Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-10

< Talk:Spam blacklist‎ | Archives
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Herbythyme in topic Proposed additions

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 16 years ago136 comments34 people in discussion
  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

paydaycreditlive.com

The following discussion is closed.

My wiki has been attacked by IP address 75.36.17.229; his spam message was:

Convenience of Online Payday Loan Companies Online cash advance companies offer detail information about the cash advance process. Thus, applicants will not ...<a href=http://paydaycreditlive.com>pay day loan franchise</a>

Please blacklist this user... God Bless... 124.83.17.55 11:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  Not done nothing more heard --Herby talk thyme 12:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

www.earn2001.cn, www.earn2000.cn earn2002.con and earn2003.cn

This spammer has attacked several forums; maybe if you include these to the blacklist, it would be better... 124.83.17.55 11:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Got evidence of spamming - diffs etc please - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

2π English panorama spam

See en:WT:WPSPAM#4π^2 English panorama spam and en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul#2π English panorama spam. Spamming with dynamic IPs too. 124.182.9.46 09:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please skip this request. Only three of the 6 domains is owned by the spammer (Bath, York and Chester), and the user has promised not to add these three links again. COIBot is still monitoring the links. --Beetstra 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough - let us know if the problem returns - thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't archive this just yet -- there's still discussion underway at en:WT:WPSPAM#4π^2 English panorama spam. If you look at that discussion, it now appears there was more (21 different projects) to this than initially thought. Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, the spammer does own england-360.co.uk as well as the York, Chester and Bath domains. The other 2 are unrelated. --A. B. (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally recommend proceeding with blacklisting the 4 domains above plus these two related domains:
  • harrison-associates.co.uk
  • novay.co.uk
They've not been spammed yet, but I am concerned given this spammer's persistence in spite of at least 9 warnings that I counted.
Here are edit histories I found:
  1. bg.wikipedia:
    1. bg:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
  2. cy.wikipedia:
    1. cy:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
    2. cy:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
  3. da.wikipedia:
    1. da:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
    2. da:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
  4. de.wikipedia:
    1. de:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
    2. de:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
    3. de:Special:Contributions/84.71.132.4
  5. en.wikipedia:
    1. en:Special:Contributions/81.76.6.188
    2. en:Special:Contributions/84.64.16.158
    3. en:Special:Contributions/84.64.176.101
    4. en:Special:Contributions/84.64.181.111
    5. en:Special:Contributions/84.65.0.7
    6. en:Special:Contributions/84.65.127.14
    7. en:Special:Contributions/84.65.43.218
    8. en:Special:Contributions/84.66.191.34
    9. en:Special:Contributions/84.66.22.31
    10. en:Special:Contributions/84.66.63.4
    11. en:Special:Contributions/84.66.84.60
    12. en:Special:Contributions/84.67.165.31
    13. en:Special:Contributions/84.68.176.240
    14. en:Special:Contributions/84.68.240.35
    15. en:Special:Contributions/84.68.26.251
    16. en:Special:Contributions/84.68.82.46
    17. en:Special:Contributions/84.69.125.229
    18. en:Special:Contributions/84.69.54.202
    19. en:Special:Contributions/90.240.130.190
    20. en:Special:Contributions/90.240.233.80
    21. en:Special:Contributions/90.240.246.229
    22. en:Special:Contributions/90.240.246.241
    23. en:Special:Contributions/90.240.93.216
    24. en:Special:Contributions/90.241.143.254
    25. en:Special:Contributions/90.242.45.200
    26. en:Special:Contributions/Panoyork
  6. es.wikipedia:
    1. es:Special:Contributions/84.67.52.92
  7. fi.wikipedia:
    1. fi:Special:Contributions/81.79.217.232
  8. fr.wikipedia:
    1. fr:Special:Contributions/81.79.64.84
    2. fr:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
    3. fr:Special:Contributions/84.67.52.92
  9. gl.wikipedia:
    1. gl:Special:Contributions/81.79.217.232
  10. it.wikipedia:
    1. it:Special:Contributions/81.79.64.84
    2. it:Special:Contributions/84.67.180.33
  11. ja.wikipedia:
    1. ja:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
    2. ja:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
  12. nl.wikipedia:
    1. nl:Special:Contributions/84.67.52.92
  13. nn.wikipedia:
    1. nn:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
  14. no.wikipedia:
    1. no:Special:Contributions/81.79.217.232
    2. no:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
  15. pl.wikipedia:
    1. pl:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
    2. pl:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
    3. pl:Special:Contributions/84.67.180.33
  16. pt.wikipedia:
    1. pt:Special:Contributions/84.67.180.33
  17. ru.wikipedia:
    1. ru:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
  18. simple.wikipedia:
    1. simple:Special:Contributions/81.79.217.232
  19. sv.wikipedia:
    1. sv:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
    2. sv:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
  20. tr.wikipedia:
    1. tr:Special:Contributions/84.66.144.6
  21. zh.wikipedia:
    1. zh:Special:Contributions/81.77.115.48
    2. zh:Special:Contributions/81.79.64.84
Note that there is only a partial consensus on en.wikipedia to blacklist these links; the spammer has appealed our blacklisting recommendation, offering as an alternative:
  • "I promise that I will not add any more external links from today onwards, if I can just add/keep 3 to these cities." [1]
I believe that's a bit rich, given this history. I also believe that if some on en.wikipedia really want these links (I'm not one of them), then they can be whitelisted locally but that the other projects need the protection of blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done (4 domains only) & thanks for the work - I fully agree local whitelisting would be the only option (if required) for someone as persistent as this --Herby talk thyme 07:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

