed, even if they are not "spam sites", so to speak. --en:User:Dreaded Walrus 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This sites listed many years on wikipedia, because they are more than 10 years old. And was linked by many users in this time. And german is a very famous language in europe. For example: many french, dutch, danish and polish people (and northern parts of italy) speak this like her native language. And the english wikipedia Non-English guideline say "label the link with a language icon", "when the website is the subject of the article", "when linking to pages with maps, diagrams, photos, tables explain the key terms with the link, so that people who do not know the language can still interpret them ". English sites preferred!! Why you want put this website on blacklist? And the re-added link you talk about are german links on german wikipedia only!! This is all like similar guideline want. And you can do the same search with: gamespot.com. This is spam for you too??? Please hold on! Cheers -- User:Kanakura

Found these matches for the link: *.gamespot.com (new search)

Total for all wikis: 908.

Jump to: en (208), de (58), fr (54), pl (47), ja (13), nl (38), it (64), pt (7), sv (21), es (65), ru (60), zh (47), fi (52), no (17), eo (2), sk (1), cs (7), da (6), ro (9), ca (29), hu (17), he (10), id (14), sl (2), sr (4), lt (2), bg (2), ko (9), et (3), hr (8), ar (2), gl (1), el (6), th (6), ms (1), vi (2), bs (3), simple (4), is (4), sq (1), la (1), new (1).

Its not OK to have german links in english wikipedia, but this is OK to have english links in german wikipedia? Come on... Wellcome to globalize world! Cheers -- User:Kanakura

Gamespot and Sega-Universe.de are not comparable in terms of notability, and I'm willing to bet (though I haven't actually checked this) that links to Gamespot have been inserted by hundreds of different users, if not thousands. Can the same be said of Sega-universe.de, outside of the German Wikipedia? Anyway, I've pretty much said everything that I need to say, and this conversation is kinda getting off the original point, so I'll just bow out here, and see what happens when an admin comes along. If you feel Gamespot links should be removed from the German Wikipedia, go ahead and do it. I didn't add them. If anyone needs to contact me for any reason, I'd probably recommend using my en talk page, as my IP address is dynamic, and changes each time I reconnect to the net, so I might not get any messages left on my IP talk page. --en:User:Dreaded Walrus 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right, but Gamespot ist much bigger and has many more links in wikipedia than the other sites we talk about. And as you say in your first posting, there are different IPs you cant explain. This means, there are more people outsite you think and this people like this page and want share this informations. And i dont want remove Gamespot, because i like this page and think other people will like too. But anyway, you or someone else can discuss more with me on my talk page. Please feel wellcome! Cheers -- User:Kanakura

Even if there are quite some people in the world, who have learned the German language once, it doesn't mean the vast majority understands it. (I have learnt Russian for 4 years and there isn't very much left.) I agree, the website doesn't look like a spam site, but most users who put a link to that site contribute nothing but weblinks to wikipedia – often at the first position of the weblinks section and often only to the homepage instead of deep links. Descriptions of these weblinks are often POV (the largest, the oldest, the biggest, ...) and if they are removed by editors, they are included again by these users who only contribute with weblinks. This is heavy web site promotion and over the years I became really sick of it. Dreaded Walrus suggested a solution I could live with (blacklist, whitelist for de), less action against this spamming would make it a test case for other "web link adding editors". --32X/87.234.91.120 05:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Russian is totally different (speak an read). German and english are more simular and easy to learn (like spanish and italian). And sometimes Alexa can help to understand. Please look from witch countries the most user come to a "german" website. Can these user speak german? You see, english is not the only language in this world. This stat looks like an international website with information (Images, Videos, Artworks) you cant found on other websites (And this is like wikipedia Non-English guideline want). And if this website isnt interesting for you, didnt mean this must be unintersting for all other people too. In the end, this is a point of view. But there is no reason to put this website on blacklist in wikipedia. This is all like similar guideline want. Cheers -- User:Kanakura

We are not talking about German links in the English Wikipedia, we're talking about a problem, were a few users put links to sega-universe.de into various articles as their only contribution in Wikipedia. Maybe not in the Russian Wikipedia (without the cyrillic alphabet it would be just another Slavic language, not that different compared to Czech (English link description for a German website on a Czech wiki? WHY?) or Polish), but in several others including Chinese, Korean, and Hebrew (now these languages are different).

Since you only gave us information about how much German is a world language, I guess my other points are still valid reasons for a blacklist entry. --32X/87.234.91.120 11:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As i say early in this discussion: "This sites listed many years on wikipedia, because they are more than 10 years old. And was linked by many users in this time." And many Wikipedia entries are only translated in other languages in other Wikipedias platforms (incl. pictures, artworks, links and so on). I hope this will help find an answer. There isnt anything against linking policy in wikipedia. Cheers -- User:Kanakura

Check the links and the previous discussion, most of these links were added recently and by one user (2006/2007). And please don't tell me that a user of the Czech or Polish Wikipedia would add a German weblink with a English description. That makes your point even more valueless. --32X/87.234.91.120 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This means you want put a whole website on blacklist, because one enthusiastic SEGA Fan out there? Is this serious? Come one.

This is a little bit like witch hunt from medieval times (?burn all what could maybe spam?) Cheers -- User:Kanakura

Well, maybe you're right here. But as long as regular editors are offended by such actions, a solution is badly needed. (You stil haven't answered to one of the previously mentioned arguments.) --32X/87.234.91.120 11:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Site re-added based on previous discussion. - Andre Engels 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removals: Not done

Latest comment: 16 years ago220 comments55 people in discussion

www.deathcamps.org

Immediately on two en.wiki articles we have inferior replacements now that deathcamps is being blacklisted. You have simply placed the most reliable sources on Sobibor, Majdanek, Treblinka and Belzec off limits. Jd2718 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, there was a whole issue with this website and its competitor (or the copyright violator) being used in edit wars, so both websites were blacklisted from use.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I remember better. There was a dispute between deathcamps.org and death-camps.org each claiming that one copied off of the other. As the dispute was carried over onto Wikipedia, it was decided that to prevent further disruption, neither site can be used on any Wikimedia project. It's fair for us to avoid you guys for using Wikipedia as a battle ground and for you guys not to fight on Wikipedia on who copied who.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, the requester is likely independent of the site. I think deWP has already locally whitelisted the site. As far as I can tell the deathcamps site is the righteous owner. Whether the dust may be considered to have settled yet I wouldn't like to say. 62.73.137.190 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Any updates on this? Looks like deathcamps.org has been around since 2002, but death-camps.org since just October of 2006. --198.107.54.39 17:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done - there has been much debate on this, its not coming off as long as both sites continue to argue over this. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

racetotheright.com

racetotheright.com is not spam. nor, as Raul654 claims[426] is it an "Attack Page." there is no promotion of this site by the owner, or any members of it on wiki foundation sites.--Zeeboid 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(from below)

I have blacklisted this site per [427] Raul654 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Racetotheright.com is not a spam site. I would like to request that this is added inapproperatly, and have it removed. it does not meet the qualifications of a spam site, not even by a longshot. The issue that was braught up by this site is it contains a place where users can log in and discuss wikipedia rule infractions.--Zeeboid 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who can assist with this, or where do I need to go to get this corrected?--Zeeboid 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been blacklisted not for spamming, but because it's an attack site (focusing on individuals who edit primarily on global warming articles) and a staging ground for POV editors bent on inserting their bias into our global warming-related articles. Raul654 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs? your opinion of what an attack site is was never backed up at that refrence you gave[428] as no one was able to answer the question "What do you consider an attack page." I fear this is simply a retalitory attack when attempts to ban others failed. the site isn't even mine, yet you claim it is[429] If you are inaccurate there, claiming improper ownership of a website, then I submit you do not know enough wether or not it is an "Attack Page" it blacklist it here. Could you please assist me in knowing the deffinition of an attack page, so we can work from there, becasue I am under the understanding currently, that it is not an attack page.--Zeeboid 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This has to be right. We shouldn't list sites which launch personal attacks on WP editors. --AndrewCates 08:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks at that site though. Is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs?--Zeeboid 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be resolved soon, as it is not allowing me form editing my talk page.--Zeeboid 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue appears to have been resolved, following removal of a link form your talk page. I see no reason why this request cannot now be closed. JzG 11:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

