MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2012

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

Proposed Additions[edit]

bel-staff.com[edit]

no evidence of abuse  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

howflyhiphop.com[edit]

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

Sockpuppet network originally added links to howflyhiphop.com mixtape articles inline on the pages of many various rappers. It's been added to Xlinkbot, but it doesn't seem to be effective at all. Now that the original accounts have been banned for sockpuppetry, various broad ranges of IPs have added links to a wide range of rapper articles, and it's rarely caught until I do a search. The closing admin at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thatlife/Archive recommended blacklisting if the spamming continued. [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Oct_1#howflyhiphop.com WikiProject spam link of initial report] Falcon8765 (TALK) 21:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming of this URL continues as of February 2. Falcon8765 (TALK) 04:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continues as of today. Falcon8765 (TALK) 05:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still going on;

plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

voyage-en-inde.org[edit]

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 07:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MooMinder and BurrenSteel[edit]

Removals: [1], [2], [3], [4],

91.189.64.131 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 193.128.83.244 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 192.131.85.207 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 192.131.85.210 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Two companies located in Tubber, Ireland. Moominder is a startup, ready to release its first article in 2012. BurrenSteel is a company that makes gates, fences and the like, but does not have proper website. Both companies use the article clearly for promotion. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale--Hu12 (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

slaters.co.uk[edit]

Repeated addition of this clothing retailer to a number of articles over the past three months. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale--Hu12 (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

varshabioscience.com[edit]

1, 2, 3
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
13, 14
15, 16, 17
18, 19, 20

Twenty entries since August. Jojalozzo 22:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale--Hu12 (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dinsdoc.com[edit]

I suggest adding "dinsdoc.com" to the blacklist.

The domain "Dinsdoc.com" apparently used to have online copies of old books, but has now become a spam link. Example, http://www.dinsdoc.com/niebuhr-1-30.htm

It seems any URL at that domain just leads to ads.

That was reported on ANI [5]. I removed the link from around 65 articles (most here) - it was just a convenience-link, so I was able to remove them without it impacting on verifiability.

As of now, the link is not used in article space [6]

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  08:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While checking the URL the page redirected and recieved this notice;
Infection Details
URL: http://secredir.com/?sov
Process: file://C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe
Infection: js:ScriptIP-inf [Trj]
both plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

retrowow.co.uk[edit]

I dont see anything recent, however, some cleanup is needed. Not done--Hu12 (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

topqualityworkwear.com.au[edit]

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 04:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two more with the same MO. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recycled and updated the WPSPAM listing: See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 12:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

indiantvserials.orgfree.com[edit]

Previous incidents
Sites spammed
Spammers

MER-C 10:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. MER-C 01:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

worldrugbyshop.com[edit]

Excessive linking from The Fresh Beat Band. Please blacklist this link. --Il223334234 (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale--Hu12 (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

traditio.com[edit]

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

  • This site is little more than a glorified blog written by a person claiming to be a Catholic priest. The views are sedevacantist in nature (deny papal authority) and are antisemitic and borderline racist in some instances. While it may make interesting source material for sedevacantist artiles and the like, it should not be used as a source on anything Catholic. True sedevacantist type articles have plenty of verifiable source material and don't need the rantings of a suppossed, yet anonymous priest.
  • Beyond that, the owner of the site has published a [www.traditio.com/tradlib/wind.txt document] pointing out who he thinks is the real-life inspiration behind characters in a novel based on a corrupt Vatican. The author of this document even claims it is a "possible key relating the fictional names used in Windswept House to the real persons involved". The user below and others in the past have been using this as a source on biographies of Catholic Bishops, Cardinals, etc. This appears to be a serious BLP violation.
  • The following IP is the most recent person to add these "sources".

90.197.149.8 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

 Stale--Hu12 (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

smergle.com[edit]

Sites spammed
Related domains
Spammers

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 05:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

itstheinsurance.com[edit]

itstheinsurance.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.itstheinsurance.com --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ummm, why should hthis be blockd without instances of spam?Lihaas (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Past instances, however  Stale--Hu12 (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

doschaos.blogspot.com[edit]

Repeatedly added to Batch file. Personal blog that probably won't be helpful to the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale--Hu12 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

celebritydaily and fandaily[edit]

Useless URLs--GrapedApe (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

celebritydaily.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com [10],[11],[12],[13]
fandaily.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com [14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20]
rightpundits.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.rightpundits.com
Clearly WP:SOCK adding WP:REFSPAM, plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rockpaperphoto.com[edit]

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

Multiply spammed by SPA Ybr.sachin on 13 January 2012 (example) and by 202.53.15.132 on 16 January 2012 (example).

Warnings had no effect on the SPA. This is a humdrum retailer. Hard to imagine that linking an article to it could increase the value of that article to the reader. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now spammed by another IP. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And by SPA Rppwiki. -- Hoary (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Stale--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

habbolatino.us[edit]

Spammer is using socks.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

spreadingsantorum.com[edit]

Repeated addition contrary to clear consensus, spamming use on many pages (most thankfully removed now) [21], [22], [23] (which has a summary saying no one had a "new" objection!) [24], [25], [26], and innumerable inclusions on the talk page. Also used for literally hundreds of mainly deleted additions of "frothy mixture." The net result, however, is "spam." Collect (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see all your examples refer to Campaign for "santorum" neologism, which is one of the extremely few pages where this link might be appropriate. Isn't the question of whether to include the link in that page the subject of ongoing discussion at Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism? Anomie⚔ 16:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It also was placed many multiple times on other talk pages as well - and only diligence removed several dozen links. One place might be understandable, but thirty or forty seemed a tad much. And it is not like the site has anything specific of value io offer readers which is not already in the article - it is pure duplication in most respects. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Stale--Hu12 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the-discount-books.blogspot.com/[edit]

As I recall we recently unblocked Blogspot. Which is a good thing. Having a user who uses it to spam A. P. J. Abdul Kalam and Manorama Yearbook (repeatedly if you check their contribs) is not such a good thing. Since it's clear that this user only recently started using this IP, and since I can imagine no reasonable use for this particular blog, it seems sensible to blacklist it to prevent future bad behavior. --Quintucket (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI bot seems to be getting it.  Stale--Hu12 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

www.inyourfootsteps.com[edit]

An IP repeatedly added this non-encyclopedic website to articles of place with harbours. Showed up a number of times at Carrigaholt, but today also at Kilrush, Ventry, Wexford and Dingle. The link adds nothing to the articles, it is just a how-to-get-your-boat-in ([www.inyourfootsteps.com/sailing/harbours/europe/ireland/clare/93/carrigaholt_bay Carrigaholt example]). A short search gave another 16 links. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slipping it in like this only add to the feeling of SPAMMING! Night of the Big Wind talk 14:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt seem like spam as much as misplacd refs. Think RSM would be a better place to discuss its worth.(Lihaas (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
In all other articles I have seen, it was added in the external links. According to a tracert the IPs active in 2010, 2011 and 2012 all belong to the same provider. The description used is also very simelar. The recent ones were "Add a link with directions for visiting boats", the 2010 version was "Added a link providing full directions for visiting boats". Night of the Big Wind talk 03:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! didnt know that. It would help (just as outside advice) to link to those incstances, because i dont think the current would warrant the block. If as you say is what happened then it would be spam.Lihaas (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough here. reverted additions by IP.  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

metalcrypt.com[edit]

Non-notable heavy metal music-oriented webzine.--Malconfort (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doent indicate an incident of it being spammed. All non-notable websites are not blocked.(Lihaas (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
It is clearly being spammed by the above user.--Malconfort (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough evidence.  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

psychology-tools.com & psymed.info[edit]

Doc_murad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) User has been banned before for socketpuppetry. User posts both sites containing questionnaires with Google Adsense advertisements. User replaced relevant, non-profit resources with user's own site. User has been warned multiple times with final warning.

Contains questionnaires with Google Adsense advertisement banners.