AVRIL LAVGINE

SPAM LINK- WWW.WORLDWIDEALBUMS.TK whatever —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.62.44 (talk • contribs) --Nick1915 - all you want 19:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

See also [2]--Nick1915 - all you want 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if someone left some diffs or edit histories for the record. The problem with leaving linksearches for the record is that there's nothing to see after all the links get cleaned up.
Perhaps many more links were cleaned up that were spammed, but when I look at the links on fr.wikipedia, they were all added by different high volume editors. The one link on es.wikipedia was added by an editor with about 500 edits and no warnings. All the other links turned up by a linksearch are on en.wikipedia; I did not check them out. If there weren't more links on other wikipedias, then maybe this should only be blacklisted on en.wikipedia. The blacklisting request came from a British IP, so I'm guessing the person was concerned with links on en.wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

1000ways.org

The following discussion is closed.

1000ways.org has been added repeatedly to en:General Electric, despite consensus at en:Talk:General_Electric#External_link opposing it because its unencyclopedic and essentially spam for the POV art project there. The best source of diffs is at en:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Umpteee. Editors mentioned there have indicated on the article's talk page that they're not interested in following consensus.--Chaser 09:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Spam only on en.wp. Please make your request on en.wp local blacklist. Thanks--Nick1915 - all you want 09:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We have one? How have I been an admin for ten months and not known? Thanks.--Chaser 17:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It only came in a few months ago and didn't have much significant activity before August/September. Find it at en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 17:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If you add the link yourself to the local blacklist as an admin, please make sure you leave an explanation on the talk page so that there's a record in case a removal request comes in in the future; if the link's on the blacklist without explanation, then it's likely to be removed someday. Note that edit summaries are not indexed by Mediawiki search or Google, so it's a royal pain to go through edit summaries and diffs 2 years later to find out who added what and why. (That's been the experience on meta with many early blacklist entries made before a proper log was started.) --A. B. (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I added a note about local blacklists to the top of this page. I don't know of others, but I'm sure you folks do.--Chaser 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

6 URL redirect domains

Six unrelated URL redirect domains similar to tinyurl.com:

  • zonow.com
  • kurl.nl
  • urlsie.com
  • lix.in
  • href.to
  • kuerzer.de

Details:

--A. B. (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 14:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

raghunathmanet.com and mecatiss.info

Very different domains, but linked by registration details and spammer behavior.

Examples of spamming:

-- SiobhanHansa 16:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 18:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also found mecatiss.com (related to mecatiss.info) and spammed cross-wiki:[7], [8]. Any chance of adding this too? Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 01:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

added--Nick1915 - all you want 09:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

smartlabs.pl

This link has been inserted across a number of Wikipedias. Here is part of the report from en:WT:WPSPAM:

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

Spammer

en:Special:Contributions/83.15.80.234

This editor repeatedly inserts a link to his own calculator program across a range of articles, and never responds to Talk... EdJohnston 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spam -- I suggest you list at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist, --A. B. (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Another IP:
Cross-wiki spam:
--A. B. (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done Nick1915 - all you want 09:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

hiphop-radio.50webs.com

I thought this was already blacklisted, but apparently not. See COIBot report:

--Beetstra 09:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done Nick1915 - all you want 09:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Spam from domisfera.com | contratar.org | visitarcanarias.com | original-design.es

Several anonymous user are sowing this external link in Wikipedia ES. Revert and continue. For example: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

and

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

History of Contribs: From IP 80.24.213.111 From IP 83.60.51.119 From IP 85.57.164.53

Blocks domains, please. --Pepelopex 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (user page in es.wikipedia)

Spam only on es.wp. Please make a request on your local blacklist. Thanks--Nick1915 - all you want 15:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sory, What page? --Pepelopex 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Nick, I wasn't aware eswiki had a local blacklist, do you have info on where it's located? If it's es:MediaWiki:Spam blacklist then it's not working. drini [es:] [commons:] 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
here--Nick1915 - all you want 16:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well, that's where it would be requested, but es:MediaWiki:Spam blacklist is not working, i.e., doesnt' prevent links from being inserted, look: addition of a test url 16:48 30 sep 2007, but addition of that url to a page 16:54 30 sep 2007 drini [es:] [commons:] 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
@Drini, uhm ok... I've blacklisted this domain, but please contact a dev for fixing es local blacklist--Nick1915 - all you want 16:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
*shrug* I couldve adde d it myself, I was more interested on knowing about local blacklist, but yes, it seems it's not enabled, I'll talk to devs. drini [es:] [commons:] 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The user Pepelopex is acting in bad faith. There has been some links added to these articles that are NOT SPAM because add relevant and neutral information. He has not read the content of these articles because he is not interested in the subject I think. Of course you can not read them because are in spanish. But you have bloqued them. ¿Can you explain how this can be possible?

I understand spanish and they're all blog's spam links. Sorry, removing refused--Nick1915 - all you want 08:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tu que entiendes castellano,¿te has dignado a entrar a uno sólo de los articulos DIVULGATIVOS referenciados de Domisfera? y los calificas de spam?. Conoces esta politica de la wikipedia referente a enlaces externos? (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Convenciones_sobre_enlaces_externos) "...Páginas con gran cantidad de material neutral y relevante aún no contenido en el artículo. Lo ideal sería que dicho contenido se integrase en el artículo de Wikipedia, en cuyo caso seguiría apareciendo como enlace externo, al tratarse de una referencia bibliográfica...."

Gracias a este tipo de decisiones irreflexivas y arbitrarias la wikipedia es lo que es...