09 F9 [...] 88 C0

Consensus has been reached that the HD-DVD key itself is encyclopedic information to be included in en:AACS encryption key controversy. A summary of arguments (most taken from the article's talk page) as to why it is valuable and encyclopedic information:

Consensus exists to post the key in the article. This alone should be enough to have it allowed.
The number has been referenced in various media outlets as the "most famous number on the internet." It can be found almost anywhere (1.6 million google search results) but is not in the wikipedia article that focuses on the number and the controversy surrounding it.
It would be a valuable addition to the article. In fact, it is the very subject of the article. If you don't know the number, this article doesn't tell you what it is. Likewise, a person who sees the number in an unconnected context currently has no way of relating it to this article.
It has been widely republished on many other websites across the Internet. This is clear evidence of notability.
Anyone who wants to find the number themselves can easily do so (in fact, it's included on some of the external links). Wikipedia is not making the number any more 'secret' by not publishing it here.
Jimbo Wales himself has confirmed that the Wikimedia Foundation has received no takedown notices or other legal warnings that would forbid Wikipedia from publishing the number (see above).
By not publishing the number Wikipedia allows censhorship to attack Wikipedia and it might harm healthy development of Wikipedia in the future.
It has been shown and published in American television (en:Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#Key_seen_and_spoken_on_Amercian_TV_channel_Current_TV).
The key has been posted on the spanish wikipedia (es:Controversia por la clave cifrado AACS) for nearly a week and its inclusion has been upheld as valid.
The article currently cites numerous pages that include the full key.
The article includes an image (en:Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage before rose blog post screenshot.png) that includes the key numerous times. While there was initially some edit-warring due to this, the storm has settled and the inclusion of the image has been deemed valid.

--Rodzilla (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe someone is actually contacting the AACS for permission to publish the number, I would suggest that we wait a bit, in any case, this spam blacklist is not the blacklist that the number is on. The devs will remove the number when the time is right :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 07:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

While intriguing, that makes no sense, for too many reasons to count. Could you elaborate on who has been contacting the AACS regarding permission, when the contact was made, and what the status of that contact is? 128.12.22.112 11:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it sets a bad precedence to ask permission, and I think we should publish it regardless of how they feel about it. Since when do we let the subject of the article control the content of the page? We can either claim fair use or we can't. J.smith 14:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So can we go ahead and have this removed from the blacklist then? Thanks. --Rodzilla (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, it isn't on the blacklist, it has been blocked by the developers, and meta admins can't change that. Prodego ^Talk 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So how can it be unblocked? --Rodzilla (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done, because it's not a spam blacklist issue. Already with the devs, wait and see. JzG 12:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

gargoyles.dracandros.com

I wish to propose this site, just recently blocked above, for reconsideration. The site is a wiki, pertaining to the television series Gargoyles. It contains relevant information, and could be usefully linked to from pages on the English Wikipedia that are subpages of w:Category:Gargoyles. In particular, the pages "List of Gargoyles characters" and "List of Gargoyles episodes" could benefit from links to GargWiki pages to provide information on characters or episodes only briefly covered in those pages. At least two of the vandals responsible for the inclusion of the site on the blacklist (those editing on Wikipedia) seem to be the same person, and this person's biggest mistake seems to be linking directly to the main page of the site instead of to the appropriate articles. I assume that much of this individual's spamming would end if the appropriate links were included. One instance of vandalism of the separate Gargoyles wiki, http://gargoyles.wikia.com/, while reprehensible, seems to be in response to link spamming by administrators of that second site. Please do not blame the site itself for the actions of a few misguided individuals. (Incidentally, I am both an editor of the English Wikipedia under the name Supermorff, and a moderator of GargWiki under the same name.) -- 4.254.144.51 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just blacklisted this, so I won't say for sure, but I'd like to leave this one on for at least a week. Ask again then. The blacklist is designed to prevent problems like the one above. Perhaps after the members of the group see the "this link is blacklisted" message, they might not do it again when it comes off the blacklist. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is the owner of gargoyles.dracandros.com . Just want to add my two cents; neither I nor any of the administrators of the wiki approved this wikispam. Whoever was responsible for this was at best overzealous, and at worst trying to make our site look bad. Please reconsider having this site on your blacklist. -JEB

It is now one week on, and I am once again requesting that this site be removed from the blacklist. In the meantime, one Wikipedia user has added links to a related site in an apparent attempt to circumvent the blacklisting. I assume that such instances would stop if appropriate links were added to appropriate pages (it seems the blacklisting itself isn't enough). I would like to reiterate that this user is not affiliated with GargWiki (as far as I can tell). A project page decrying link spamming now exists on the wiki, and will be accepted as official policy pending a vote by members. -- (Supermorff) 86.131.16.191 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume you're referring to this [430], [431], [432], [433], [434], [435]. The next logical step would be blacklisting the conduit site, should the spam persist – not taking the other one off the blacklist. Also, sites are not blacklisted only when the people involved in them instigate the linkspamming. They could very well be visitors, fans or anyone who knows and likes the site and wants to use Wikipedia's notability to divulge it. The whole point of blacklisting is to hinder spam by preventing abusive linkage to be saved. Seeing as the blacklisting was circumvented, this indicates that the spam will continue once the site is off the list. Lemmos 21:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you. However, the links this user has added are precisely the ones that should be added once the blacklisting is lifted, except they are (unhelpfully) directed to the wrong place (as was the last spate of links added, which led to the site being blacklisted in the first place). Once these appropriate links are added, there would be no reason for the spamming to continue. -- (Supermorff) 86.131.16.191 08:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"they are (unhelpfully) directed to the wrong place (as was the last spate of links added, which led to the site being blacklisted in the first place)"

"Once these appropriate links are added, there would be no reason for the spamming to continue."

No, the site was blacklisted because several links were added to other articles apart from the main one. I fail so see the logic in your rationale because there was already one link [436] on the subject's main page for a long time before it was blacklisted (11 April 2007). I don't deny the possibility of the spam ceasing, but the attempt of circumvention indicates the contrary. --Lemmos 15:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Take the Wikipedia page on, for example, the character w:Goliath (Gargoyles). GargWiki has a page on Goliath also, containing more specialized information that could clog up the Wikipedia article (I think) if added directly. I honestly believe that a link that directs users to the GargWiki article on Goliath, added to the Wikipedia article on Goliath, would improve the Wikipedia article. And I believe that if such a (helpful) link was to be included, then users would stop adding (unhelpful) links to the GargWiki main page. The same reasoning follows for links on other Wikipedia pages. -- (Supermorff) 86.131.16.191 17:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand the confusion here. The whole reason for blacklisting the site was because editors were adding those links – which you want to include too – on all those articles [437], [438], [439], [440], [441], [442], [443], [444], [445]. That is considered spam, and permitting links to be added merely to oblige whims is not the way to fight spam — blacklisting is. Moreover, you seem certain that once the site is off the blacklist, links will be added to those articles. I’m afraid this is a misconception. Should the site be taken off the blacklist, the links still must meet the requirements of Wikipedia:External links, and being off the blacklist is not enough of a reason. --Lemmos 21:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a bit lost here, this needs off the blacklist for one or a few articles? If so I would consider local whitelisting as an alternitive. Just provide a deeplink (gargoyles.dracandros.com/something), and they should whitelist that deeplink in fairly short order. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the people involved in the blacklisted site want to add their links to every related articles. Those who had attempted to do it, caused disruption and vandalism, which is why it was blacklisted in the first place. --Lemmos 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As a mod at the blacklisted site, please know that we did not ask for anyone to spam on our behalf. I'm sorry it happened. A few months back, I added one link, just one. I didn't delete any other links, I didn't turn my link into an editorial, and it was fine. We have a policy page which discourages this sort of thing. The person who spammed has, is not a mod at the site. To my knowledge, he has contributed nothing to our site. We did not request nor do we condone this kind of behavior. I think it is unfair to blacklist us, because of what a couple of idiots have done. --Greg Bishansky