Contains questionnaires with Google Adsense advertisement banners.

uncomo.com[edit]

This is a "howto" site which is adding editorial references to several articles. It is not an appropriate source as it's not written by expert but user generated content with clear commercial intentions. oulc it be added to blacklist and remove the more than 40 links they already placed?


vidjin.com[edit]

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

Editor has added nothing but spam to the said link in all his additions. Further based on the main page of the site it seems to be Paskian based and the person who added it says on his main user page that he is from pakistan with said interest, not to far to presume theres a link there(Lihaas (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Single account spammer. Perhaps some cleanup is needed.  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

duanelinklater.com[edit]

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

Identical spam has been added to Cape Spear by various IP addresses since April. Page protection is not appropriate because other IPs make legitimate edits, including reverting the spam. The user has been warned (see User talk:66.206.234.192 and various edit summaries) and individual and range blocks have been tried and work only temporarily. XLinkBot doesn't work because edits removing the spam are simply undone. (Note: I proposed this before, but it was archived with no action or comment pro or con. There has since been additional identical spamming.) Station1 (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

continues, plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

visitsouthcarolina.net[edit]

visitsouthcarolina.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several additions, however has stopped. Not done--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

globalcitymap.com[edit]

Adsense google_ad_client = pub-4199830769381843 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report)
Google Analytics ID: UA-1890273 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

Spammers

MER-C 06:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

urdunovelspdf.com[edit]

Google Analytics ID: UA-28509934 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

Spammers

MER-C 06:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Siargao Island inline spam war[edit]

Adsense google_ad_client = pub-5340712280903832 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report)

Spammers

--snip--

Google Analytics ID: UA-6532551 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

Spammers

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 12:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

enduro-geographic.com[edit]

Spammers

Repeated spamming on motorcycle-related articles. Spammer is blocked (31 hours) but will undoubtedly be back for more. This IP already has a bad reputation for spamming. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

single spammer who has stopped,  Stale--Hu12 (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

webhostingsonline.com[edit]

Adsense google_ad_client = pub-3845661189639054 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report)

Previous incidents
Sites spammed
Related domains
Spammers

MER-C 11:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looneytoonblr.tumblr.com[edit]

A fan's blog with no real journalistic integrity. Sarujo (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have stopped  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Bulgaria[edit]

Someone constantly adds this link to all Bulgarian villages/cities. Especially in the Bulgarian wiki. Please review the proposal. --Kirov Airship (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imagesfrombulgaria is one of the major source of free images for the Bulgarian wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.184.49 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive cross project spamming

Including edit warring on Krumovgrad

Accounts

I've  Defer to Global blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP-address globally blocked for cross-wiki linkspam. Local blacklisting  Completed--Hu12 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely against any sort of blacklisting of "Images from Bulgaria". The site is one of the VERY FEW freely licensed resources for photographs in the Bulgarian web, and it's well organized and compatible with Wikipedia's category tree. More than 400 images have already been legally used in Wikimedia Commons, where I've designed the special commons:Template:Ifb-cc-by-2.5 back in 2008. A lot of the links to IFB have been regularly placed along articles in BG WP, based on the quality and free license of the resource, as acknowledged by multiple different Wikipedians throughout the years. When I asked him on bg:user talk:Kirov Airship what was his motivation to remove the links, the answer was simply "Panoramio is a better link." Everyone is free to draw their conclusions. →Spiritia, sysop of BG Wikipedia and Commons, 20:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisting only effects inline linking of the URL's domain on en.wikipedia.org. Inline linking of images on external sites is already disabled, so linking them is of no use. see WP:HOTLINK. It has no effect on any user uploading images to en.wikipedia.org.--Hu12 (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. I disagree with the overall mistreating of a website that has been considered for years as a valuable resource of free content, based on a single user's report which, as I showed above doesn't seem to be grounded on real arguments ("Panoramio is a better link", oh, really?). Besides, if links to a given website are regarded as spam, shall its content be kept and utilized here? →Spiritia 08:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used as source for images but someone is adding the link to all Bulgarian cities/villages. There is nothing special about this web site. The images are few years old. You cannot understand the location of the image. And it is full of ads and at the bottom there are many unrelated cross-site links without "noindex". I'm sure people will get more information from Panoramio. --Kirov Airship (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imagesfrombulgaria.com is informative for almost "all Bulgarian cities/villages". And I absolutely agree with Spiritia. It is unclear to me how adding a link to a valuable resource of free content could be qualified as spam. Moreover "Panoramio is a better link" is not an argument at all.--Алиса Селезньова (talk), sysop of BG Wikipedia 09:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely shocking - the link to Imagesfrombulgaria.com can't be added to an article as it is blacklisted. This is not a commercial link. Where am I getting it wrong?--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This type of link abuse is never acceptable, regardless of who is reporting it. Since inline linking of images is already disabled and Considering fellow trusted admins from other Wikimedia projects would like to see it removed, I will do so. I think we can all agree that having Images uploaded to Wikipedia have more encyclopedic value than an external link. I see limited reason for having these URL's in the actual "Article space", however, if continued linking abuse occurs on en.wikipedia.org, we should reconsider. Thanks. minus Removed--Hu12 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Kapustin is the owner of imagesfrombulgaria.com, his full name is Kiril Andreevich Kapustin, it is highly likly that 85.187.184.49 is him. See http://imagesfrombulgaria.com/v/Autors/Kiril_Kapustin/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirov Airship (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I still don't get it why adding a link to a free content is a link abuse and of course we all agree that images uploaded to Wikipedia have more encyclopedic value than an external link, but where there are none or few, the next best thing is as I see it an external link to a free content.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

openpin.org[edit]

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

Open-source competitor to the Pinterest website. The link was first added to the Pinterest article's external links section on the 2nd of February, removed as inappropriate on the 7th, and has been added back by various IPs on a daily basis since. Blacklisting the URL may be more useful than semi-protecting the whole article. --McGeddon (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stagevu.com[edit]

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

Stagevu is a movie piracy website. I removed links to illegal uploads on Arctic Circle, Life and Debt, The Star (2002 film), Antony Hamilton, Corinne Russell, Klaus Fuchs,Inuit, Arctic Circle, Arctic, Arctic Council, and The Speckled Band (1931 film). SL93 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

btoe.com[edit]

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

btoe.com is a social network website where any user can create a poll, and other users can vote anonymously for a winner. Most polls seem to top out with around 20 or 30 people voting in favour of the winner. All good fun, but of zero use as a reliable source (there's no editorial oversight of any poll winner, it's just anonymous users voting), and inappropriate as an external link (it's a social networking site). btoe.com had been added to around forty articles, mostly as a source, either for claims such as "X is the best known album by artist Y", or an outright statement that "X was voted the best actor in the world by users of btoe.com".

User:Pamela Gardiner started linking heavily to btoe.com from October 2011 onwards. She was informed that the poll site was not a reliable source, and the MelanieB2 account was created the next day, followed by the GeorgeB3 account, both of which have (beyond editing the article about bteo.com's founder) done nothing but add more links to btoe.com. Arthur127 appeared in January to make similar edits. Beyond the one admonition to Gardiner, nobody seems to have warned any of the accounts about their spamming before now, but given that btoe.com is of no use as a source or an external link, it may be worth blacklisting it outright. --McGeddon (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to McGeddon. 1. It is not actually possible for 'any user to create a poll' on the Btoe.com website as a quick look at the site will prove Btoe.com has its own 'best of' lists which are the unique property of the site and which are not in fact user generated. It is a site that was created by and is currently edited by a well regarded and reputable expert in the field, namely Colin Larkin, whose credentials you can check here or more simply by plugging his name in on google and viewing the countless titles he is the author of. As far as I understand it, Mr Larkin has complete editorial control over the content of this website, since he is its Editor in Chief. That is after all what an editor in chief does. Users can however suggest items which may be accepted or rejected, and they can also vote for their favourite film, band, album etc. But only if they are registered with the site.

No. 2 'Anonymous users' cannot vote on Btoe since you have to register with the site to vote.

No. 3 It is a reliable source, since its editor in chief is a well respected expert in the field. It is also a notable source since it has several thousand viewers a day. All of which is verifiable.

No. 4 It is not and never has been a 'social network', although it currently has a significant number of followers on the established social networks Facebook and Twitter.

I did in fact refer to Btoe and its founder on several pages on wikipedia, I also referenced several of his published books and other sources, but I think if you check my contributions you will see that this is certainly not the only contribution I have made to wikipedia. I have not been operating several accounts, although in good faith, I do now know who GeorgeB3 and MelanieB2 are. They are certainly not my sockpuppets and would be extremely insulted at the suggestion. They are however fans of Btoe and have considerable less experience than I do as editors of wikipedia, so did not perhaps realise they were doing anything wrong. I have absolutely no idea who Arthur127 is, or indeed any of the other Arthurs that were apparently 'assumed' to be my 'sockpuppets' with no evidence whatsoever.

As for 'the one admonition' you refer to, you will see that I engaged in open discussion with anyone who informed me that Btoe was not an appropriate link, and that in fact I learned from them what was regarded as a reliable source. I firmly believe if you have the facts you will be able to see that Btoe certainly is one. Thank you for your time. Pamela Gardiner (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.201.45 (talk)


Checking the reason for blacklisting this website I see that McGeddon has said:

"btoe.com is a social network website where any user can create a poll, and other users can vote anonymously for a winner. Most polls seem to top out with around 20 or 30 people voting in favour of the winner. All good fun, but of zero use as a reliable source (there's no editorial oversight of any poll winner, it's just anonymous users voting), and inappropriate as an external link (it's a social networking site). btoe.com had been added to around forty articles, mostly as a source, either for claims such as "X is the best known album by artist Y", or an outright statement that "X was voted the best actor in the world by users of btoe.com".