2 es.wp admin have tagged these links as spam, it's enough for me. Please ask them the reason--Nick1915 - all you want 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Spam from beatbox.be

IPs spamming: 84.194.183.151/152. Edits:

Mathel 20:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are edit histories:
Spam domain info:
Related domain:
--A. B. (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 11:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

eclipse-glasses.com

Extensive and persistent cross-wiki spam. See en:WT:WPSPAM#spam.eclipse-glasses.com for the list of dynamic ip spammers. 124.178.140.134 09:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 10:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Still spamming, using eclipse-glasses.net: [23]/[24].

Spammers were fr:Special:Contributions/SODAP-SOBOMEX and meta:81.51.229.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count • block log • x-wiki • WHOIS • RDNS • traceroute • CompleteWhois • ippages.com • robtex.com • tor • Google). 121.221.75.186 05:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 07:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Still spamming:

Pfft. 124.178.130.58 11:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 12:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He won't give up...

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

See [25]/[26]. 58.170.147.241 07:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 08:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

handster.com pocketpcaddict.com

Widespread cross-wiki spam. See en:WT:WPSPAM#spam.handster.com spam.pocketpcaddict.com for list of (shared ip?) spammers. 121.221.75.186 10:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 11:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All the sites listed here.

Hello, Ionas68224 here editing from a proxy. I just needed to tell you to blacklist all the sites listed jenkem.org/index.php?title=Shock_Sites here. These are really serious shock sites. I've been afraid to go on Jenkem Main because people tell me that's a shock site too, but these are bad sites except on the Wikipedia article Shock site. Please blacklist. Thank you,

--ionas68224 75.126.193.91 00:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I get a "404 page not found" error on the link? --Herby talk thyme 07:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
And .... a posting from a blocked user from an open proxy.... how much fun can you have in one day --Herby talk thyme 08:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

blpurl.com

URL shortener. 58.170.147.241 08:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

cmsimple.com.br

Spammed cross-wiki, pure spam. Output from all-wiki spamsearch tool, after links from en removed: 

Results for en.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam URL: http://spam.cmsimple.com.br
Results for ja.wikipedia.org...
 Page: SITE PUBLIS URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br/
 Page: ジョン・バロウマン  URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
Results for sv.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Webbdesign URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
 Page: PageRank URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
Results for es.wikipedia.org...
 Page: PageRank URL: http://link.cmsimple.com.br
Results for pt.wikipedia.org...
 Page: CMSimple URL: http://www.cmsimple.com.br
Spammers

See also en:WT:WPSPAM#cmsimple.com.br. 58.167.228.150 13:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 13:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that our spammer[27] just tried to delete this entry, so I went and looked a little closer at this domain. Here's a related domain with the same Google Adsense ID and ownership -- I suggest blacklisting this domain too:
Google Adsense ID: 3721620839560070
Accounts adding this second link:
--A. B. (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Our spammer just vandalized this section again.[28][29]
I wonder if we should blacklist this third related domain as well? Hasn't been spammed that I can see but it shares the same registration contact data:
Others' thoughts?
--A. B. (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

\bdokuwiki\.com\.br\b is   Done. For now I'm going with "good faith" on the one that hasn't spammed BUT if there are any links seen I'll happily review that --Herby talk thyme 10:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

sudpontino.net

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

spammers

Mathel 22:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Genericised url above, condensed spammer list. All wiki spamsearch results (after 4 links removed on en): 

Results for en.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
Results for de.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: Formia URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia
 Page: Minturno URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for ja.wikipedia.org...
 Page: カンポディメーレ URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: フォンディ URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: イトリ URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
 Page: レーノラ URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
 Page: ��ントゥルノ URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for it.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: Gaeta URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/gaeta
 Page: Itri URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
 Page: Lenola URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
 Page: Minturno URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for nl.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: Minturno URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for pt.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: Formia URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia
 Page: Itri URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
 Page: Lenola URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
 Page: Minturno URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for pl.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
Results for ca.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
Results for vo.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Campodimele URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/campodimele
 Page: Fondi URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/fondi
 Page: Formia URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia
 Page: Itri URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/itri
 Page: Lenola URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/lenola
 Page: Minturno URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/minturno
Results for br.wikipedia.org...
 Page: Formia URL: http://www.sudpontino.net/formia

Apparently you missed some spam on ja.wikipedia. Test wiki is down, so there could be more spam. 58.167.227.240 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 08:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

jordibusque.com

Not sure about this site. It just contains pictures (some of them quite nice to look at) but no further information. I removed them from some articles where there are equal pictures in the articles or/and at commons. But several IPs add them again each time after it was removed. Right now the link exists on about 130 pages on 32 wikipedia-projects (according to eagles linksearch tool): e.g. ru (4x), tr (3x), ca (9x), es (17x), fr (12x), ja (2x), .... -- 193.110.129.66 09:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure too
A couple of the fr ones I checked the link is not relevant to the page however the site looks ok. Equally the links I checked on fr were placed a while ago and have not been removed by anyone. I can find no trace of this being reported/discussed on en wp (which I tend to expect). I would also be happier if a named user reported this so that I could check around. Not a "no" but more information/views would be good, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing else heard - closed as   Not done --Herby talk thyme 14:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