Right but in any case its a problem right now. Any useage of this link needs to be requested vie local whitelisting. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Lemmos, I feel that the tone of your bulletted comment may have been slightly unfair. Despite this, I have reread the guidelines for External Links on your advice, and I have for the first time noticed point 12 of "Links normally to be avoided": Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. While the precise meaning may be slightly subjective, I suspect links to GargWiki do fall into this category in the eyes of most editors. I am therefore forced to agree that the spamming will likely not cease if the site is taken off the blacklist. We may yet consider local whitelisting, per the advice of Eagle101. I am sorry to have taken up so much of your time. Have a nice day. -- (Supermorff) 86.131.16.191 11:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done, have it locally whitelisted if necessary.--Shanel 23:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ainfos.ca

The \bainfos\.ca filter is removing legitimate links from ainfos.ca (not bainfos.ca). For example, a link was removed from W:Popular Indigenous Council of Oaxaca "Ricardo Flores Magon" today. Further, bainfos.ca doesn't even seem to exist. - 70.145.240.170 13:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

~~done - Thats a bad regex, it was added because it was listed as a url redirect service, and when I did my scan of it manually I thought it was. It is fixed.~~ Actually I take that back this link was actually spammed on multiple wikis by one account. Blacklisting it was the only way to prevent more additions, let me think about it. You may view the problem here. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

why is this site considered as producing spam. ainfos is a discussion list and an article site. --192.188.55.3 01:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See the link given above. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done--Shanel 23:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

ulkerfenerbahce.com

What are you doing ? This site not spam. Sport Club Basketball name Ulkerfenerbahce and fenerbahceulker. (a little speak english) and

Please post in the correct section. Naconkantari 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

here is the reason why its on the blacklist. As this was very recent I recommend against removal. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done--Shanel 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

gelsenkirchen-im-blick.de

Hey, i don't understand, why this Domain is on the Spam blacklist. The Page has no advertisments, is well structured and obtains a lot of Information. It would be nice for me, if somebody gives me some help, how to delete the link from the "Spam blacklist". Best regards, Marcel 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, It was blacklisted due to this. Basically a group of IP addresses, one of them the IP that you are editing from now spammed various foundation sites. The only way to make it stop was vie a blacklisting. As this request and the original spam came from the same IP 217.7.1.116, I'm very weary about removal. I recommend against removal from the blacklist, but I will wait on another meta admin to have a look see. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done--Shanel 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

fisheaters.com

I don't understand, why fisheaters.com is blacklisted. They're not spammers, that's an American site of Traditionalist catholics. I was writing an article for Russian Wikipedia, and wanted to link to an article on this site, but there was the message that the site is blacklisted. Can anyone here explain me, why? Vicza 10:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous debates as follows, although at least some discussion does not seem to have been archived:

en:User:JzG/Fisheaters, contemoraneous summary
enWP spam wikiproject Dec 2005
enWP spam wikiproject March 2006
enWP spam wikiproject Apr 2006
Request: Apr 2006
Added 12 Apr 2006
Removal request 18 Apr 2006, site owner wades in [446], state of debate at closure, briefly unlisted 17 May 2006, relisted 31 May 2006
Reviewed Jun 2006
Reviewed Aug 2006
Reviewed Sep 2006
Reviewed Feb 2007
Related discussion re retaliatory blacklist request

and hello in advance to the site owner who will no doubt be along in a minute as always. Just zis Guy, you know? 21:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, I don't understand. I read in that your article: "dissenting voice", "minority view" and so on. Yes, I know, they are dissent. But it's censorship then! You have banned them just because you disagree with their position. Well, I disagree, too. But what has it to do with Wikipedia? It mustn't be neutral anymore? It mustn't represent different positions? Moreover, the articles you list ("Advent", "All Saints" etc; I, personally, wanted to refer (in my article) to the article about The Sigh of the Cross) -- they are not about their ecclesiastical position. They're about rites. Rite cannot be "dissent", it just rite (though it's not your business, anyway, whether it is dissent or not).

Or, maybe, you can propose me any other site describing pre-Reformian Catholic rites (except for the mass, of course, there are many resources about the mass, but the rite contains not only mass, you know) I could refer to? Do it, then.

Vicza 06:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If the site meets your sourcing guidelines on ruWP (and I'd be interested to see how, given that its editorial board and review policy is unstated), you could ask for local whitelisting of specific content. Most of the facts you need should be available either form vatican.va or sspx.org, I'd have thought. JzG 22:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. There is no such information. So, that's the only site with this kind of info, and you block it just because it contradicts with your beliefs. Nice. Is it you, who pass a final decision, or is there anyone whom I can appeal to?

Vicza 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

...is the wrong answer. This has nothing to do with my beliefs and everything to do with rampant linkspamming by the site owner in the past, coupled with misleading edit summaries and link summaries by some trad Catholics. Read the debates linked above. Now tell me exactly which pages are both unique and authoritative (or are they unique precisely because other sources do not reflect a particular bias, I wonder?). When addressing this question, pay particular attention to the word authoritative - if you want to use it as a source, we need to identify the credentials of the author. JzG 10:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Nothing to do with your beliefs? And what your demand for "authoritative" has to do with spam-fighting? They are not authoritative, I suppose, they are dissent, as you have said before. But I don't write a catechesis, nor a prayerbook, and you are not a censor librorum to give me his Nihil obstat. About pages, I have said you already: these describing pre-Reformian customs. You see, there are traditionalist Catholics, and they have their customs, whether you like it or not. If I describe traditionalist Catholics I refer to their sources, it's logical, isn't it? Vicza 02:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Vicza: Yes, really, nothing to do with my beliefs. My interest in the Roman Catholic church is only tangential. The site was spammed across multiple projects and multiple articles by its owner, so a credible rationale is needed for removing it. "I like it" does not amount to a credible rationale. You could ask for local whitelisting of individual pages if they fulfil your local sourcing requirements, I don't see how they would fulfil the requirements of enWP as per en:WP:ATT, which is why I asked. External links are supporting content only, there would have to be a pressing need to use the site as a source, and that would require that it has some authoritative and unique information. I have yet to see any evidence that this information is authoritative, and what uniqueness it has appears to derive from its dissent from the mainstream. JzG 13:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That site isn't dissenting. The contact page reads, "I believe each and every point of dogma in the Nicene Creed in the same manner the Church has always understood them. I believe each and every solemnly defined dogma ever offered by any Pope or Council, and fully agree with each statement given in Sacrorum Antistitum. I believe Vatican II was a valid, pastoral Ecumenical Council convoked and approbated by true Popes. I believe the documents from the Council were badly and ambiguously written and that said documents need to be interpreted only in light of tradition. I believe that Benedict XVI is the true Pope and that we must pray for him and his Bishops every day. I believe that all Masses offered by validly ordained priests using valid matter, form, and intent, are valid Masses." It is used by catechists in regular parishes, such as those run by the FSSP (that's how I found out about it). KofC

Not done please request local whitelisting of specific pages. Regards —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Please post in the correct section. Naconkantari 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Original listing: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/06#perso.orange.fr.2Fjf.dumousseaux.2C_art-passion.site.voila.fr JzG 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nezumi is a former sysop on the French-language Wikipedia who has been convicted of widespread sockpupettry and abuse. He has alsobeen disseminating links to his various websites. guillom 17:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done, then. No reason to remove a widely spammed site, if it genuinely is that good then ask for local whitelisting of individual pages. I suspect the answer will reflect the fact that the problem originates on frWP. JzG 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

www.gamesff.com / kitzor.net

The reason given for this one is: "Done massive cross wiki spam".

The list give three criteria that all have to hold:

spam - from the case I encountered on fy:Tetris, it does do exactly what is says: points readers of a game pages to a location where the game can be played. SPAM is supposed to be repetitivly present and for the most part useless. I don't see that here.
widespread - this one apparently holds.
unmanageable - from the comment I can see no attempt to "manage" this at all, if there was something to be managed.