No 1 It is not possible for 'any user to create a poll' on the Btoe.com website or iphone app, Btoe.com has its own 'best of' lists which are the unique property of the site and which are not user generated. It is a site that was created and is currently edited by a well regarded and reputable expert in the field, Colin Larkin. The former has complete editorial control over the content of the site, since he is its Editor in Chief. Users can however suggest items, and vote for their favourite film, band, album etc. No. 2 'Anonymous users' cannot vote on Btoe since you have to register with the site to vote. No. 3 It is a reliable source, since its editor in chief is a well respected expert in the field. It is also a notable source since it has several thousand viewers a day. All of which is verifiable. No. 4 It is not a social network, although it currently has a significant number of followers on the established social networks Facebook and Twitter.

I did in fact refer to Btoe and its founder on several pages on wikipedia, I also referenced several of his books and other sources, but I think if you check my contributions you will see that this is certainly not the only contribution I have made to wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Pamela Gardiner (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the obvious abuse and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pamela Gardiner/Archive
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
  • Wikipedia is not a vehicle to drive traffic to polls
--Hu12 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2012 (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.

cellularfactory.com[edit]

Google Analytics ID: UA-1987560 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

Spam pages
Sites spammed
Spammers

MER-C 12:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

360eire.com[edit]

360eire.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Link was added by sockpuppet-master, 2 sockpuppets, some innocent bystanders and loads of IPs. My research was limited mainly to 2011. There are another 50/60 links that I did not look at, but I do not think it will change anything to the pattern.

Added or readded www.360eire.com on:

  1. Slieve League: 16-9-2010 [27]
  2. Slieve League: 5-7-2010 [28]
  3. Drombeg stone circle: 14-7-2010 [29]
  4. Skellig Michael: 30-12-2011 [30]
  5. English Market: 11-5-2011 [31]
  6. Kilkee: 13-7-2010 [32]
  7. Dysert O'Dea Monastery: 13-7-2010 [33]
  8. Lake Isle of Innisfree: 10-10-2011 [34]
  9. Lake Isle of Innisfree: 11-9-2010 [35]
  10. Lake Isle of Innisfree: 6-7-2010 [36]
  11. Kylemore Abbey: 6-7-2010 [37]

Added or readded www.360eire.com on:

  1. Roscommon: 31-12-2011 [38]
  2. Slieve League: 31-12-2011 [39]
  3. Lough Hyne: 30-12-2011 [40]
  4. Inniskeen: 30-12-2011 [41]
  5. Tullyhogue Fort: 30-1202011 [42]
  6. Muff, County Donegal: 30-12-2011 [43]
  7. Drombeg stone circle: 30-12-2011 [44]
  8. Saul, County Down: 30-12-2011 [45]
  9. Gougane Barra: 30-11-2011 [46]
  10. Hook Head: 30-12-2011 [47]
  11. Galway: 30-12-2011 [48]
  12. Farmleigh:30-12-2011 [49]
  13. Hook Lighthouse: 30-12-2011 [50]
  14. Loughcrew: 30-12-2011 [51]
  15. Marlfield, Clonmel: 30-12-2011 [52]
  16. Monasterboice: 30-12-2011 [53]
  17. Claregalway: 30-12-2011 [54]
  18. Glasnevin Cemetery: 30-12-2011 [55]
  19. Loughrea: 30-12-2011 [56]
  20. Corlea Trackway: 31-12-2011 [57]

Added or readded www.360eire.com on:

  1. Herbert Park: 31-12-2011 [58]
  2. Moyry Castle: 31-12-2011 [59]
  3. Iveagh Gardens: 31-12-2011 [60]
  4. Bective Abbey: 30-12-2011 [61]
  5. Cú Chulainn: 30-12-2011 [62]
  6. Christy Ring: 30-12-2011 [63]

All following IP's added or readded www.360eire.com.

  1. Slieve League: 31-12-2011 [64]
  2. Skellig Michael: 30-12-2011 [65]
  3. Féile an Phobail: 30-12-2011 [66] (Confirmed as belonging to Dialin: [67])
  4. Holycross: 30-12-2011 [68]
  5. Jonesborough, County Armagh: 30-12-2011 [69]
  6. Howth Head: 30-12-2011 [70]
  7. Clare Glens: 30-12-2011 [71]
  8. Hill of Tara: 30-12-2011 [72]
  9. Glendalough: 30-12-2011 [73]
  10. Easky: 30-12-2011 [74]
  11. Dún Laoghaire: 30-12-2011 [75]
  12. St Stephen's Green: 30-12-2011 [76]
  13. English Market: 30-12-2011 [77]
  1. Torc Waterfall: 20-12-2011 [78]
  1. Ross Castle: 15-12-2011 [79]
  1. Muckross House: 14-12-2011 [80]
  1. Roscommon: 4-12-2010 [81]
  1. Inverin: 28-11-2011 [82]
  1. Carlow: 24-11-2011 [83]
  1. Iveragh Peninsula: 21-11-2011 [84]
  1. Jonesborough, County Armagh: 13-11-2011 [85]
  1. Bective Abbey: 4-11-2011 [86]
  1. Downpatrick: 28-10-2011 [87]
  1. Corlea Trackway: 26-10-2011 [88]
  2. Lough Gowna: 1-11-2011 [89]
  1. Dysert O'Dea Monastery: 24-10-2011 [90]
  1. Féile an Phobail: 21-10-2011 [91]
  1. Transatlantic flight of Alcock and Brown: 11-10-2011 [92]
  1. Moyry Castle: 25-7-2011 [93]
  1. Monasterboice: 20-7-2011 [94]
  1. Dún Laoghaire: 1-7-2011 [95]
  1. Hook Lighthouse: 21-6-2011 [96]]
  1. Herbert Park: 12-6-2011 [97]
  1. Iveagh Gardens: 9-6-2011]] [98]
  1. St Stephen's Green: 3-6-2011 [99]
  1. Howth Head: 1-6-2011 [100]
  1. Glasnevin Cemetery: 26-5-2011 [101]
  1. Lough Derg (Ulster): 24-5-2011 [102]
  1. Dunree: 24-5-2011 [103]
  1. Rossnowlagh: 22-5-2011 [104]
  1. Garden of Remembrance (Dublin): 18-5-2011 [105]
  1. Saul, County Down: 16-5-2011 [106]
  1. Glencolmcille: 14-5-2011 [107]
  1. English Market: 10-5-2011 [108]
  1. Broadstone, Dublin: 10-5-2011 [109]
  1. Slieve League: 13-4-2011 [110]
  1. Sculpture in the Parklands: 11-4-2011 [111]
  1. Glendalough: 7-4-2011 [112]
  1. Beaghmore: 28-3-2011 [113]
  1. Smithfield, Dublin: 3-3-2011 [114]
  1. Lough Hyne: 26-2-2011 [115]
  1. Tullyhogue Fort: 25-2-2011 [116]
  1. Holycross: 21-2-2011 [117]
  1. Cnoc Meadha: 20-2-2011 [118]
  1. Claregalway: 19-2-2011 [119]
  1. Cornamona: 17-2-2011 [120]
  1. Skreen: 14-2-2011 [121]
  1. Easky: 11-2-2011 [122]
  1. Brian Boru: 4-2-2011 [123] (Confirmed as belonging to Dialin: [124])
  1. Hook Head: 1-2-2011 [125]]
  1. Gougane Barra: 20-1-2011 [126]]
  1. Ballybeg Priory: 19-1-2011 [127]
  1. Skellig Michael: 18-1-2011 [128]
  1. Loughcrew: 11-1-2011 [129]
  1. Hill of Tara: 10-1-2011 [130]
  1. Galway: 6-1-2011 [131]]
  2. Béal na mBláth: 6-1-2011 [132]]
  1. The Burren: 28-12-2010 [133]
  1. Galway Races: 30-11-2010 [134]
  1. Moone: 26-11-2010 [135]
  2. Brownshill Dolmen: 26-11-2010 [136]
  1. Loughrea: 28-11-2010 [137]
  1. Inniskeen: 29-11-2010 [138]
  1. Cú Chulainn:30-12-2010 [139]
  1. Drombeg stone circle: 22-11-2010 [140]
  2. Christy Ring: 22-11-2010 [141]
  1. Muff, County Donegal: 18-11-2010 [142]
  1. Clare Glens: 19-10-2010 [143]
  1. Lake Isle of Innisfree: 16-9-2010 [144]

I had warned Dialinn (talk · contribs) to stop pushing the website www.360eire.com and not to use multiple identities. See here: User talk:Night of the Big Wind/Archives/2012/January#360view. He promised to stop pushing, but today (=31-12-2011) another identity showed up and went on with pushing.