uarticles.blogspot.com

This site was blacklisted on en.wp's shadowbot/AntiSpamBot back in June. In the last few weeks, they've started to spam other language Wikipedias.. as shown in this report. --Versageek 15:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that -   Done --Herby talk thyme 15:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I've cleaned the links from all those main space pages, with the exception of one on es.wp, where the page is semi-protected & my account is too new to edit. --Versageek 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I just cleared that last link. --A. B. (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Accounts
Domains
  • adultcliks.com
  • av-videos.com
  • babecollector.com
  • baseballsexgames.com
  • celebrityinferno.com
  • eurohotbabes.com
  • fcnudes.com
  • kbabe.com
  • kbitches.com
  • kcastings.com
  • kerotic.com
  • kfetish.com
  • kfisting.com
  • klivecam.com
  • kpeeing.com
  • kporns.com
  • kscans-germany.com
  • kscans.com
  • kteam.info
  • mouthpee.net
  • puppetcams.com
  • r-back.com
  • sexmetaltoys.com
  • spammed previously by:
  • top-nude.com
  • vipbeauties.net
  • vipclash.com
  • watchmyexbabes.com
  • x-proxy.com
  • amazon.de/First-Class-Nudes-Marketa-Belonoha
Reference

--A. B. (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Of no value Foundationwise, all   Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

discusswelding.com

Numerous anonymous and new editors are repeatedly adding links to discusswelding.com on English Wikipedia articles en:welding, en:shielded metal arc welding, en:arc welding, and others. Users include:

The site itself is simply a forum with moderate traffic; nothing exceptional and not something that needs to be linked. Thanks! --Spangineerwp ws (háblame) 17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

On the face of it this appears to be an en wp issue rather than a cross wiki one? If that is the case you might be better seeking local blacklisting here, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
He's been spamming quite comprehensively elsewhere on the web too. I've removed his link from the welder page. He'll be back though. Not sure he's going to be bothered about language either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.210.11.171 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 Oct 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, however if you read the header of the page this is really for requests relating to extensive cross wiki spamming. Probably take a look at this or this first and see if a block on en wp would be better for now? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

centroherbalife.com

Cross-wiki -- he's spamming additional wikipedias even as I write this:

--A. B. (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done Nick1915 - all you want 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast work!
For the record, here are more accounts:
--A. B. (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

url.vg

URL forwarding site used to circumvent blacklisted URL's. Example of use is: [30] by socpuppeteer General Tojo. -- Chris 73 21:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

happybuyer.org

I must confess that I havent visited this site and investigated, but as I found it in both no:wp and en:wp I belive it might be other places too. If those to I found and cleared was the only then I belive this is for testing-purposes by happybuyer and that a larger spread of these links will most likely be on its way. -- Atluxity 20:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And, in addition
and others. /NH 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems cross wiki so   Done --Herby talk thyme 10:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html

Hate site solely exists to discredit one person, spammed across Wikipedia on various pages to do the same. No redeeming value. --Let You2 23:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide links to diff cross wiki as evidence for this request please, thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Jason Gastrich has a long history on en.wikipedia:
There are unrelated durangobill.com links on other wikipedias, but only en.wikipedia has links to the durangobill.com page criticizing Gastrich. None are in article space; here they are:
--A. B. (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Also see this list of domains owned by Jason Gastrich; some of them blacklisted here:
--A. B. (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Herby, that list is likely complete. Hate site slanders Jason Gastrich, posts personal information of his (e.g. home address), etc. --Let You2 18:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this one not be listed at en wp rather than globally? I see the disruption for sure but I'd get that in the local blacklist asap personally. See if you can get some action from an admin on en wp, if not maybe nudge me again but it is outside what should be on Meta in my opinion, cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Herby, I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the process and don't know any admins on en wp. I agree with you about the disruption, though. Could you help? Perhaps you know an admin or something. --Let You2 21:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to list this request here (maybe copy what is here almost - ie A. B.'s bit) that should get you somewhere I hope, cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

cyndilauperuk.com/ReissuesPage.html

Looks like inter-wiki advertising campaign for new fan's idea:

Mathel 22:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done Cross wiki & specific page listed thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

www.micholita.com

Added from various ip:s in the 190.42.m.n range. Sample edits:

As far as I can understand, the site is not of any use to Wikimedia wikis. There is one link from a user subpage on enwiki which has probably gotten there as part of a translation project. /NH 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross wiki, not relevant   Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

humanthermodynamics.com, humanchemistry.net, endeav.org

MER-C said, "This is much, much worse than we first thought. The problem is not confined to the English Wikipedia."

and this was what I found:

The fellow who did this spamming disappears when confronted and switches to a new account. I think blacklisting his domains is the best way to stop this activity. Jehochman 02:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like the current primary identity will be faced with a community ban for his spamming and weaving those "references" throughout en.wp, but his pattern is to switch identities when found out— it would appear blacklisting those domains is the best way to prevent a recurrence. — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 04:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems only links to humanthermodynamics.com exist oustide enwiki (some 20 or so). I have checked about half of them, and it seems they have been added by normal editors not related to en:User:Sadi Carnot (unless he/she has some very unusual language skills). Some of the links seem to have been included when articles were translated (nn) or transferred (simple) from enwiki. I have not checked zhwiki.
(sample non-conspicuos edits)
/NH 04:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point, although I suppose halting the spread of "infection" is also a Good Thing. I'll simply admit that I don't know enough meta-wiki policy to know how this should be handled. — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 05:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"Meta policy" (non existent!) taken as causing cross wiki disruption that cannot sensibly be handled locally (in my view at least). However here it looks like that is true for at least one site but may not be true for humanthermodynamics.com possibly. I have no real problem listing appropriates sites here if they are not relevant to the Foundation but equally it may be that local blacklisting is appropriate for some sites. Anyone cares to review/clarify & I'll list what is agreed? --Herby talk thyme 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and blacklist whichever domains seem unambiguous based on the evidence, and also tell me where I can request blacklisting the others at the English Wikipedia. Jehochman 18:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see there are no (or very few) signs of crosswiki spamming, so global blacklisting would rather be a matter of prevention. The sites do contain some useful historical texts but they are embedded in attempts to promote some strange kind of alternative physics and to sell books published by the owner (en:user Sadi Carnot, it appears). In addition, I think most of the relevant texts could be found on other sites as they are in the public domain. When it comes to wikis other than enwiki I wouldn't oppose blacklisting (and ideally, one would remove the links and give local editors a clear explanation why). On the other hand, I am not sure it would be a good idea to blacklist right now, when there are hundreds of articles on enwiki that have to be dealt with. /NH 21:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably URL shorteners excepted we are not really dealing with prevention on the Meta list. To request the blacklisting on en wp go here - someone should deal with it. The fact that the link has made it on to other wikis may well be because pages were imported (I was surprised to find some of the non en language wikis I had "edited" on!). If it become persistent & cross wiki it should be listed here but maybe other avenues should be tried first. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I think if these domains are touting bogus science, then we should consider blacklisting here given the spread of their links to other Wikipedias. Bad information is much worse for an encyclopedia than the traditional commercial spam we normally deal with here.
I've seen a lot of uncritical importation and translation of external links sections from bigger Wikipedia into new articles on smaller projects eager to grow. I don't think some of their editors realize that there may be errors and spam in these articles. --A. B. (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok - combination of arguments and some reflection -   Done and thanks all for the input --Herby talk thyme 12:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

webalice.it, xoomer.alice.it, giubizza.blogspot.com, giubizza.tk

Because of: [31]. I also would like to request an infinite block of Giubizza on every single Wikimediaw project except of it.wiki, where he has sth more than spam contributions, and an steward request to delete all those pages. Hołek ҉ 16:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok I am not sure about listing these domains but it sure is a problem. At present there is no ability to block someone cross wiki so it will be a tedious process of reporting these on each wiki I guess. The better solution if we can find people is to get hold of admins who are cross wiki ones. I've deleted, blocked, en wb, en wq & meta and the user is already blocked on Commons. I'll think of the best place to post this and gets folks attention I think. Thanks for bringing it up even though I don't think here is the right place but we'll see what we can do. --Herby talk thyme 18:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
A couple more added to the blacklist and I'm continuing to look at this one --Herby talk thyme 13:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've cleaned all the links now and will blacklist the remainder of the sites so   Done. It really does look like cross wiki spam, thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The block was a bit heavy so I've now made it "giubizza L'angolo di Giubizza" on xoomer.alice only --Herby talk thyme 11:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

giubizza1

Has spammed the Dutch wikipedia & wikibooks. Creates two links to personal websites (for real links replace @ with i). Has come back twice.

  • webalice.it/giubizza1 L'angolo di Giubizza
  • giubizza.blogspot.com Il blog di Giubizza

Has made no other edits. Edits have been removed on both wikis, but you could check them: wikibooks 1 wikibooks 2 talk page wikibooks wikipedia 1 wikipedia 2. All edits are exactly the same, sounds like a spambot. MADe (mod nl.wiki en wikibooks) 11:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. However given I am not an admin on any nl projects I am unable to see anything on the links you provided. If it is a bot it may well be that the links are placed from open proxies and if that is the case they should be blocked anyway. For a while now there has been a local spam blacklist and listed these on there would solve your problem. If you find the links on other language wikis (possible I'm sure) then we can look again. Come back here if we can help any more anyway. --Herby talk thyme 11:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

eleu.net eleuthera.com bahamashomesite.com

Spammers

Already   Done, see request on en. 124.182.134.114 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - will log it now --Herby talk thyme 07:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
These are additional related domains from en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#eleu.net eleuthera.com bahamashomesite.com (permanent link):
  • bahamas-beach-rental.com
  • bahamas-bookstore.com
  • bahamas-diving.com
  • bahamas-honeymoon.com
  • bahamas-rental.com
  • bahamas-store.com
  • bahamas-travel.com
  • bahamas-villa-rental.com
  • bahamashomesite.com
  • caribbean-rental.com
  • cat-island-rental.com
  • cat-island.net
  • eleu.net
  • eleuthera-bahamas-rental.com
  • eleuthera-bahamas.com
  • eleuthera-rental.com
  • eleuthera-rental.com
  • eleuthera.biz
  • eleuthera.com
  • kafkas-cafe.com
  • out-island-wedding.com
  • theduckinn.com
  • www-saand.com
I suggest blacklisting these as well. --11:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now   Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

borgenproject.org

Promotion and POV pushing through citation and external link spam on en:wikipedia. Is also listed on 10 other wikis (cross-wiki search). Though intention is hard to fathom - it appears to be copying from en:wiki rather than intentional use of the site to improve the articles. Nevertheless, ongoing and persistent campaign that impacts all wikis' NPOV ability as well as the simple spam issue.

Sample diffs:

-- SiobhanHansa 12:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hum - odd one indeed but   Done and thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now spamming ([58], [59] - yes, twice to the same article, and that's without it being deleted in between) with borgenproject.com - a redirect to the .org site - could this one be added too? Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done --Herby talk thyme 16:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

www.shannon-miller.com

Not spam per se, but an attack site that keeps being added to an article on en.wikipedia [60]. The site is run by a stalker of the subject. --Rocksanddirt 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll not argue this probably should be listed however if it is only affecting en wp it probably should be list here. If it is cross wiki then do come back, cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

shanghai2010.hu

Cross-wiki spam.