This may have been extremely irritating for someone, but all I can see is that a Wikipedian is trying to keep us from offering our readers access to the game they read about. <frowns> Aliter 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Plain and simple, someone was adding the site across multiple wikis, thats called cross wiki spam. It is very hard to manage without blacklisting the domain, as to fix and or deal with you basically have to get an account on every wiki, then sign in, revert etc. So yes the other two did hold :) but please no rules lawyering, if you can give me a solid reason to take it off I am willing to do so, but if it gets inserted again in large numbers again I will have to blacklist the domain again. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually for the time being this is quite activly being added, plus using sneaky ways to not add just the url itself but several new url redirectors. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done per Eagle's comments above: cross-wiki spam plus active additions using sneaky means plus request appears to be from site owners = stays on blacklist. JzG 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

racetotheright.com

i am re-adding this, as the issue has not been resolved, see below racetotheright.com is not spam. nor, as Raul654 claims[447] is it an "Attack Page." there is no promotion of this site by the owner, or any members of it on wiki foundation sites.--Zeeboid 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(from below)

I have blacklisted this site per [448] Raul654 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Racetotheright.com is not a spam site. I would like to request that this is added inapproperatly, and have it removed. it does not meet the qualifications of a spam site, not even by a longshot. The issue that was braught up by this site is it contains a place where users can log in and discuss wikipedia rule infractions.--Zeeboid 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who can assist with this, or where do I need to go to get this corrected?--Zeeboid 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been blacklisted not for spamming, but because it's an attack site (focusing on individuals who edit primarily on global warming articles) and a staging ground for POV editors bent on inserting their bias into our global warming-related articles. Raul654 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs? your opinion of what an attack site is was never backed up at that refrence you gave[449] as no one was able to answer the question "What do you consider an attack page." I fear this is simply a retalitory attack when attempts to ban others failed. the site isn't even mine, yet you claim it is[450] If you are inaccurate there, claiming improper ownership of a website, then I submit you do not know enough wether or not it is an "Attack Page" it blacklist it here. Could you please assist me in knowing the deffinition of an attack page, so we can work from there, becasue I am under the understanding currently, that it is not an attack page.--Zeeboid 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This has to be right. We shouldn't list sites which launch personal attacks on WP editors. --AndrewCates 08:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks at that site though. Is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs?--Zeeboid 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be resolved soon, as it is not allowing me form editing my talk page.--Zeeboid 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue appears to have been resolved, following removal of a link form your talk page. I see no reason why this request cannot now be closed. JzG 11:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Race to the right.com is not a spam site.it doe snot qualify as a spam site in any way, and should not be on this list. there are no personal attacks on the site. No one has answered the question I asked above. "is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs?" Could someone explain to me how it fits otherwise? According to the guidelines, Racetotheright.com is not a spam site

Guidelines:

- Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam.

--Zeeboid 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Outrate.net

Hello. Is it possible to request local whitelisting for the above site? It was blacklisted completely in March, but I discussed with Eagle 101 the possibility of having certain site pages white listed.

Right, on what sites, and what pages? You should have a look at local whitelisting, the key thing is to request deeplinks such as outrate.net/index.php ect. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast response. I've had a look at the local whitelisting page, but am not sure how to suggest inclusion of deep links.

www.167bt.com

It is the website of the software BitSpirit -- 218.189.215.147 07:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Original listing predates archives
Article deleted on enWP under en:WP:CSD#A7.
No obvious reason to remove, so:

Not done per my reasoning above. JzG 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

antu.com

Fenerbahce sport club official supporter site. --Antispam 12:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please post in the correct section. Naconkantari 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Request is here: [451]. I don't find any reference to this "official fansite" on www.fenerbahce.org, which claims to be the official site - is there any evidence of this claim? JzG 16:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done, requester seems to have lost interest. JzG 13:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

racetotheright.com

i am re-adding this, as the issue has not been resolved, see below racetotheright.com is not spam. nor, as Raul654 claims[452] is it an "Attack Page." there is no promotion of this site by the owner, or any members of it on wiki foundation sites.--Zeeboid 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(from below)

I have blacklisted this site per [453] Raul654 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Racetotheright.com is not a spam site. I would like to request that this is added inapproperatly, and have it removed. it does not meet the qualifications of a spam site, not even by a longshot. The issue that was braught up by this site is it contains a place where users can log in and discuss wikipedia rule infractions.--Zeeboid 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who can assist with this, or where do I need to go to get this corrected?--Zeeboid 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been blacklisted not for spamming, but because it's an attack site (focusing on individuals who edit primarily on global warming articles) and a staging ground for POV editors bent on inserting their bias into our global warming-related articles. Raul654 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs? your opinion of what an attack site is was never backed up at that refrence you gave[454] as no one was able to answer the question "What do you consider an attack page." I fear this is simply a retalitory attack when attempts to ban others failed. the site isn't even mine, yet you claim it is[455] If you are inaccurate there, claiming improper ownership of a website, then I submit you do not know enough wether or not it is an "Attack Page" it blacklist it here. Could you please assist me in knowing the deffinition of an attack page, so we can work from there, becasue I am under the understanding currently, that it is not an attack page.--Zeeboid 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This has to be right. We shouldn't list sites which launch personal attacks on WP editors. --AndrewCates 08:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks at that site though. Is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs?--Zeeboid 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be resolved soon, as it is not allowing me form editing my talk page.--Zeeboid 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue appears to have been resolved, following removal of a link form your talk page. I see no reason why this request cannot now be closed. JzG 11:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

{{notdone}} —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Race to the right.com is not a spam site.it doe snot qualify as a spam site in any way, and should not be on this list. there are no personal attacks on the site. No one has answered the question I asked above. "is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs?" Could someone explain to me how it fits otherwise? According to the guidelines, Racetotheright.com is not a spam site

Guidelines:

- Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam.

--Zeeboid 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to another meta sysop. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 12:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done - the stated reasons for delisting are wikilawyering, I think, there is no evidence that the site has any merit as a source and it undoubtedly has been linked inappropriately, and contains or has contained content we simply don't need linked from Wikipedia. JzG 20:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? How does tha fit the blacklist qualifications? Could you show me where sites can be added to a wikipedia blacklist for "Wikilawyering"? If the spam site is for, as it says Only blacklisting for widespread, unmanageable spam, then Racetotheright.com does not qualify by any means. If someone wants to try to add it as an attack site, then i want to know, as has not been answered for me by anyone thus far, what your deffinitino of an "attack site" is and how racetotheright.com qualifies. You can clearly go to racetotheright.com and see what it is and what it isnt. Does anyone have any examples of spam sent from this site? Anything?

In your opinion the site has no merrit, but we all have opinions, and opinions are often not factual. If I understand correctly, JzG:

Racetotheright.com is being added to the wiki Spam Blacklist because you don't think "the site has any merit as a source and you believe it "has contained content we simply don't need linked from Wikipedia"

Is that accurate? Is that what the Spam Blacklist is for?--Zeeboid 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me an article that this site would be useful in? Right now this site is more of a problem then a help for foundation projects. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Two questions: 1. Where is there a requirement that a site has to be 'useful' in an article to remain off of the Black list? 2. What problem is the website causing? I refrenced above it being added as an attack page, of which is still not spam, but there are no attack pages on the site anyway. Your request for "an article that this site would be useful in" is unanswerable. your opinion of what "useful" could verry from mine or someone elses, but the fact that it does not allow the addation of this site on talk pages should be enough. as many many wiki editors link to sites for things they do, in my case, assist with a radio show. keeping me from putting this on my talk page, becasue of a false claim that this site sends out "widespread, unmanageable spam" is completly false. Perhaps If anyone can find an attack page on the site, then it could be argued why an attack page counts or does not count as Spam (sends widespread, unmanageable spam) site.--Zeeboid 15:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it incorrect to conclude that if sites are only to be blacklisted "for widespread, unmanageable spam."... and this site does not send out any spam, then it should not be blacklisted?--Zeeboid 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all links on this list are on here because of spam. Thats the reason why 90% of the links are on here, but we do blacklist other non-spam links simply for being disruptive. Take encyclopediadrmatica, or the whole deathcamps and death-camps deal. If there is no links that are actually useful on any of our foundation sites (ie, wikisource, wikibooks, wikipedia, wikinews, ect), why should we allow it if its only causing problems? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 12:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid, what you are doing here is simply wikilawyering. All Wikimedia Foundation projects run, fundamentally, on Clue, not on hard-and-fast rules. Sure, we have a rule that says this, generally, is what X feature is for, but there is certainly nothing to stop any feature being used to prevent an abuse of the project - the main regex filter has been used in the past to prevent mass posting of certain text; there's no policy that says it can be, but that's what happens, because we're not in the legal business, we're trying to run a series of projects with minimum fuss and not enough admins. The spam blacklist exists primarily to prevent widespread unmanageable spam, but there are several sites that have been added to stop other specific problems, including deliberate, calculated privacy violations, linking to attack pages and the like. The rule exists in part to dissuade people from asking for blacklisting to fix narrow or easily-contained issues, problems that can be managed by semiprotection, for example, or by banning a spammer. So, to reiterate the perfectly reasonable question asked above: where do you think links to this site, which has previously caused a problem, would be appropriate? Are there specific pages you think would be appropriate? JzG 12:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

gerodot.ru

It is not completely understandable, why during the arrangement of reference to our site, reveals communication about SPAM. Our site is dedicated to history, and there cannot be SPAM.