The almost exclusive use of IP's (of several networks) and sockpuppets, makes it clear that this is a pushing campaign, not an enthousiast promoting his own website. Night of the Big Wind talk 08:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to make the exact same request. This is clearly spam, and I support blacklisting. MER-C 10:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

brokenscript.com[edit]

I'm not sure if URL shorteners are routinely added to the blacklist or not, but if so, I came across this one being added today by the IP listed below. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yes, they are. Added, and reported at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#brokenscript.com. Anomie⚔ 04:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done on meta as well, url-shorteners are added standard on meta, hardly any questions asked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Removed locally. Anomie⚔ 14:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Removals[edit]

TheLotter.com[edit]

TheLotter.com is a legal site where people can purchase lottery tickets online. The website has authoritative information about specific lotteries that I used as a source and wanted to reference. I cannot find the site in the list of blacklisted site, but when I tried to add an external link was redirected here.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarabeth12 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site is blacklisted on Meta since February 2009. You'd either have to ask for it to be whitelisted ( Defer to Whitelist) or request delisting on meta ( Defer to Global blacklist), but not being familiar with the reason it was originally blacklisted I couldn't guess whether you'd have much success with either request. Anomie⚔ 20:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deathcamps.org[edit]

deathcamps.org is a serious site describing ghettos (death camps) in nazi-occupated Europe, Aktion Reinhard and more. It is quite a good documentation.

I used a table with data concerning about 400 ghettos from deathcamps.org (with kind permission) for creating de:Liste der Ghettos in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus.

About myself, I am German. Normally I am active in German Wikipedia. I find it absolutely necessary that these mass crimes in European history are described.

Some years ago there was a break in the working group and an alternative site death-camps.org claimed to be the legal successor. However, it was closed down again soon after. That internal argument is over.

I would like to ask you to remove deathcamps.org from the black-list-entry.

Thank you very much

Yours faithfully -- Simplicius (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not blacklisted here, it is blacklisted on meta. I would suggest that you either ask for whitelisting ( Defer to Whitelist) or request delisting on meta ( Defer to Global blacklist). I recall this was quite a situation some time ago with sites and site redirects, but I see now that several language wikipedias have it whitelisted (de, el, fi, and he). Maybe this should be globally removed then. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for global removal of the blockade on meta. Thank you very much for your advice. Simplicius (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com[edit]

Not sure why this site is on the blacklist. (but guessing it may be related to the blog/gawker style format and some bad authors) Attempting to use it to cite the following on an old pit bull policy, which is potentially more factual than what is on the current Pit Bull article. Inkless (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was added because because examiner.com pays writers for every reader that reads a document of the writer - a huge spam incentive. You can ask for specific whitelisting of the link you want to use, so  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dirk - done. Will remove this section shortly. Inkless (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, please leave it for the archives. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't all news agencies pay their writers partially based on there ability to draw in readers? Don't they all have intensive to promote there articles? Yes Exmainer.com is more freelance writers, but they are making great improvements to help insure the quality of the articles posted. Spaldam (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is partially, and if a newspaper writer comes here, even if they are from CNN, we would block such an editor. With examiner.com, writers get payed for the incoming readers, not just partially but completely. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

gayot.com[edit]

Blacklisted in March 2011 for "spamming" reference uses. Well, gayot.com is listed on Wikipedia is the official website of well-regarded critic and Legion of Honor recipient, etc., and I would like to use the site as a reference. The article for André Gayot actually contains the very domain being blocked; it would be impossible to add the link to a new edit, I think. I don't know what abusive activities may have been documented in the past, but presently, I would like to use this well-regarded website for its sections on notable restaurants and nice capsule listings of restaurants including awards and reviews. Particularly, it would be helpful for my article on Sal's Pizza (Dallas) which would benefit from a non-local reference. Pawsplay (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good sites do get spammed as well, and if that abuse if grave enough, we do blacklist (I see that many single purpose accounts have been abusing this site to a scale which could not be handled by blocks anymore). I would suggest that you ask for whitelisting for the specific reference you want to use, so  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy, heavy spam in the past, including by an IP whose subsequent petition for removal clearly demonstrated a connection to the site. They may be "well-regarded" in some circles, but a pattern of abusing this site suggests that we should use them less, not more. --Ckatzchatspy 06:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It sounds like due to the unfortunate history, I will need to use the whitelist process. Pawsplay (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

logicmuseum.com[edit]

The request to blacklist this site was based on its prior host being blacklisted, so the new one should too. There does not appear to be an archived discussion for adding it in the first place (see Special:Search/mywikibiz_prefix:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist). It looks like it was added merely because the author of the Logic Museum content is someone banned from Wikipedia.[145] logicmuseum.com was set up in 2010[146], and was a normal website before it was a wiki (see www.logicmuseum.com/index.htm). The Logic Museum is scholarly work (kindly hosted by MyWikiBiz), of exceptional quality and utility to Wikipedia, and moreover it was and is free content and as such is no different to http://en.wikisource.org/ (see www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/The_Logic_Museum:Copyrights) and shouldnt be treated any differently from any other website which provides scholarly work. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The site - operated by a banned user - has also been repeatedly spammed by the same user, using multiple socks to evade his ban. --Ckatzchatspy 08:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where that has happened? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to track at the moment, but I found diff, this, this, this, this and this quite troubling. This is after the blacklisting, and a clear attempt to circumvent the blacklist - see COIBot reports below
Looking further, I see diffs like this, this, this .... digging into the last edit gives this (maybe the original insertion, there was quite some edit warring around this, maybe with uninvolved editors)this, this, this, this (until now all with '--', this
It may be a good link, but this is not the way forward. I would suggest actually to also blacklist these links, and consider to use whitelisting for specific links that are of interest. Hence,  Defer to Whitelist. I hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 2012-02-18T13:07:38
Please see the block logs of those accounts; it's JtV. logic--museum.com and logic-museum.com are not registered domains. Its trolling, not spamming. It is trolling because of this silly blacklist entry. Whitelisting wont help. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right that this is trolling. I can't find, for the moment, more additions, or even significant spamming - I hope some of the admins originally handling this case can chime in, otherwise I will remove it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, I was the one who added it, and I can attest to frequent additions, use of IPs to circumvent the user's ban, and so on. Removing it would be a bad idea; the user in question has shown no interest in respecting his ban. --Ckatzchatspy 01:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about the maintainer of the website, which is irrelevant here.
I hope you don't expect that the maintainer of the website is going to sock less because we are petty and block his scholarly website, where he provides free transcriptions and translations that are not available anywhere on the Internet, under the pretext of calling this website spam??
Are there any pages on this website that could be considered spam? Is there any evidence of link spamming by someone other than a third party who is having a giggle at all of our expenses? I have semi-protected Sum of Logic; that should prevent a lot of useless activity on that article. There are one or two other pages which might benefit from this approach. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is Peter Damian's abuse of the site irrelevant? He has repeatedly used IP socks to attempt to link to his site, and has also declared an intent to continue. The third-party vandal's efforts may be as irrelevant to this discussion as the vandal himself, but Damian's abuse is not. Just look through the related article histories for contributions by IPs in the 109.* range and follow those IPs as Damian admits his abuse of Wikipedia. There's also the suspicious behaviour on the part of certain accounts, such as Special:Contributions/Quisquiliae, who seems to surface whenever this topic comes up to surreptitiously test if the logic museum can be linked. If the material is so valuable, upload it to Commons. --Ckatzchatspy 11:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting copyright violation as a practical solution? John lilburne (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not we approve of the site owner's past behaviour on Wikipedia is of no interest to readers whatsoever. What is more relevant here is that (1) the material is useful from a scholarly perspective, and (2) there is not much spamming in Medieval Latin these days. Blacklisting valuable resources on the basis of personal animosities is an abuse of the spam blacklist. --JN466 17:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a site at a certain point does not show to be of use, and it gets abused massively by an editor, then a way to stop such abuse is to blacklist the site. That will not stop the creation of sockpuppets, but it will force the editor to find other ways of abuse (which they undoubtedly will find), but shutting down modi operandi will for some/most editors result at some point that finding ways around is too much of an effort.

It is indeed a problem if the site is of use, and gets significantly abused by an infinite number of socks. That can be a real concern. At that point, choices need to be made. Is the use of the site widescale, then de-blacklisting should be done, and either we will have to live with the abuse of the site (or find other possible workarounds - do note that the blocking ones of that will possibly result in disruption as well, just as the blacklist will). If the use of the site is minimal, then specific whitelisting for specific goals can be an option.