IP's spamming:

Sample edits:

--Jorunn 22:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jorunn -   Done --Herby talk thyme 07:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

apurogol.com

Cross-wiki spam.

IP spamming:

+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Patricio666

--Jorunn 23:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jorunn -   Done --Herby talk thyme 07:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

expo2010china.hu

(related to Talk:Spam_blacklist#shanghai2010.hu)
Cross-wiki spam.

IP spamming:

+

Sample edits:

--Jorunn 11:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks,   Done --Herby talk thyme 12:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 16 years ago95 comments18 people in discussion
  This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted.

books-by-isbn.com

The following discussion is closed.

Please cease blacklisting "books-by-isbn\.com", or give me some solid support for why not. I frequently use the site for my efforts within the English Wikipedia, and would like to include a link on a reference resources page for services I find at no other site. For example, unlike the permitted site "http://isbndb.com", this site lists the publishers for each region code, so I can see all the 15 known sources for Egypt, say, ISBNs starting with "978-977-".

I have reviewed everything I can find about why this site is blacklisted, and find almost nothing — certainly nothing compelling. I used the spamArchiveSearch tool and located this as the original blacklist request; but the documentation given in the request is useless and looks nothing like spam (for example, en). I see that in April of this year Rich Farmbrough asked for delisting, and was denied for curious reasons. For those unfamiliar with his work on the English Wikipedia, Rich is the single most active editor (bot assisted), and has been heavily involved with cleaning up ISBNs, so his opinion that this is a valuable site should carry extra weight.

The site openly lists Tomas Schild and his contact information, not something I would expect of a low-life scum-sucking spammer. In any event, I see no evidence that he has been asked and chose to ignore a polite request if someone felt inappropriate links were being added to the wikis.

Therefore, I ask that this domain be removed from the Meta blacklist. —KSmrq 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The archive search tool misses some stuff (the archiving procedure has changed since it was written). I did a Google search and came up with the following:
This may end up being a domain that's either removed here and locally blacklisted on some projects or else kept here but locally whitelisted on some. (I'm not an admin so it's not my call). There are some negative aspects beyond the Wikimedia world for the domain-owner if he's blacklisted here since this blacklist is also used by Wikia and many of the other non-Wikimedia wikis that run on MediaWiki software. Those don't apply if he's only locally blacklisted.
It also makes a big difference who added the links on it.wikipedia that led to this request -- was it the site-owner or someone else? --A. B. (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What links at it.wikipedia?! I'd appreciate it if anyone can show me anything that deserves to be called spam. There was one complaint by an IP; and the subsequent blacklisting was immediately challenged. Other than the original complaint, which now seems to have no corroboration, requests to remove this from the blacklist have been declined for no valid reason. If no one can show cause why a useful site should be on the list then it should be removed. This is especially true since the site operator has assisted Wikipedia, as documented here. —KSmrq 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, this even affects my talk archive pages! The domains seemed to be added (or at least retained) on the basis that they were "commercial" - which has never been a factor. I have seen no evidence of spamming this domain now or ever, and it was certainly useful to us in the past. 172.203.211.163

The various websites were spammed in the 'Special:Booksources' pages in many wikis (cross-wiki spam). The websites get money every time someone finds a book there and click on links pointing to Amazon (referral profiteering). IMHO the websites can be delisted only if the Wikimedia Foundation allow the referral profiteering on Wikipedia. --Madetests 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The links appeared in multiple Wikipedias, but were they spammed? If so, can you provide some evidence (diffs for instance)? That would help our discussion here. I was unaware there was a spam problem other than that originally alleged by the IP that made the request (and who has apparently not edited since). I know that links from one Wikipedia's article will often be importeds, ometimes uncritically, into another's article on the same topic. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll search edits tomorrow. For now I've found a website n°4 owned by Tomas Schild www.buecher-nach-isbn.info (same strategy as the others). That's present at es:Wikipedia:Fuentes_de_libros#Libros_en_alem.C3.A1n. I've found also the tools IsbnCheckAndFormat and IssnCheck created by de:Benutzer:°: it seems working very well [61], [62], so we don't need others check tools, expecially those affiliated with Amazon. But, please, feel free to ask that german user what he thinks about Tomas Schild's websites: if he thinks that those websites are useful we can whitelist. --Madetests 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
ufff, some of the spam edits: en, de. They are very old edits, and I've found that those links were added on it.wiki and fr.wiki by regular users instead of IPs (they were probably translating the special page from en.wiki). --Madetests 22:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
D'oh! [63], again an IP starting with 212. I'm going to sleep now. :D --Madetests 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the research. It helps me make my point even more firmly. The English-language diff is from 2003, and is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate addition, especially at a time when few people had heard of Wikipedia. The only mark against it is the false argument that if a site uses Amazon.com referrals it is not allowed; the fact is that such referrals are allowed and are used by sites that are not blacklisted. While it is true that other sites exist to check an ISBN for validity (my usual being http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp), the blacklisted site provides information not otherwise available, as I said in my original post. For example, it provides lists of publishers within a country code, and as your own data shows it can suggest valid ISBNs given an invalid one.
Owners of Web sites are allowed to make money, and not just from referrals. It is allowed and appropriate to link to sites whose sole purpose is commerce. Examples are abundant across Wikipedia, including Amazon.com itself, Apple Inc., Harrods, and a list of champagne producers. Hosting a site costs money, so most freely hosted sites are required to carry advertising banners; that does not get them blacklisted. A site providing ISBN (book number) services consumes hosting bandwidth for which it is charged, and it is perfectly reasonable to expect the site operator to link to Amazon.com, with or without income. Look for a book at http://ISBNdb.com (which is not blacklisted); note the links to various booksellers, including a "Buy" link to Amazon.com. Given that the Wikimedia Foundation itself would not exist if Jimbo Wales had not earned money, Wikipedia is not so hypocritical as to shun commerce.
So far no evidence indicates spamming or anything else prohibited. Even if some other site provides one or two of the services that this site does, that is no excuse to blacklist this one, especially not for shared practices! And I have pointed out services of this site that are not available at any other site mentioned. The original blacklist request, from an IP, was a mistake. It has now been one week since I first posted here, and no just cause for blacklisting has been offered. Therefore, it is time to remove "books-by-isbn\.com" from the MediaWiki blacklist. --KSmrq 05:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