Not done err... what do you mean? I was able to add the link here. I don't think this url is even on the blacklist. Please check, thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 11:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

refspace.com

I don't know why this got blacklisted. It's a good site for quotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch linked to that site, which prevented any edits from working. 68.237.195.220 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed that problem. Here's the original request: [456]. JzG 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

well, you deleted the link. my question was why it was blacklisted. and from what you posted, it's because a user spammed wikipedia with that link some time ago.

Correct on both counts. JzG 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

racetotheright.com

i am re-adding this again, as the issue has not been resolved, see below racetotheright.com is not spam. nor, as Raul654 claims[457] is it an "Attack Page." there is no promotion of this site by the owner, or any members of it on wiki foundation sites.--Zeeboid 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(from below)

I have blacklisted this site per [458] Raul654 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Racetotheright.com is not a spam site. I would like to request that this is added inapproperatly, and have it removed. it does not meet the qualifications of a spam site, not even by a longshot. The issue that was braught up by this site is it contains a place where users can log in and discuss wikipedia rule infractions.--Zeeboid 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who can assist with this, or where do I need to go to get this corrected?--Zeeboid 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been blacklisted not for spamming, but because it's an attack site (focusing on individuals who edit primarily on global warming articles) and a staging ground for POV editors bent on inserting their bias into our global warming-related articles. Raul654 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs? your opinion of what an attack site is was never backed up at that refrence you gave[459] as no one was able to answer the question "What do you consider an attack page." I fear this is simply a retalitory attack when attempts to ban others failed. the site isn't even mine, yet you claim it is[460] If you are inaccurate there, claiming improper ownership of a website, then I submit you do not know enough wether or not it is an "Attack Page" it blacklist it here. Could you please assist me in knowing the deffinition of an attack page, so we can work from there, becasue I am under the understanding currently, that it is not an attack page.--Zeeboid 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This has to be right. We shouldn't list sites which launch personal attacks on WP editors. --AndrewCates 08:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks at that site though. Is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs?--Zeeboid 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

- :::::::This needs to be resolved soon, as it is not allowing me form editing my talk page.--Zeeboid 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue appears to have been resolved, following removal of a link form your talk page. I see no reason why this request cannot now be closed. JzG 11:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

{{notdone}} —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Race to the right.com is not a spam site.it doe snot qualify as a spam site in any way, and should not be on this list. there are no personal attacks on the site. No one has answered the question I asked above. "is the black list to be used for blocking pages that list wikipedia diffs?" Could someone explain to me how it fits otherwise? According to the guidelines, Racetotheright.com is not a spam site

Guidelines:

- Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam.

--Zeeboid 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to another meta sysop. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 12:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

{{not done}} - the stated reasons for delisting are wikilawyering, I think, there is no evidence that the site has any merit as a source and it undoubtedly has been linked inappropriately, and contains or has contained content we simply don't need linked from Wikipedia. JzG 20:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? How does tha fit the blacklist qualifications? Could you show me where sites can be added to a wikipedia blacklist for "Wikilawyering"? If the spam site is for, as it says Only blacklisting for widespread, unmanageable spam, then Racetotheright.com does not qualify by any means. If someone wants to try to add it as an attack site, then i want to know, as has not been answered for me by anyone thus far, what your deffinitino of an "attack site" is and how racetotheright.com qualifies. You can clearly go to racetotheright.com and see what it is and what it isnt. Does anyone have any examples of spam sent from this site? Anything?

In your opinion the site has no merrit, but we all have opinions, and opinions are often not factual. If I understand correctly, JzG:

Racetotheright.com is being added to the wiki Spam Blacklist because you don't think "the site has any merit as a source and you believe it "has contained content we simply don't need linked from Wikipedia"

Is that accurate? Is that what the Spam Blacklist is for?--Zeeboid 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me an article that this site would be useful in? Right now this site is more of a problem then a help for foundation projects. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 10:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Two questions: 1. Where is there a requirement that a site has to be 'useful' in an article to remain off of the Black list? 2. What problem is the website causing? I refrenced above it being added as an attack page, of which is still not spam, but there are no attack pages on the site anyway. Your request for "an article that this site would be useful in" is unanswerable. your opinion of what "useful" could verry from mine or someone elses, but the fact that it does not allow the addation of this site on talk pages should be enough. as many many wiki editors link to sites for things they do, in my case, assist with a radio show. keeping me from putting this on my talk page, becasue of a false claim that this site sends out "widespread, unmanageable spam" is completly false. Perhaps If anyone can find an attack page on the site, then it could be argued why an attack page counts or does not count as Spam (sends widespread, unmanageable spam) site.--Zeeboid 15:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it incorrect to conclude that if sites are only to be blacklisted "for widespread, unmanageable spam."... and this site does not send out any spam, then it should not be blacklisted?--Zeeboid 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all links on this list are on here because of spam. Thats the reason why 90% of the links are on here, but we do blacklist other non-spam links simply for being disruptive. Take encyclopediadrmatica, or the whole deathcamps and death-camps deal. If there is no links that are actually useful on any of our foundation sites (ie, wikisource, wikibooks, wikipedia, wikinews, ect), why should we allow it if its only causing problems? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 12:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid, what you are doing here is simply wikilawyering. All Wikimedia Foundation projects run, fundamentally, on Clue, not on hard-and-fast rules. Sure, we have a rule that says this, generally, is what X feature is for, but there is certainly nothing to stop any feature being used to prevent an abuse of the project - the main regex filter has been used in the past to prevent mass posting of certain text; there's no policy that says it can be, but that's what happens, because we're not in the legal business, we're trying to run a series of projects with minimum fuss and not enough admins. The spam blacklist exists primarily to prevent widespread unmanageable spam, but there are several sites that have been added to stop other specific problems, including deliberate, calculated privacy violations, linking to attack pages and the like. The rule exists in part to dissuade people from asking for blacklisting to fix narrow or easily-contained issues, problems that can be managed by semiprotection, for example, or by banning a spammer. So, to reiterate the perfectly reasonable question asked above: where do you think links to this site, which has previously caused a problem, would be appropriate? Are there specific pages you think would be appropriate? JzG 12:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what I am diong is trying to get an improperly added page removed. "Wikilawyering" is a claim oftenused when one side is correct, and the other side does not wish to budge. The Racetotheright.com website was added inaccuratly, by what I consider to be retailitory, and does not send out spam... so should not be on the Blacklist page for sending spam. There is nothing in Wikimedia that states a site that is not useful should be blacklisted for spam... if there is, show it to me. If not, please remove this site from the Spam blacklist. This should be enough for removal. If not, I would like this site added to my talk page, as it is a site I associate with, and its blacklisting prevents this. --Zeeboid 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If the "Spam Blacklist" guideline says "Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam. " and you do not follow this guideline, then what respect can one have for any wiki-policy? From what I can tell, if the blacklist was not for blacklisting sites people don't find usefull, the phrase would not be so direct. Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam.--Zeeboid 14:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid, please read the responses above, this list is and will be used for other purposes when it is deemed needed, go talk to raul about this if you feel it is such an issue. If you would like to have one specific page whitelisted for use on your userpage, you may request local whitelisting no guarantee though. Please note this is the meta wiki, not the english wiki. Oh... and by the way... have you managed to reply to my question yet? Is there a use for this site? If there is not one use for this site on any of the foundation sites I'm hesitant to remove it as all it has done is cause problems. Foundation sites are not for soapboxing. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read the responces above. I have replied to your quesiton of "is there a use for this site?" and I asked if that was what this blacklist was for, because the single guideline that I can see states Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam. Either Take Racetotheright off the Spam Blacklist (as it does not send spam), Change the guideline to say something like "Spam and things we don't feel are useful Blacklist" or lets have this taken up by someone else. I do not understand how the one guideline when it comes to the Spam Blacklist can't be followed. If you are unwilling to follow this one guideline, then what respect does any wikipedia editor have for any guidelines? Asking "what use does this have" is like telling someone in who was cleared of wrongdoing in prison that he can't be let go because you are not sure what he could contribute. So, Eagle101, If you are not giong to remove this Non-Spamming site from the Spam Blacklist, and I disagree completly with that opinion, then where do we need to go to get this settled?--Zeeboid 17:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Look if you can't even name one use of the site, and all its causing are problems, then please quit wikilawyering. Plain and simple, the removal of this site has been rejected by not one, but two other meta sysops other then Raul. So a total of 3 sysops think this should stay. This place runs on clue. When and if the site quits being disruptive, we will remove it. Please remember this is not wikipedia, this is the meta wiki. That time is not now. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 14:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I (another sysop) also agree to this, and I'm disturbed by how deperate you are to have it removed. This is wikilawyering and disruptive. Majorly (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this is trying to follow the single guideline of Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam. Could you assist in changing the guideline then to say Whatever else we don't think is useful? I have told you, that I want to have this link on my Userpage, and its incorrect addation to a widespread, unmanageable spam blacklist is keeping me from doing so. no one here has been able to explain to me how it fits within the single guideline. and is it Wikimedia's policy to blacklist things that are simply not "useful" in someone's opinion?--Zeeboid 21:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am disturbed that the instruction clearly says Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam. yet we have administrators saying "Oh, and things that we feel are not useful too." Because, if thats what it was realy for, it would say it allong with the one current guideline, wouldn't it? Since guidelines seam to be an issue, I have also opened up discussion here at the Spam blacklist policy discussion.--Zeeboid 21:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid, you are just plain annoying. It's obvious you don't even read other people's comments and just keep on whinning like a broken record. Try and think a bit about this: The Spam Blacklist includes pages which a) don't add aynthing significant to Wikipedia and b) have been spam-linked too on numerous occasions. What this means is that a page won't be added to the list if it's useful and a few people are abusing it, it will be added if there's nothing Wikipedia can gain from it.