That such sites get blacklisted because someone, in good faith, tries to stop the abuse of such a website by blacklisting (and noting that, at the time of blacklisting, there is not much or even no independent use of the site) is not abuse of the blacklist. Such arguments are chilling the discussion, and lack an assumption of good faith. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the above meant to mean, it has strayed so far into hypothetical that it is almost beyond parsing. Is the link being added relevant to the article? If so, and it is determined that someone is spamming links then find and equivalent link. If one can't do that then the link is hardly spam. John lilburne (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk, the trolling is only happening because of this blacklist entry. John Vandenberg (chat) 20:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting that because Damian is abusing the system when we try to enforce his ban, we should rescind our efforts to block him from the site? The site was blacklisted because of abusive behaviour on the part of the site owner in trying to link it repeatedly, and certainly not because of the subsequent (and unrelated) trolling. --Ckatzchatspy 08:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ckatz, your first sentence is .. err, wrong. I'm trying to lift an illogical spam blacklist entry. that is all. I'm not here to discuss or enforce a ban on someone who happens to run that website. Your second sentence is correct, and is precisely the problem. You blacklisted a perfectly good website in order to try to enforce a ban. That's the wrong tool. That appears to be 'revenge'. I could understand it being done in extreme cases, but only with community discussion. Not a unilateral admin action. The result is that the pissed off banned editor is still pissed off, and we have given some trolls something else to use to annoy both us and the banned editor. Oh, and dont forget we a blacklist entry for a perfectly valid site, which makes us look silly or vindictive. btw, you still havent shown me one example of an added link to this website which was inappropriate. I can show you quite a few examples of people who have been blocked and banned and yet we still link to their website when it is appropriate to do so. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with John Vandenberg. --JN466 04:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, if a site owner is linking to their site in an inappropriate way, if a site owner is pushing their site, then that is 'spamming', and the spam blacklist is there to stop spamming. The problem comes when the site is also used independently. or when the site is actually a good site. I'll take your word that here the assertion that the site was of such a low use that blacklisting it to take down an MO of someone who is spamming his own site was mistaken. You can see it in two ways: either someone is socking to troll his ban-decision, and uses their website in the process, or someone is socking and spamming their website. Do note, that for practically every site on the blacklist the area is grey, there are only very few cases which are black and white.

Two questions:

  • How many of these banned editors actually went to sock, and how many of these socks started to link to their website in either appropriate or inappropriate ways?
  • Ckatz, can you show a good number of diffs where the banned user added the original link?
  • How many links to logicmuseum.com were there in Wikipedia before the blacklisting was put into place? Who added those links that were there?

--Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping this moving.
In this case, there has only ever been a very limited number of pages and links to logic museum website. Four or five, max., I think. This person has always been adding pertinent links, and often there is no equivalent available anywhere online. i.e. the link is the best possible link. It is no different to me creating s:Finished with the War: A Soldier’s Declaration and adding a link on Wikipedia. In both cases, it is the best transcription available online.
The webmaster is one person, and to my knowledge he has never linked to the website in question in an inappropriate manner. In the usual course of improving the encyclopedia, they have added links to the public domain texts he transcribed and hosted on the "Logic Museum": 2005 (followed by a rewrite in 2006), 2007, 2007 (translated to Ukranian), [147] moved [148] (and twice translated by different people: sv:Wilhelm_av_Moerbeke; es:Guillermo_de_Moerbeke) Here is the link added to a new article (not based on en.wp) written by yet another person in Czech[149] The banned user did create new accounts after being banned, however they were always instantly recognisable as the same banned user, and they always focused on writing great content. They didn't use socks concurrently at all as far as I am aware. It is worth noting that "Logic Museum" was first on Geocities, then MyWikiBiz, and now its on its own domain. As far as I know, all of the links were stable in Wikipedia before the migration to its own domain. i.e. the contributor did not stand to gain anything when they added the links. The transcriptions had to be hosted somewhere. Another aspect worth considering is that Latin Wikisource was only created the same day as the first link to Logic Museum was added to Wikipedia.(here is edit no. 1) I dont know when Logic Museum was first set up, but it seems sensible to guess that it predated Wikisource by a while. Latin Wikisource it is still not a very active project yet, and a lot of vandalism slipped in until we installed FlaggedRevisions recently.
I dont know how many people are trolling, but it seems to only be "Johnny the Vandal" (JtV), on a very limited number of pages. If you have any doubts that the trolling has been done by the website operator, im sure a checkuser can double check this as both candidates are well known. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be absolutely clear on this - the discussion is not about the trolling by JtV, which incidentally is not limited to copycat LM links. The problem is in a banned user repeatedly evading his ban (Peter Damian) and repeatedly using said evasion to edit and post links to his site. Trolls are not relevant to this discussion. --Ckatzchatspy 19:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ckatz, you have yet to provide any evidence that the banned contributor has added links a) whilst banned, or b) in a "spammy" fashion. As far as I can see, the links were put in only a few pages before he was banned (i.e. back in 2007 and before). The external content has moved webhost twice since then, and the links have been updated accordingly. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, see any of the contributions to the Sum of Logic article from the IPs in the 109.* range. --Ckatzchatspy 22:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already pointed out above, that page had the link to Logic Museum since 2007, before he was banned. Again when he was not banned, he added the new URL for the same content[150]. user:TheRedPenOfDoom removed the MyWikiBiz link[151] (oddly, leaving the geocities link despite the fact it contained the same content), and there was a discussion about this on the talk page Talk:Sum of Logic which ended with the Logic Museum link included in the article because "the Wikisource copy is incomplete".(July 2009) In April 2010 user:Betacommand removed it without explanation[152]; a month later it was re-added by a sock user:Drum_Scope; August 2010 user:MrOllie came along and removed it as "COI spam"; a month later it was re-added by the 109.* contributor[153]; a month later MrOllie removes it again sparking a 30 hour edit war which ended with the Logic Museum link re-inserted in the article by user:Skomorokh ([154]); the link stays in the article until April 2011 when user:Ckatz removes it as "spam" and "per WP:EL", sparking another edit war involving 109.* and Skomorokh, however this time Ckatz wins ([155]); 109.* re-adds the link in November 2011, MrOllie removes it with an e/s of "WP:EL" which has resulted in endless trolling until I semi-protected the article[156]. So here is the way I see that example: MrOllie and Ckatz have removed a link calling it spam and saying it violates WP:EL (I dont agree with either reason for the removal; its utility is explained on the talk page) and they havent discussed it on the talk page (I suspect they may have discussed it elsewhere). I'd like to see an explanation for why it was spam and/or how it violated WP:EL, because it is these removals that have caused the trolling. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see what any of your objections, Ckatz, have to do with the usefulness of the site to our readers. Do you read Latin? Do you have any salient criticism of the site's content? In addition, if you edit-warred with others over the link, as John indicates above, I don't think it is your place to keep the site in the spam list. --JN466 13:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion. A conflict of interest is linking to one's site in preference to others that are superior and cover the same material, or removing links so that they point at your site. Adding a link to yrou site when it is the only site, or the premier site is just a vested interest. With no evidence of who linked, it is neither. External links are in or out on their relevance as per Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Citing sources, not per who added them; who added them is dealt with per reversion or per abuse filter. Spam blacklist seems like the wrong tool for the user's addition, and this domain should be removed. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Billinghurst to have a look at this, and per his suggestion, I have now removed http://logicmuseum.com from the blacklist. That is not saying that I do not condemn the behaviour that led to the blacklisting, I do however think that the advantages of the website do not weigh up against the disadvantages of having to clean up behind a banned user. I hope this resolves the problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope that the editors who've argued so passionately in favour of removal will demonstrate an equally passionate commitment to remove any instances where the banned user again evades his ban, since he has repeatedly demonstrated that he will continue to do so. I hope that they are not simply planning on walking away, otherwise the site will have to be returned to the list. --Ckatzchatspy 20:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did activate the other line of defense. That would at least give us an alert. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Beetstra. How does XLinkBot work; where can I find these alerts? (I've added a few links to logicmuseum.com, so hopefully there will be a few alerts generated) John Vandenberg (chat) 23:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
XLinkBot reverts new and IP editors under some strict rules (no re-reverting, no reverting of undo-actions, etc. etc.). I then notifies the editor (and later warns) when they insert the link. RC pattrollers can follow those actions by the bot, and I know that there is follow up on them.
For the editors who follow bots on IRC, logicmuseum.com is flagged, and m:User:LiWa3 will notify additions by any non-whitelisted user (you are hence very unlikely to be triggering any alerts or flags), which generally also attracts attention. If something there looks fishy to any of us, we will ask User:COIBot to regenerate a report (either through User:COIBot/Poke or on IRC - I just did the latter). There are some users who have Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports watchlisted and who act upon the additions they think are suspect. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/logicmuseum.com, you would notice when COIBot updates the report and have a check. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

navymutual.org[edit]

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

Hello- This domain was blacklisted in March 2008, no reason given that I can find. The domain is the website of a life insurance company, Navy Mutual Aid Association, and the purpose of delisting would be to place the company URL in the infobox.