interesting; the links were added not only on the Special:Booksources pages, but also in the ISBN articles: en, de (both by IPs). @KSmrq: you can add your opinion here: Spam_blacklist_policy_discussion#Referring_links. --Madetests 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I look at the two edits you mention (made in 2003) and I see the behavior of someone more familiar with ISBNs than most, someone who is trying to help improve the articles by making a number of informative changes. It would be a gross distortion to continue to refer to benign edits as spam. And when I look at the policy discussion I see unequivocal support for my position that referral links are common and are allowed. I say again, this blacklisting was a mistake and should be reversed. My request was made 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC); it is now 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC), more than a week later. No evidence justifies the accusation of spamming; all the evidence supports my request.
Or is this a list that is easy to get on and impossible to get off? Will no one admit a mistake? I claim that "books-by-isbn\.com" is a uniquely helpful site and has never been promoted here by spam. Far from abusing Wikipedia, the site operator created a user identity and assisted on request. I do not know the operator, and have no connection to the site; I ask for removal because, like others, I find it obstructive and ludicrous that the site is blacklisted. Today would be a good day to fix this mistake. Please remove this site from the list. --KSmrq 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you clarify, is this site actually gaining referal profit? Can we confirm whether it is or is not? JzG 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I cannot confirm or deny referral profit; as I said, I have no connection with the site, except as a satisfied user. Nor is it relevant. We have no rule prohibiting it.
It seems to me that if a site is to be blacklisted because of referral profit, then documentation should be provided that the site is doing that; the burden is on the blacklister. Likewise, if such blacklisting is supported by a rule, that rule should be documented; again the burden is on the blacklister. Or can anyone (in this case, an IP!) get a site blacklisted using imaginary rules and allegations?
Why all the stalling? All the evidence in this thread, from my initial research through to today, overwhelmingly points to removal. Folks, spamming is not subtle, almost by definition. I repeat the first sentence of my initial post: Please cease blacklisting "books-by-isbn\.com", or give me some solid support for why not. Neither has happened. --KSmrq 07:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Links to commercial sites are not necessarily inappropriate. There are hundreds of links across many different Wikipedias to advertising-driven sites such as Le Monde, Der Spiegel and MacLean's. The en.wikipedia guideline, en:WP:EL, gives some useful material on judging the suitability of links; while it applies to en.wikipedia only, it probably captures prevailing values and opinions common to all ourprojects. --A. B. (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I join KSmrq in asking that books-by-isbn.com be removed from the Spam blacklist. A project to correct all the invalid ISBNs in Wikipedia finished its work earlier this year. (see links at the bottom of [64] for documentation of that project). One of the tools I used in that endeavor was Tomas Schild's web service at isbn-check.de. At present I have that link in my monobook.js file, and due to the spam blacklisting, I can't add anything to my own monobook without first removing that link! Since I frequently check ISBNs, I 'compromise' by never updating my monobook. EdJohnston 1 October 2007

  Done - I see a number of issues here in terms of philosophical debate but no evidence of spamming such as is seen in most cases. Removed --Herby talk thyme 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

republica.com

The following discussion is closed.

As far as i can tell, this site really is just about the band Republica. I was trying to edit the wikipedia article on their singer when i encountered the block. Thanks! 24.6.87.63 07:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This may have been added to the blacklist in error instead of republika.pl. See the archived request. -- SiobhanHansa 12:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment Siobhan - I'm heading that way too but have not had time to check up thoroughly on it. There is also a blacklisting for some subpages that is outside my regex competence (\brepublica\.com[^.]*(\/.*)?$) which suggests there was something about the site. Equally - in the end - does it have a 'pedia value I guess? --Herby talk thyme 12:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  Done taking the view that republica.pl was the intended site to blacklist --Herby talk thyme 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

nefac.net

The following discussion is closed.

A previous request that this site be removed from the list was declined on the basis that the site had been involved in "quite an amount of cross wiki spamming". This is not the case - it was involved in one incident of inappropriate cross-wiki posting. This site is a significant and reputable anarchist resource, and has not been involved in any systematic spamming problems. It should be removed from the blacklist. 68.124.71.180 20:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment for now - if someone places links on 7 wikis I'd probably take the view it was spamming & it seems "systematic" in my view. I'll happily look at others comments, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
NEFAC should be taken off the blacklist. It is a reputable organization with a wealth of good information. I don't understand the accusation of "cross-wiki spamming". From what I can tell, [decision to blacklist NEFAC] was made with very little discussion and I think it needs to be revisited. It looks like the links were legit resources on the pages it was placed. There's nothing "spammy" about linking to a useful resource on several wikis. I'm contacting User:Eagle_101, the meta-admin who did the banning for a revisit of this decision. Aelffin 05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Um. I'd say that the valid encyclopaedic uses for an anarchist communist agit-prop site are strictly limited, and can easily be handled by local whitelisting of individual pages if need be. Where do you think this site should be linked? JzG 07:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  Declined agreeing with JzG and in the absence of any other comments --Herby talk thyme 12:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

www.julebyen.com

The following discussion is closed.