Maybe this example will help you understand: You are the owner of a successful, friendly pub. People come to your pub to have a drink with friends, talk and enjoy. One day, someone walks into your pub and breaks a chair, threatens some guests and has to be removed by the police. He's given a warning but, since he didn't actually harm anyone phisically, he can't be prosecuted. As the owner of the bar, though, you can chose and prohibit him from entering your pub again until he becomes a friendly (or, at least, normal) guest which has a drink or two and doesn't cause trouble. Then, his lawyer calls you and says that because his client didn't hurt anyone while in your pub, he can't be banned from your pub. You tell him to prove that his client can behave in a normal manner and you will be happy to have him in your pub. He doesn't agree, though, and just keeps saying: my client didn't hurt anyone while in your pub, so he can't be banned over and over again. How far do you think this will bring him? Exactly, nowhere, as you care more about pub than some weird lawyer.

Maybe you should try argumenting what you say. Just a suggestion. (PS: I'm not registered here but I'm an admin of the Slovene Wikipedia.)

Not done, and editor blocked for obsessive wikilawering Naconkantari 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

ezinearticles.com

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

Take a look at:

Where you see a copyright violation cited on a talk page, in most cases, it's been the ezinearticles.com contributor submitting the same text from his article, then linking back to it.

Sample cross-wiki spamming:

Previous discussions:

While I did not propose blacklisting, I think it's probably a good idea. As an alternative, I've tried to pursue a more careful strategy of evaluating ezinearticles.com links and articles one-by-one and removing "surgically" over the last several months. In my experience, we're accumulating them faster than I've been able to delete them this way. Furthermore, I've read perhaps 75 to 100 of these articles and not found one that met our requirements as a reliable source. There is no editorial supervision of article quality. If you research the company, you'll find that this is all about search engine marketing (see en:User talk:V9designbuild.com). The article writer gets a link with some "Google-love" (an increase in page rank). Ezinearticles.com gets Google ad revenue. Readers get something that anyone could have submitted (including your 10-yar old or the used car salesman down the street).

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's disconcerting, as SMcCandlish pointed out, for editors to encounter the blacklist filter while trying to edit a page that contains a blacklisted link. Typically, the person requesting blacklisting will delete or at least disable existing links across various wikipedias before blacklisting. I guess this did not happen with this request.

I have gone ahead and cleaned up links on the following wikipedias:

Can someone else help clean up en.wikipedia?

en:Special:Linksearch/*.ezinearticles.com

--A. B. ^(talk) 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I concede that too much of the ezinearticles material is junk, and am no longer opposed to the blacklisting. I will take up the W:Cue sport and W:William A. Spinks artcles' needs at W:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done, request withdrawn. Naconkantari 16:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

blog.myspace.com

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

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

xrl.us

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

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

ruswar.com

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

Any other reason? Spam in this case is not a subject, but rather a verb. Things go on this list because the site owner attempted to promote his own site across foundation sites. As I did the original blacklisting, someone else can look into this, but I recommend against blacklisting. If there is a specific use of the site use deeplinking (ie ruswar.com/something). You can request that specific pages be allowed vie local whitelisting. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The content is war photography which would fit perfectly on the war photography site. But perhaps local blacklisting would be a good idea, if there's something specific there isn't okay.Isakk 09:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated you may request local whitelisting. 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done, use Local whitelisting. Naconkantari 19:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

tutorialspoint.com

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

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

--

I have found this site very informative for all software developers. The tutorials available on this sites are really very simple, clear and easy to understand. This site would work great for freshers ( new in software industry ) to understand the latest technology and to cope up with the market.

I dont think this site should be blacklisted. So I also recommend to move this site out of blacklist.

Thanks,

Paul

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

amit Hi,

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

Mohtashim for TutorialsPoint.com

original report: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/03#tutorialspoint.com JzG 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi JzG!

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

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

Best Regards Mohtashim for TutorialsPoint.com

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

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

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

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

Best Regards Mohtashim

Hi,

I'm still waiting for your kind response.

Best Regards Mohtashim

Looks like w3schools is having any admin available in WIKI's team otherwise why you find their page on each page and yes you are right what you have found is definitely a cross spamming and should not be allowed on wikibut its allowed to w3schools.com and I told you the reason. They have blacklisted tutorialspoint because I had added its link on a spanish page and that was by mistake. i don't see any other reason to blacklist tutorialspoint. Anyway, there is no point in requesting again and again....I'm sorry for your site it was banned because of me. Don't worry Mohtashim keep doing good work and one day you will get result. S.S.

Not done Naconkantari 19:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

tutorialspoint

Hi Admin! Could you please look into my request and recommendations from others to remove my site from blacklist. I'm still positive because I did not do any mistake so I should come out of it.

Requesting you to remove my site from blacklist.

Regards Mohtashim

Not done, see above section. Naconkantari 19:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

wannasurf.com

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

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

Here's the original request: [461]. JzG 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done Naconkantari 19:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

fremderfreiheitsschacht.de

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

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

Not done Naconkantari 19:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cais-soas.com

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

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

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

additional discussion on this domain:

Accidently blocked by \bcais-soas\.com ?