Interesting, user NMAA is requesting a link to NMAA for use in the article NMAA, that is just expanded by user NMAA. Are you sure there is no conflict of interest? Night of the Big Wind talk 23:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined with prejudice. All the evidence is given at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive May 1#User page spammer2 and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Taddeus45. This was part of a massive spam run by an apparent SEO spammer who creates countless sockpuppet accounts for the purpose of spamming Wikipedia.
If you want to white-list a specific page on that site for use in an article about the company,  Defer to Whitelist. But it's unlikely that a request by an editor with a conflict of interest will be taken seriously. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, please clarify what evidence is pointed out in the first link (2008), as all I see is the domain. If inclusion in a list from 2008 itself is "evidence," I'm not sure how to refute that. There is no mention of the domain the second link (Taddeus45).
The company domain is not a spamming domain, and it does not employ SEO spamming. How it got listed as such almost four years ago, I don't know. I am indeed an editor for the company. That seems to invalidate an attempt at correction of the status out of hand, but I am not sure of what other means I should have used. My only intent is to properly link the company URL on its wiki page, the same as just about any other company. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMAA (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was spammed by an SEO spammer. That's what the first link shows. The second link shows that the person who spammed the domain is a sockpuppet account (i.e. someone who creates multiple accounts for abusive purposes).
I already responded,  Defer to Whitelist. That is the venue for white-listing specific pages for use in an article about the subject. You won't be able to white-list the entire domain, but a full, specific URL would be feasible. I recommend navymutual.org/About-us/ as the most appropriate link.
If you like, I can save you the trouble of posting a request there, and white-list that specific URL for use in the Navy Mutual Aid Association article. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate that, thank you. NMAA (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://navymutual\.org/About-us/ is now whitelisted. Use the link exactly as shown in this reply, with the trailing slash and uppercase A. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried, the link doesn't work with the middle backslash, and I can't put it on the page without the middle backslash, whether or not I use Template:url. :(   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the addition to the whitelist (diff) is missing a couple of backslashes: it should be
\bnavymutual\.org\/About-us\/\b
Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the link does not work. I was wrong about the regex: I found "Slashes don't need to be escaped by Backslashes" at mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist while trying to determine why the URL doesn't work. The article now includes:

[http://navymutual\.org/About-us/ About us]

but clicking that link does not work because it has a backslash before the dot. When I tried to fix it by removing the backslash, saving the page fails as the link is caught by the spam filter—cannot see why. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was the trailing "\b" in the whitelist entry. That escape code requires that there is a word character on one side and a non-word character on the other; since / and end-of-string are both considered non-word characters, it was failing to match. The link now works: [157]. Anomie⚔ 16:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting my error. I didn't mean to include the middle backslash in the link I recommended the OP use. I'm glad this is all sorted out. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

aceshowbiz.com[edit]

I propose removing this from the blacklist. I am surprised it is even on there. It is a reputable news site with original and promotional articles, some of which is needed for citation purposes. For example Nicola Peltz's birthday is published on on its actor's profile pages. — Hasdi Bravo • 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Defer to Global blacklist. That site is not blacklisted on the English Wikipedia. It is blacklisted globally on all Wiki projects.
Also, Nicola Peltz's birthday is already sourced elsewhere; there is no need to add a link to a blacklisted site when alternate sources exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perennially declined request at Meta. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it on the list. I could, amusingly enough, find a comment by you saying that it should be on that list though - looks like it still needs to be ! Egg Centric 21:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you not find it on the meta blacklist? It's plain as can be. You're not using Safari by any chance, are you? (Safari's page search function is broken.) ~Amatulić (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FishEaters.com[edit]

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

I am again proposing that Fisheaters.com be removed from the Spam Blacklist. It is not a spam website; it is not-for-profit, informational and well-kept. There is information on it in encyclopedic form about Catholicism and it is neither a blog nor a discussion forum, although the WEBSITE has blog and forum, it is primarily an encyclopedia. The fact that extremely conservative Jewish and Protestant websites (some of which find themselves outside the realm of orthodoxy in their respective religions) are not blacklisted, yet this website is CONSTANTLY denied is unfair. It is a great website and a better reference than many other Catholic websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeformv (talk • contribs) 03:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is recurring, Madeformv, and you have not addressed the concerns properly, especially that it was "thorougly abused by its owner" (on meta it states: "It was thoroughly abused by its owner, represents a fringe POV, is anonymously run, has no documented editorial board or review procedure, and is in sundry ways not a reliable source. The domain offers no utility to offset the past problems).
(and a previous deferral to meta on en.wikipedia.org)
It is not listed here, it is listed on meta.wikipedia.org, asking for de-listing here is futile, it can not be done by admins on en.wikipedia.org. I do not think that requests by siteowners after such "thorough(ly) abuse(d) by owner" will (nor should) be met with approval (on the other hand, if uninvolved, established editors can convince Wikipedia of the use of this site, the story may change). Do note, that the abuse of Wikipedia for the sole reason of being linked and for the purpose of promoting the site is the very definition of spam, whatever the content of the target site is. Anyway,  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


buddyrich.cjb.net[edit]

I'm not sure why this has been blacklisted but I suspect someone who edits the Buddy Rich page is not being objective in their decision. My site was listed on Wikipedia years ago before the official site even existed but then it was suddenly taken off. I've submitted it a few times over the years but it keeps getting taken off. I've never tried to add the site for years until today but found my url was blacklisted. I've managed to add the site using a different url but I've got a feeling that it will be removed. The Official Buddy Rich site links to me so I don't see what the problem is. Please could someone have a look at this for me. Thanks.

As I susspected, my link has been removed. There are other links allowed which have ads and the owners make personal gain. Like I said above - I think the moderator of the Buddy Rich page has some vested interest and is against my site. I tried to speak to him on his page and he just say "I don't have to explain myself 10 times a day" Well if you're going to moderate these page yes you do.

 Not done and if you add [the link again buddyrich.freeweb123.com], the new location will be blacklisted as well. The spam warning places on your talk page makes our WP:EL and WP:COI policies perfectly clear. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, your presumption of any form of censoring to your specific site is completely wrong. I've added a tracking link for the other site, so we know that we have talked about that link before. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked COIBot to revertlist freeweb123.com on XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet a link to Drummerworld remains. A site which is solely for personal gain and covered with ads. It is subjective censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.246.161 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read WP:EL, have you? And while you are at it, also read WP:AGF. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Yes I've read it and understand it. I don't expect anyone to suddenly say "oh we've made a mistake and your site will be added" My question remains. Why is drummerworld link allowed to stay. It's main article is just copied from the official buddy rich site. It adds nothing more to wikipedia and the pictures are copied from other sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.246.161 (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that question was already answered in the discussion on User talk:Ohnoitsjamie. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reply said " at least drummerworld has it's own article unlike your site" Well no it doesn't. That article is also on allaboutjazz and the official br site. I pointed this out but was told " I don't care you're not using wikipedia to promote your site don't post on this page again" (what a nice person Ohnoitsjamie is) When I 1st asked why he deleted my original link he said "I don't have to explain myself 10 times a day - read this" 

Yes I had read the links posted but they seemed to contradict themselves. If you're going to be a moderator on wikipedia you should expect people to ask things.

I see there's a clique going on here though so I'm not going to waste any more time here. However I will say this before I leave. You have all been quite well mannered with the exception of Ohnoitsjamie. He really does have a terrible attitude. He's even deleted the discussion we had on his page because I think he realised what a dick he was. The way he has treat and spoken to me is what has got my back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.246.161 (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

92.11.246.161 - I take it you overlooked my comment on Ohnoitsjamie's talk page? That pretty much explains why sites are linked and not linked. See [158]. In short, there isn't a "clique" going on here, and your site not being added has nothing to do with any personal issues you might perceive Jamie or others here have with you. Personally, I think your site is excellent, and there's no doubt you spent considerable time on it. But at the end of the day, it's still considered a fansite and per WP:ELNO, links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority should be avoided. If you're a recognized authority and meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, you should consider posting that evidence/rationale here. If not, instead of adding links to your site, why not added well-sourced content to the article instead? With the effort you've spent trying to promote your site, you might have found that a more satisfying experience would have been adding missed information, or correcting existing information on the article. Give that a thought - improve the article content instead of just tacking on links. Cheers. --Yankees76 Talk 15:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yankee76. That's the sort of constructive criticism and I expect. If I had just been spoken to like that in the first place things would have been a lot more pleasant. The aggression from Jamie was uncalled for. (The discussion on his page was deleted so I did miss your comments and I was told not to post there again) Can I just point out I only added the link once and it was removed. I didn't spam the page by continually adding the link. The page history will show this.

In the early days of wikipedia my site was listed on the wiki page for about 2 years. The link was deleted in about 2003 and I tried to re add it a few times but it was removed and must have been blacklisted. From 2003 up until now I have never tried to add the link again. So I don't think I am by any means a spammer.

