MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed Additions

wargs.com

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

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

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


horizonpress.com

For logging purposes. See [1]

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


boydabloc.blogspot.com

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

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

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

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



Cafepress

buddhabihar.com

buddhabihar.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.com

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

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

Picking up chicks and lobsters

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

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


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


Accounts


Reference

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talkcontribs) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sotheby's real estate spam on Wikipedia

Cheesy:

Spam domains


Spam account

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talkcontribs) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Greektionary.com and bouzoukidvd.com spam

Spam domains
  • Google Adsense ID: 3392002598145138
Account

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talkcontribs) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talkcontribs) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Financemanila.net

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

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

More "Mesothelioma Entrepreneurship" spam

au-answers.com is already blacklisted:

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

Still another site is also redirect:

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talkcontribs) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wavetowake spam on Wikipedia

Spam account


Spam domains


Related domains

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 22:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talkcontribs) 02:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

CVDB.pk spam

Spam accounts


Domain


Spam article

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talkcontribs) 02:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

donateiphone.blogspot spam

Spam domain


Spam account

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talkcontribs) 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



batanguenos.com pinoyakoworld.com

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

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

helloningbo.com ningbolife.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

easeus.com

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


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

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

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

mi-technologies.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

mylot.com/hatashe and MyLot.com/worldub

Domains
Accounts
Diffs(added and moving down)

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

repeated vadalism

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


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

See also User:Freebee19 (edit | [[Talk:User:Freebee19|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), now deleted and user blocked as advertising-only account. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done, spammed site, generic web forum, useless to the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

postchronicle.com

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

  • Copyright violations
  • Spamming by accounts associated with the site
  • Use of the site as a "source" for contentious information on WP:BLP articles despite it not being of any demonstrable authority

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

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

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

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

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

dealreviews.net spam

Spam domains


Accounts

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Done --A. B. (talkcontribs) 03:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ecbattery.com spam

Spam domain


Account

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


 Done--A. B. (talkcontribs) 12:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HollywoodChicago.com spam

Spam domains
Accounts

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

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

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

lotaku.co.uk

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

danadearmond.com

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

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

only4gamers.com

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

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

Proposed Removals

Request unlisting of GameStooge.com

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

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

Request unlisting of kmle.com

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

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

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

  • A second chance where, exactly? For which encyclopaedia articles does your site represent a reliable source? Guy (Help!) 21:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request unlisting of commonpurpose

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

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

Request unlisting of horizonpress.com

See [37]

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

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

Request unlisting of nacion.com

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

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

Request for unlisting of keeper klan

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

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

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

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

Request for unlisting of New Mexico Tourism Department

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

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

Requesting delisting: www.paperlessarchives.com

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

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

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

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

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

Unlist request of cruisedealership.com

Request unlisting of linexlegal.com

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

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

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

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

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

Request unlisting of mehfiltube DOT magnify DOT net

Request unlisting of cabinda.net

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

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


Request unlisting of thehoosiersfanclub.com

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

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

Request unlisting of iltuobenessere.com

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

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

Request unlisting of ac-baidu.com

Request removal of Photovolcanica.com from global blacklist

Request unlisting of www.galatta.com

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


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

Request unlisting of boatlinks.com

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

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


Proposed unlisting of Priory-of-Sion.com

Proposed Removal of Blacklisted Site, and User

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

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

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

Troubleshooting and problems

lulu.com query

  • I get a spamfilter report when I try inserting the following text/links:

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

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

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

  • Just tried inserting only a space. Nevertheless I still get a spamfilter notice. Could somebody please, please, please look into this?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere on that page is a lulu.com link. Until it's removed, you can't save your edit, even if it's not included in your material. What page are you trying to edit? --A. B. (talkcontribs) 00:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is on enhanced interrogation, oddly enough I edited there previously without any such notice. If you could look into it I appreciate that. Thanks.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

veganz.pl.net

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

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

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

???

This is what I am trying to post:

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

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

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

Discussion

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

unblock the SS Free

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

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

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


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

wtf

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

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

removal

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

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

Link Blacklisting vs. User Blocking

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

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

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

Time for discussion

This template provides the header for this page.

Changes I made to the instructions for admins:

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

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


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


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

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


Current Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam instructions

From Template:WikiProject Spam header:

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

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


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

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


Comments:

  • I think we need instructions similar to those used Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
  • Please consider whether we want to use something like this; if so, what modifications would be appropriate.
  • I tried to stick with the gold message box format used for the instructions in other sections of this page,
  • This is a pasted together kludge plagiarized from the two message boxes above. Experienced template and table designers should feel free to improve the wikicoding!

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

www.kernel.org is blacklisted???

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

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

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

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

www dot letraslibres dot com/???

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

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


A general policy question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problem

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

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