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

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

This is also the subject of an OTRS complaint, please don't do anything with this just yet. JzG 12:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, this is not mistakenly blacklisted, the site was blacklisted by Dmcdevit due to this ANI report on the english wikipedia. The ANI report can be found here. This is not a mistaken blacklisting. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot restore the CAIS link in the Hashtgerd article either - CAN SOMEONE WITH ACCESS PLEASE REMOVE CAIS FROM THE SPAM LIST PLEASE??? I HAVE TALKED TO USER "BETACOMMAND" ON WIKIPEDIA ABOUT THIS, SINCE HE APPEARS TO BE INVOLVED IN THE BLOCK - HE HAS NOT RESPONDED TO ME AT ALL! Mehrshad123 22:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done, pending OTRS review. Naconkantari 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ishipress.com/royalfam

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

I wasn't aware Sam Sloan was considered an authority for this subject. JzG 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not done Naconkantari 19:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Blogs

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

Yup. Very few, if any, blogs qualify as sources, and this block came from the very top (Jimbo). JzG 20:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I have realized about this block when editing an article were this URL had been included. I write this line in order to state my support and gratefulness for this block. en:Rjgodoy 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

1. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/02#blog.myspace.com

2. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/02#Talk.3AReparative_therapy

3. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/02#blog_dot_myspace_dot_com

4. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/03#Adfunk_spam_on_Wikipedia

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Feb#Adfunk_spam_on_Wikipedia

6. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#MySpace_Blogs

7. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04#Contents

8. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/05#Contents

9. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist

10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist

11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Ffirerescuelieut

12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Fblaqkaudio_and_blog.myspace.com.2Ftigerarmy

13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Fkylecease

14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Userspace_wuotan_blog_link

15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Fmarthajonesuk

16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Disinformation_myspace_blog

17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Femorangers

18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2Fmikebennion

19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#schoolofart

20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#ezinearticles.com

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

Not done, use Local whitelisting. Naconkantari 19:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

omninternet.com

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

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

Not done Naconkantari 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

group-games.com

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

Not done Naconkantari 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gemisimo.com

Hi, I am the owner of this new site that has only been up for maybe a month and I am unsure who and how this happen but can I please be removed out of this list... it would really hurt my credibility in front of my clients this was not done by any person from my organization and i am shocked to see it here! I am willing to talk to anyone so you can verify the integrity of the business. We are new and we do not want such bad names especially when we did not do such a thing. Thanks and I hope you understand my position and sorry for this ridiculous abuse of wikipedia's resources 67.159.44.138 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This IP address (67.159.44.138) is blocked on en.wikipedia as an open proxy. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not an IT person I do not understand all these terms, I talked to our IT people and they are checking it (they said the provider might use this proxy). I think such a blacklist is a must but what can you do when someone abuses your site just to hurt it while it is not a person from within your organization and is not employed by the organization? Should I just cope the mess that was done? How can I take care of it? 84.228.33.32 07:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This link does not meet our requirements for inclusion (see this External Links Guideline) so I don't see why it should come off the blacklist or be included in any Wikipedia articles. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory -- would any other encyclopedia use this link? As for who added the link. I'd look within your own company; looking at whois and traceroute information, the spammer and yourself both use the same ISP and from within the same node on their system. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That is fair enough and I did not want the site to be on wikipedia in the first place, currently as you say there is nothing on it to and does not meet the requirements as I said it is new and I do not want the listing of the site here hurting my efforts to promote the site from an SEO perspective. All I want is for the domain name not to be listed on this page and if you still want to list it that is fine but please use the ip and not the domain name, would that be acceptable? I really do not want to hurt the site before it was even officially launched due to some silly actions of one of the employees that was not aware he might damage the site 84.228.33.32 18:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Can the site be removed from the list due to the reasons above? Help anyone... 84.228.33.32 20:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A. B., like he said, blacklisting is in fact a little bit more than just not being able to link to it on Wikipedia. As this list is public, they are now listed as a bad site. I think we should assume good faith on this one - that perhaps this user, or owner, was unaware of such a spamming effort. The worse thing that can happen is that they will spam again, we revert it, and permanently blacklist this time. "Not meeting our requirements for inclusion" does not equate to "blacklisting". Wikidan829 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this and A. B. and myself are in agreement about this but as he told me on his ^(talk), he is not an admin and can not revert the blacklisting, we would need someone here to agree with what has been said to be able to help us out. As Wikidan829 said if this happen again you could just blacklist the domain for good unless it has useful information to offer wikipedia, Thanks for the understanding. 84.228.33.32 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reflected further on our exchanges and I'm not sure that we can do this. The blacklist filters work on domain name, not IP. Also, IPs change as domain owners change hosting services. Finally, we still need some sort of record for the future as to why this link was blacklisted and what the history was -- volunteers come and go. It's not clear how we can help 84.228.33.32 while we still meet Wikipedia's needs (which I think should come first in our considerations).

I think it would be useful to get input from some experienced Meta admin.--A. B. ^(talk) 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you probably already know, since you posted it :) but here is the diff for the request to add it. I don't see a reason to doubt his story, and wonder if the site, either domain or IP, should really be blacklisted. Someone went on a spam spree on a single day, it's not like they're a repeat offender, which I think is the criteria for being blacklisted anyway. It doesn't even look like a bot did it(I could be wrong). Someone just didn't know better. Wikidan829 21:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The first line on the content page says "Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam." While yes, they did do cross wiki spam, it was nothing that editors on each didn't or couldn't revert, it's not like they readded it 15 times on each one, and now that someone who represents this webpage is on this, it's not likely that this behavior will repeat. Wikidan829 21:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Extensive cross-wiki spamming is considered unmanageable and is normally blacklisted immediately.

I think the open proxy IP (67.159.44.138) used to initiate this request may deter most admins from honoring the request, especially since it traceroutes to Chicago, not Israel. Admins normally see open proxy use as a sign of bad faith barring some unusual explanation (editing with in a totalitarian environment, etc.) --A. B. ^(talk) 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at what has been done if we may, as Wikidan829 said he was correct at saying that one person and not a bot did this silly cross-wiki spamming, which was stupid and the person that initiated this was dealt with accordingly. Regardless of the open proxy IP, which was foolish on my account (I stupidly listened to one of our IT people but I should have done it my as I am doing now), I still think there is no reason to blacklist the domain due to a one-off action. You could all give us one chance to redeem ourselves and we can assure you such silly actions will never take place again. Thanks for the discussion and understanding. 84.228.33.32 22:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the admin but I would be in support in giving this domain a second chance. On the surface, it seems that they just can't put links on Wikimedia anywhere. Going a little deeper, they're a publicly blacklisted domain on the 9th highest traffic(per Alexa as of this posting) site on the Internet, which is a little more damaging. I don't think this company would be so foolish to spam again. The end result is easily reversible, and they'll just get blacklisted again. It would just be a waste of their time. Wikidan829 00:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done, use Local whitelisting. Naconkantari 19:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

tvrage.com

I was trying to add a link to tvrage guide in a non-English show and it told me that this TV site is blacklisted. I'm quite curious why??? I was browsing through this blacklist archive and read that this site is not worthful and is just some kind of a shadow in place of imdb.com and tv.com. I must disagree with this statement, because I found really many non-English TV shows on tvrage that are not on tv.com and sometimes even on imdb.com.. e.g. Slovak show Susedia, or Russian nu-pogodi, French Helene et les garcons, etc... Is there any relevant reason to keep it in blacklist when it is a good source at least for non-English shows? LPguy 14:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest trying to get individual pages with this domain locally "whitelisted" on the Wikipedia where you wish to use it. I see no way it's going to get off the WikiMedia-wide global blacklist given the history of abuse on en.wikipedia and it.wikipedia:

Link-spam archives:

Disruptive behaviour:

en:User talk:Maria01 -- one-edit SPA
en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVrage.com
Flooded with anonymous IPs pushing to keep
en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination)
- en:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination)
- en:User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/5#TVRage.com
  - Complaints to AfD-closing admin and accusations of conspiracies among Wikipedia admins
en:User talk:Renata3/archive4#TVRage.com
en:User talk:Renata3/archive6
en:User:JohnQ.Public -- note Wikipedia philosophy
- This is a TVrage.com rep based on comment left at en:User talk:Renata3/archive4#TVRage.com (including accusations of conspiracy, etc.)
- en:User talk:JohnQ.Public -- long history on talk page culminating in a block
- en:Talk:Heroes (TV series)/Archive 5#TVRage.com Link:
  - "It's not spam you jackass. If you're going to act like a little God-King and delete it because you don't like it, I'll request Admin intervention."
en:User talk:Jtrost/Archive1#Tv.com -- rant from anon IP who was introducing negative POV material against TV.com
- en:User talk:67.161.252.235
Canvassing from a tvrage.com person:
- en:User talk:Eatcacti
- en:User talk:Marcus2#TVRage
en:User:Jacobmartin - user page with nothing but a plug for TVrage.com. User has no edits
en:User talk:84.91.31.192#Your edit to TVRage
en:User talk:Jacoplane/archive2#Deleted Votes -- marginally civil complaint from 67.166.122.233
- en:User talk:67.166.122.233