I accept that the link will not be added. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.187.23 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

92.11.187.23, you may have missed, but you started this thread with "I'm not sure why this has been blacklisted but I suspect someone who edits the Buddy Rich page is not being objective in their decision.". Now I understand that you may not have understood why you were not able to submit your link, but then directly assuming that there is somebody not objective is quite a leap. And it was not your link that was blacklisted, and it could be very possible that your link was not even involved in the decision of the blacklisting that is in place. Your assumptions of selective censorship are showing a lack of assuming good faith. Moreover, you seem to be convinced that the other link was added by someone involved in the site, something for which you do not have any proof. That type of assumptions are not always taken as appropriate, and the volunteers on this site may answer accordingly. I am afraid that is what happened here as well.
Now, I am not an expert in your subject, and I expect that you are. The burden of adding a link is on the editor who wants to include it. If it gets removed, then editors (or an editor) was not convinced it belonged there. You may be able to convince people that your link does add to the page and that it would be good page to have linked. If people are convinced, then you would need to ask for whitelisting of your link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Do understand that you have a conflict of interest (even if it is not for personal or financial gain), and that will be taken into account in the decision.
Regarding the other link, a similar story may be true, maybe that link does not pass the merits either (but do note, that is by no means a reason to add your link, it is a totally separate question). Also here, since you have a conflict of interest, I would suggest that you, if you really think that the other site needs removal, start a discussion on the talkpage of the page where the link is about its removal. Due to your conflict of interest, removal by you would be seen as inappropriate.
Do note, that having advertising on a page is by no means a reason to exclude it. It is about information that is added. If the goal of the page is advertising then it becomes another question, here the goal is to inform and to show pictures, and the advertising is not the goal of the page. Many pages contain advertising, that is even true for scientific journals.
In the end, it may be that neither link will be on the page, or that no consensus is reached about removal of one and/or addition of the other. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems[edit]

Makes it hard to report some copyvios[edit]

I just found a copyvio with the original source being on flixya.com, which is on the blacklist. It took me about five minutes to be able to file an FFD I should have been able to do in 5 seconds because I had to find some way to indicate where the image was copied from without linking to the blacklisted site and without using URL shorteners to do so, because they're also on the blacklist. There should be some way (maybe a sysop-only thing or page-specific thing) to allow the full url to be represented, just not linked. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<nowiki> or leaving out the http:// both serve the purpose you describe. MER-C 09:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do? That seems a little clunky, but I guess it works. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

southpacific.org[edit]

Maybe I don't know how to read the blacklist files, but I couldn't figure out why southpacific.org is being rejected. Could someone point me to the relevant line? Fnordware (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
See [159]. -- seth (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I shouldn't expect to see it here or here? Sorry, I'm such a noob. Fnordware (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed at m:Spam blacklist, search for \bsouthpacific\.org. MER-C 10:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I am blind. Or actually it turns out that Safari's find function doesn't work as I expect, at least on that page. Might be a bug. Thanks! Fnordware (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to link a YouTube video and am being thwarted by a spam filter notice. (Yes, I know YouTube generally isn't useful but I think that it is in this particular instance.) Chrome's find function isn't helping me find the link on either blacklist, so I'm not sure if this is working as intended or not. The particular link is http://youtu.be/KJhfgp-SryY. Crypticfirefly (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's working as intended; http://youtube.com/watch?v=KJhfgp-SryY should link to the video you want. MER-C 05:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. If you hit the "share" button to pull up the link YouTube wants you to use for that video, it gives http://youtu.be/KJhfgp-SryY. Why does one work and not the other? And why can't I find that documented anywhere? Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See youtu.be above (same issue). Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you use the 'share' - you can just copy the url from the browser? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you not? Sometimes web services change the way their database works and URLs in the address bar are not necessarily always static (though for the moment they seem to be on YouTube) and that can change. Furthermore, sometimes the URL in the browser address is longer then it needs to be because it may have been pulled from search results. If a website operator tells me they want me to use a certain URL as a static link when sharing content, I tend to follow their instructions both as a matter of politeness (it may make it easier for them to track where content is coming from or something) and in the hope that it is less likely that the link will break later. If Wikipedia has some reason for blocking the URLs YouTube recommends that people use it should be documented. Crypticfirefly (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw the comment Johnuniq mentioned above. My position stands. "youtu.be" is part of YouTube's website, it isn't a redirect. The explanation up there is silly, and those insisting on it have a responsibility to make sure that the workaround is posted prominently so people can find it.Crypticfirefly (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's Place[edit]

In the article Harry's Place there is one line which I wish to remove from the section Controversy:

[http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-de-zionification-now.html], because it is an incomplete reference which does not seem to belong to any particular piece of text; its presence causes a red error message on the page, and also puts the page into Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting.

However, on editing to remove that one line, and attempting to save, my edit is rejected because of a spam filter notice "because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. ... The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://www.hurryupharry.org ". What puzzles me is that the edit is being rejected because I'm apparently adding this blacklisted site, which is plainly untrue. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the site:

See

Which is blacklisted here on Wikipedia due to serial vandal abuse. Interesting problem, I think that the links now used in the article would need to be whitelisted before that page can be repaired, as there may be a risk of ongoing abuse with the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.. Without thinking about the blacklisting itself: reading the section, it is sourced to the site itself. Maybe for a controversy section on a subject, all should be independently sourced? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a previous discussion of this problem in the archive of this page[160]. That seems to suggest that the domain has already been whitelisted. RolandR (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

irc.freenode.net[edit]

I just tried to add the standard {{helpme-nq}} template to a talk page, but I hit the spam filter notice:

The following link has triggered a protection filter: //irc.freenode.net/

Upon researching, the only mention I found of freenode.net was in the line: 

\birc\.freenode\.net\/#reenactor\b

which was added to the blacklist in May 2008. Now, I know that I've added the {{helpme-nq}} template numerous times since then, but for some reason, I now can't. Given that there are plenty of standard templates that reference WP's IRC channel, what's going on here? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SpamBlacklist extension was changed a few days ago, in r110401. The intention of the edit was to close a hole where protocol-relative links would bypass the blacklist, but now it will block all protocols rather than just http or https.
Note also that the \birc\.freenode\.net\/#reenactor\b would not have worked as intended, anyway (unless the spam blacklist worked very differently in 2008), as the '#' character terminates the regex. I've removed the offending entry. Anomie⚔ 04:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is now filed as T36179, although the final resolution may be to adopt this new behavior as correct. Anomie⚔ 04:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean that {{helpme-nq}} should work now (because you removed the line from the blacklist) or that every template with an IRC link needs to be changed (if irc:// links are now disallowed)? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first: {{helpme-nq}} should work now because I removed the line from the blacklist. irc:// links are still allowed. Anomie⚔ 12:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

topcashback.co.uk[edit]

Just tried adding a link to the UK based website on the following page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Times_Fast_Track_100

It currently mistakenly links to the US. However I was prevented as it says that they are marked on this black list as being spam, the only rules I could find were both matching "ref" to try and prevent abuse of the websites referral system. Is there another list I am missing or is this a mistake? Rickb (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the line \btopcashback\.co\.uk\/#ref, the '#' character is interpreted as the start of a comment. I've fixed it by replacing the '#' with an escape code (\x23) that matches a '#' in the URL without being interpreted as the start of a comment. Anomie⚔ 14:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Possible sex website[edit]

livejasmin.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com This website is sex-related social networking site, it may contain malware and considered dangerous and spam. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one the most visited web sites in the world, according to the LiveJasmin article. I hardly think they need to resort to malware, nor would they need to spam Wikipedia although individuals who get paid through that site might do so. However, I see no evidence of abuse, just a few links in user space plus the link in the main article. The site is mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/livewebsexxx.com a small number of times. Maybe this is a good addition for XLinkBot. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am on this talk page, looking for another site that I was recently blocked from using, when I happened to come across the link you are discussing here. I usually encounter this site as an annoying popup. Despite added the url to my list of restricted sites and blocked cookies list, it continues to be a nuisance. I would consider it a low-level security threat in itself, however, advertisers who use that site (or any similar site for that matter) often pose a much higher security threat to computers, thereby raising the threat level of the site in question. I firmly suggest it be blocked and permanently blacklisted.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia travel spam[edit]

http: //indonesia.travel/

SatuSuro 04:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report filed here. If continued spamming occures further action could be considered.--Hu12 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Category: User talk pages with Uw-spam4im notices[edit]

You are invited to contribute at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 3#Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam4im notices - Fayenatic (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking IP's used as URL's[edit]

Came across this case, See WikiProject Spam report, where an annon was adding his site as an IP, rather than the two (semmingly) legitimate urls (which redirect)... In risk of Stuffing beans up my nose, blocking IP's as urls would be of significant help when it comes to pre blocked urls, in cases of curcumventing the BL. Its worth noting that both en.wikibooks.org and en.wikiversity.org have these types of links blocked globaly with regex \d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}. Thoughts on blocking IP's as URL's on en.wikipedia.org would be appreciated.--Hu12 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought this is a good idea but after thinking about it, I'm not so sure. Such a block may result in a lot of false hits. I know of many legitimate sites that exist on shared hosting servers, meaning that several unrelated sites with different owners may have the same IP address. Furthermore, domain names can easily be transferred from one hosting provider to another, running the risk of whack-a-mole IP blacklisting if a site owner transfers a domain to a different IP address. In that sense it would seem more effective to blacklist domains rather than IP addresses. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mis-understand what Hu12 is suggesting. We are not blocking specific IPs but rather forcing users to specify domain names instead of using URLs. AKA http://208.80.152.2 would not be allowed, while http://en.wikipedia.org would be. Both URLs point to the same place. ΔT The only constant 15:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't there some sites which wouldn't be accessible with a domain name? –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very very very few sites are only accessable via IP addresses, and for those we have the whitelist. ΔT The only constant 16:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I should learn not to attempt intelligent conversation on only 3 hours of sleep. Somehow, don't ask me why, I had the thought stuck in my head that Hu12 proposed to block any site corresponding to a particular IP address. Yes, I know that isn't how the blacklist works. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible viral sites[edit]