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done per A. B. Naconkantari 19:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but I still don't understand it because as I see (in list above) the problems were made by individuals who should be punished when they break the rules by spamming. This case may happen to whatever other site. I think that individuals should be punished for they bad behavior and sites should be blacklisted because they contain something bad that may decrease the quality of wikipedia, and individual links removed when they are bad, or am I wrong? I thought that wikipedia is here to provide quality information.. or there are any standards that the website must meet in order to be allowed in wikipedia's external links? Currently I see only imdb.com and tv.com and exceptionally other links. Could you link me to any such article here in wiki that describes these standards for allowing external links, please? I just want to understand how it really works on wikipedia, so I won't have to waste my time :) Thanks

LPguy 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Telefanatic.com - Site registered as spam that is not spam

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

Not done, please see Local whitelisting. Naconkantari 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

http://oseculoprodigioso . blogspot . com

In the german Wikipedia is an article on "Andreas Feininger". Therein a is link http://oseculoprodigioso . blogspot.com/2007/01/feininger-andreas-fotografia.html I am not able to save the article with this link active. Instead of the saved article I get a page "Spamschutzfilter". I think the link is harmless. Please remove the link from the black-list. I even couldn't save this, so I wrotw the address with blanks to be able to write and save this message.

Please contact me in the german Wikipedia under: [Frank C. Müller].

fcm

Not done, please see Local whitelisting. Naconkantari 15:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

brookesbedroom.ca, josiemodel.ca

Please don't list brookesbedroom.ca and josiemodel.ca as spam sites, they're not. No reason to blacklist. --Occuron 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

See:

These warnings: User talk:Occuron^[462][463]
Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/05#brookesbedroom.ca, josiemodel.ca
en:Special:Contributions/Jaynax; sample edit summary:
- "Spambot adding links to external sites; automated bot run by User:Willy On Wheels"
en:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the site is unlikely to be spammed again, that was ages ago, it seems unlikely they'll post the links again. --66.103.16.15 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are additional sites, not blacklisted (and with no Wikipedia links), that are also affiliated with AvenueBlue.net to watch for in the future:

AmyStyles.ca
AurorasWorld.ca
CourtneysCorner.ca
DominiquesDen.com
GirlsUnite.ca
GirlsUnited.ca
Jenni.ca
Lanie.ca
LindseyMarshal.ca
Nndirectory.com
nnemily.com
SamanthaModel.ca
Staci.ca
Tara19.com
VickiModel.ca

--A. B. ^(talk) 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done. Past problems, and no reason advanced why we would ever want to link these sites. A. B., yes, if there is the slightest evidence of spamming of those other sites please bring them back here. JzG 21:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

amojoo.com

Dear Sir or Madam, we have no idea why our domain amojoo.com is blacklisted on your site (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist). We just wanted to add our company profile and found out that our Domain is blacklisted. We also do not know where (on which pages) our Domain appears on wikipedia.

If you do not which us to put our company profile on Wikipedia due to the nature of our site, that will be fine with us (although we also find Playboy and others). But at least please remove our Domain form your blacklist filter as well as on pages we do not know residing on wikipedia.org .

Thank you very much Michael J. amojoo, LLC

See Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04/Additions: Done#www.amojoo.com. This link was also spammed to multiple other Wikipedias. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done - as A. B. shows, quite recent serious spam. - Andre Engels 08:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

freemasonrywatch.org

This is not a spam website, it is a website critical of a subject that has been referred to widely, including The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and a number of books. I believe the site was placed here on urging of members of the organization that is being criticized and should not be included here.24.68.249.225 21:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It was placed here because it was spammed by the blocked fringe conspiracy theory POV-pusher Lightbringer and his/her 80+ sockpuppets as per previous discussions. Redirects created to bypass the blacklisting were also blocked. You (or someone else who just happens to have a Shaw Cable IP address from Victoria, BC just like yours) have already demanded unlisting of the site amidst accusations of Masonic censorship. The demands were refused then, and I'm afraid nagging doesn't do much good around here. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done No chance. The site has nothing to recommend it as a source and has been extensively spammed by a serial abuser of the project. JzG 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

pwinsider.com

I don't see anything spammy about it. Several articles use it as a reference. 71.177.248.11 20:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

See:

And also:

--A. B. ^(talk) 12:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done per A. B. - no evidence this is one of Barber's joe jobs. JzG 21:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tvrage

A lot of the information for The Life and Times of Juniper Lee Wikipedia article was taken from Tvrage.com. I do not think it is fair to not site it as a source.

Debates:

This request is no different form the others, no rationale for removal is given and evidence of past problems, so:

Not done. Even local whitelisting is not appropriate, as it does not appear to be a reliable source per policy. JzG 21:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Gemisimo.com

This is a second request to remove our site from wikipedia's blacklist here is the previous discussion, which no real consensus was achieved but the site remained on the list. This is the short reasoning on our request: this spamming was done by a silly worker in our SEO department thinking this would help improve our new site. Once I as the owner realized what he did I started communicating with wikipedia here. This was a one time mistake and will never happen again, our site is a new legitimate venture and this is really hurting our efforts all for a stupid employee's mistake and I agree the site does not meet the requirement for external linking. All we are asking for is a second chance, moreover on the blacklist at the top wikipedia states "- Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam." I think it is obvious we are not widespread and we did not use a bot to do this as it was done by one person who thought he was being assertive in doing so. Also, I think we are very well managed spam because we will never do this again and we know the stakes as well as wikipedia can always blacklist us if such a thing happens again (but it won't). Thanks for your consideration 83.130.44.203 13:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Not done. Original report shows rampant spamming, requesting IP has the same ISP. Enough said. JzG 20:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Additions: Done

scpanel.net

xshorturl.info

ChrisMorris.ws spam on Wikipedia

clix.to, clik.to, devoted.to

crocsclub.com

offensive blog

searchtravel.biz/countrylist/italy.php

youtube.ag

URL redirectors

Meatspin mirrors

anti2ch.blog61.fc2.com, arvel7aico.btblog.jp

www.lg-sl.net

Carandbikeforum/Autocrust

ffconsultancy.com

AdvisorsDirectory.com spam

art.lojadeluxo.com

YoungSikhs.net spam

More spam after a completed blacklisting

childrensangelflight.org/images -- hijacked subdomain

arabti.com

David Ben-Ariel articles

tarjan.uw.hu - crosswiki spam

www.englandandenglishhistory.com

skimall.net

scpanel.com

en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily for May 2007

hoodiagordoniiplus.com

etclinic.com, Crocs Club and mobiWays spam

26 Boyko spam domains

andorraz.org and kwfm.net spam

luketheking.2page.de / luketheking.zweipage.de

dui-trix.com

sigord.blogfa.com

pargatravel.eu

tourismindochina.com spam

dlel.2s2s.com

italy-lowcost.com

36 crosswiki spam domains

Websites owned by sockpuppeteer

110 more deep crosswiki spam domains

commercial site that spams his link

Sockpuppet spamming

Wrestlingobserver.com

yamour.com

datasheet4u.com mirrors

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

philosopedia.org

mysh-game.de

compact.exe.su

gobacolod com

way.to, up.to

web2earn.com spam

acdc-forum.de

all-usajobs.com

clogsclub.com

voobys.com

gemisimo.com

didimrehberim.com spam

www.webalice.it/pigionantialfio

Ecemaml.com and es.geocities.com/wikipedia_bibliotecarios

globaljihad.net

npizlog.org.yu

dailyyoutubeblog.blogspot.com

greenlandtravel.com

"Sleep in Lecce"

it-aly.com + others

hour.ws

wainscoting.info spam

ostuni.tv

TopQuest Investment Group spam

More Attila Uyanik spam

allstarnba.es

truehealthy.com

www.gamegoldspace.com

010897078278572180631

mergerinvesting.com

look-for-albania.com

datasheet4u.com mirrors #2

ethanol-news.de

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