I have encountered a site somewhere that has affected my system with a sort of virus. You can see in this edit where I tried to remove a spam link, but it remained resilient and effectively added itself back into the article. The sites requested to be blacklisted are shown above I say blacklist them for their combative means of creeping into the encyclopedia. If they were legit, they wouldn't use a backdoor trying to enter. My76Strat (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the above. The editing history you reference shows that you moved one of the two pixeltrack links to somewhere else. Did you try to remove both? The mundomedia link doesn't show up at all in that diff, and doesn't appear to have any history on Wikipedia. The pixeltrack link does have some history although it doesn't exist in article space at the moment. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, I just tested that link you were trying to remove. Bad, bad. I'm convinced you had an infection. Into the blacklist it goes, in case any other legitimate users get infected. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

books.google.com[edit]

This morning I'm getting a warning that my edits cannot be saved because books.google.com has been blacklisted. I haven't found a discussion on this. I would appreciate more information on this. -- Donald Albury 11:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Testing....book on editing from google books. Hmmm...I'm able to save links without it popping up as being blacklisted.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I tried again, and get "The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://www.google.com/url?". I'm seeing this in User:Donald Albury/Shell ring. If I nowiki the two books.google.com links, I can save the page. -- Donald Albury 12:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre...I was able to save the link with no problems in both a shortened form and the full url. Perplexed...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
google.com/url? is deliberately blacklisted because the URL snippet can be used to circumvent the spam blacklist. The real url is http://www.nps.gov/seac/course-of-study/FLvsSCrings.doc ; Google changed it because they want to track you. MER-C 12:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little clearer, now. The problem is this link, www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CHMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nps.gov%2Fseac%2Fcourse-of-study%2FFLvsSCrings.doc&ei=XN3ITuSFGdSDtgealJWuDA&usg=AFQjCNEbwf-zAB0pHWLjkqnhMoNr1CvJvA&sig2=c7UUJAEoBjpPUtN6VT_LPw, which automatically downloads a doc file. I trust the ultimate source, which the U.S. National Park Service, but it is a good idea to block such files. I had tried earlier to link directly to the NPS, but been bounced back to the above link. I think I have it sorted now. Thanks for the response. -- Donald Albury 12:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to avoid such problems in the future and you use Firefox, you can install this extension. MER-C 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and to also prevent flash cookies from being used to track you there is Better Privacy.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

56casino.com[edit]

56casino is a casino guide website which supply different casino games websites for people. There are lots of various kinds of casino websites with detailed introduction and catagory of casino games,it's a little like the casinocity. Today, I tried to add our website on the casino discuss page on WIKI but I have been informed that our website is in blacklist, I guessed the reason is that in July 2010 we pubilished an article about 56casino on WIKI,and we had been informed that our account was blocked for violates Wikinews's username policy. At the same time, our website was blocked . We're willing to solve this problem if there is some way to solve it! Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidney.lohn (talk • contribs)

You're calling this an article?  Denied. The site was blacklisted because it was one of many abused by multiple accounts over many wikis. We do not delist sites at the request of site owners or other affiliated people. Furthermore, this isn't listed here; you want m:Talk:Spam blacklist, however any requests there are highly likely to be denied for the same reasons. MER-C 10:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Scholarly References Blacklisted - Really??[edit]

Post removed by request. Sincere thanks to all who tried to help.--Laualoha 05:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

FreedomMag[edit]

it's certainly bizarre and perhaps a couple fries short of a happy meal on some of their editorial decisions - but it doesn't seem to be absolutely unuseful. For example I wanted to use SITE/english/vol29i1/page05.htm as a link inside a citation. MajickJonson (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted on meta, I'll whitelist this link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.blogspot and .wordpress[edit]

Is there a reason not to include rules to ban the use of these websites? Chico Venancio (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is proper use of these sites. For certain statements, wordpress and blogspot documents are good primary sources, and for some subjects, a wordpress or blogspot can be a proper external link (generally only the <subject>.blogspot.com, when that blogspot is of enough importance to be really named). Moreover, we have thousands and thousands of links to these sites, blacklisting would cause major disruption, links would need replacement, the good stuff needs whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the good stuff needs whitelisting. But it is a major source of SPAM. To me it just makes more sense to whitelist the needed ones than to let it free. Chico Venancio (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does local whitelisting override Meta blacklisting?[edit]

For some reason Meta has blacklisted shanghai-ranking.com, Shanghai JiaoTong's globally influential Academic Ranking of World Universities. If Meta will not lift the blacklist, can we override it here? Franamax (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the whitelist overrides all the blacklistings. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll file a local whitelist request. Though since I can't seem to find any discussion on Meta before the site was blacklisted, I'm tempted to just add it unilaterally. Franamax (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, seeing the post below (which I e/c'd with) I think I may just do it anyway - Dirk, maybe you should, since you're familiar with the pitfalls? Franamax (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it from meta. I'll combine the two threads and comment below. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

shanghairanking.com[edit]

Does anyone know why this site was blacklisted? It has been used for several years on several university articles and across all U.S. university articles as part of en:Template:Infobox US university ranking. —Eustress talk 04:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the thread iommediately above this one. Franamax (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this was blacklisted: I am going to speak for User:Quentinv57 to a certain extend (they blacklisted this on meta), but I see that I have also noticed the case earlier:

There seems to be a campaign going on to (ref)spam the site. Just today this was noted, a SPA adding a redirect reference to shanghairanking.com.

I have removed the site from the blacklist, but we may want to try and get into contact with the socks and try to stop their spamming. Site is clearly good, but that does not mean that we have to link it everywhere remotely possible - it appears that they either are misguided in our policies and guidelines, or they have a vested interest in being linked (for financial/promotional reasons?). I think that part has to be stopped. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe:

per diff. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last one is an editor in Copenhagen, and they seem to just be following the existing format in the Aarhus U article. QS and THES are the other 2 leading world university rankings (not aure about Leiden, presumably for European unis). Every school which appears in the rankings (QS, THES, ARWU, whatever US uni ranking list is big there) will end up with a ref for each category where they place highly, so we should expect several thousand outgoing links to each - unless university puffery is to be reined in, which would be a wider discussion. Those named accounts are a bit more of a concern, but I don't see the links as unduly promotional (beyond, obviously, promoting the universities), at least no more so than links to THES, which is after all published by The Times newspaper. The Shanghai rankings are used by The Economist magazine, so ARWU is already getting all the promotion it needs right there. Thanks for lifting the blacklist, at least for now. Franamax (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Franamax, it always worries me when SPA's start linking to their sites everywhere. I've been spending time in COI and spam issues for a long time, and I have seen the corners of it. The strangest reasons for spamming occur - but for all types of sites I've seen promotional-like reasons why editors were linking to their own site, including high profile sites. We have seen plain SEO of them, we have seen people high in new organisations bluntly saying 'we are new, we are important, we need to be linked from Wikipedia to show we exist', we've seen webmasters linking to make sure that there were incoming visitors to their site so they could show that they were working efficiently, Joe jobs to put another site in a bad light, non-profit organisations who put the incoming links, because people will find their website, and actually have them visit them as a payed customer, you name it, heh, I could even imagine a school putting the refs on all schools with lower ranking this theirs. Sometimes they do a good job, but very often they go over the top ('we have a quilt in our ancient history museum, so we add a link to Quilt', 'This school does not appear in our ranking, but our primary source is true for the statement that this school is not in the ranking, so add that sentence and a ref'. I know that that is bordering (or maybe even passing that border) on assuming bad faith, but it is why I do urge to get such editors to interact, try to avoid the impropriety - so that when there are real concerns that editors don't have to run after them cleaning up (and maybe having to check hundreds of other edits, and when two weeks later another editor finds another questionable edit that editor goes through all the other edits again, wasting time and getting frustrated).
Of course, blacklisting is not the best way of forcing the editor to go into discussion .. it is is sometimes the only way left (and I am afraid that here even that failed, the editor seemed to start to use redirect sites - and still does not discuss).
The university puffery is another problem, perhaps. But that needs to be solved on a case-by-case basis. That generally is based on one article, where protection of the article may help. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand completely what you are saying, and named accounts and IPs that add the same link in rapid succession certainly need to be looked at carefully and spoken with where possible. I haven't looked at who is adding the links but my guess would be that most are added by students or recent alumni of the unis in question, or a rival U that got a better ranking. If the links are being added inidividually, in refs, to verify article text, they seem legit to me. If they're being spammed in by 1 or 2 accounts, that's a different story. Is there a tool that lists edits adding the link in temporal order, here or cross-wiki? It would be good to see who is adding it currently. Franamax (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on repairing it .. I moved computer, and had broken databases. This is a report from before the move. Seen that, I think that blacklisting was not the right tool here, too many others who also used the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2012&oldid=1108497339"