Official page from Lillehammer Tourist Board, Norway Why is our official christmas page www.julebyen.com moved to the Spam blacklist ? Julebyen.com is produced from the Lillehammer Tourist Board. Our second official page is www.lillehammerturist.no. Please remove www.julebyen.com from the spam list ! Regards Lillehammer Tourist Office, Norway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.191.101.6 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 17 Sep 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a reason just yet but I've asked the admin who listed it for their comments - thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/08#julebyen.com and give your comment first, thanks. --Aphaia 10:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The evidence in the archive is of extensive link placement over 17 wikipedias. This would be more than justification for the blacklisting I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 11:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  Declined given no further comments --Herby talk thyme 12:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

pwinsider.com

The following discussion is closed.

Not sure why this one is on the list, but it's a useful and very reliable news-site for articles on professional wrestling. 24.13.35.75 23:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  Declined --Herby talk thyme 12:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

caiuszip.com and sciarthistory.com

The following discussion is closed.
  • caiuszip.com
  • sciarthistory.com

We would like to ask for a removal of the url caiuszip.com from the spam blacklist section. www.caiuszip.com www,sciarthistory.com offer information about Math. Furthermore, it is multidisciplinary in that it combines various fields of knowledge, such as:history of the world, art, philosophy and science.The main idea behind the "CAIUS ZIP is to show the history made by great men and how mathematics and other subjects were important in their decisions.The aim is to amuse,educate and incite the curiosity of the students. We don't really understand why we were added to the spam blacklist in the first place . We are not familiar with the notability guidelines on other wikis We just want to contribute with wiki and show a website Educational and useful resources.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.53.33.253 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 Sep 2007 (UTC)

Maybe look at this - Cross wiki spam, see en:WT:WPSPAM#caiuszip.com and sciarthistory.com. Also here - the intentions may well be good but some people's behaviour in adding links has not been --Herby talk thyme 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  Declined with no further arguments offered --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

www.teneriferesorts.com

The following discussion is closed.

I would like to ask for the removal of the following URL www.teneriferesorts.com from the spam blacklist. I am the new website administrator and would like to apologise for my colleague who was previously in this position for adding our link excessively to Wikipedia.

Tenerife Resorts has recently been redesigned with a wiki like style. We are now offering viewers the opportunity to post their own comments and in the near future hope to allow them to edit the pages in a similar way to Wikipedia. The content of this website is purely an information guide to Tenerife, we are therefore concerned that we have been added to a blacklist consisting largely of adult based websites.

Should you disagree to allowing us to add our link to the "Tenerife" page we understand, but do ask that our link is removed from the Spamlist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.149.216.208 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 19 Sep 2007 (UTC)

I'll let others air views on the site however I would point out that blacklisting is not about adult site but the persistent placement of links across wikis. --Herby talk thyme 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
No credible reason has been advanced why we would want links to this site. JzG 21:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and again apologise for the previous administrators abuse of the wiki system. We do appreciate that you are unwilling to allow us to post our link on Wikipedia and therefore, only ask that our URL is removed from the blacklist as we are concerned how this may affect our reputation as a wiki style website offering information on Tenerife. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.149.216.208 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 20 Sep 2007 (UTC)

I think the blacklist is indexed by Google:
However, the format of the entry is "teneriferesorts\.com", not "teneriferesorts.com" --A. B. (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
See:
Google Adsense# 2046301473629603
--A. B. (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh! I thought it looked familiar. A lot of water under the bridge since then. Anyway, I hadn't realised the blacklist is indexed on other sites (should have, of course). It should not be indexed here, but no matter. It doesn't look like there's much of a reason for removing it, and I strongly suspect that other Wikia sites will be spammed if we do, given past behaviour, but I'll leave it to someone else to call. JzG 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The above links are relating to a completely different website, a sister company to teneriferesorts. I don't think it's fair to judge one administrators vandalism as the norm. We link to and from many official sites and i have some good content to add to the pages relating to the canary islands. I would appreciate a chance to prove that the administration is now acting responsibly. I look forward to hearing your comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.149.216.208 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 4 Oct 2007 (UTC)

Some of the links above certainly relate to the domain you are requesting removal of. Equally your statement that they relate to a completely different website, a sister company seems a little contradictory. Personally I see no need for links to your website on Foundation projects, if there were a relevance somewhere it could be dealt with by local whitelisting --Herby talk thyme 10:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Most of the 700+ Wikimedia Foundation projects that use this Foundation blacklist have conflict of interest guidelines: if you own or are otherwise affiliated with a site, you are not supposed to add links to it. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
This blacklist is used by more than just our Wikimedia Foundation projects. All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each project wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/. --A. B. (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  Declined taking JzG & A. B.s views into account --Herby talk thyme 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

www.invisionfree.com/Morpaga_RPG

The following discussion is closed.

I do not know why this link is on the blacklist. Given that the site is completely spam-free, I see no reason why this would be on the list. Also, the link has not been given excessively; in fact, it has only been given once. I apologize that I cannot give a link to the article yet: the search engine has not been updated.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.1.219.193 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

invisionfree.com is not blacklisted here; it was, however, blacklisted locally on the English Wikipedia.[65] I suggest you raise this issue at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.--A. B. (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

InvisionFree Forums

The following discussion is closed.

Why are InvisionFree forums blocked? They're completely reliable and are NOT spam. Note: I mean a url along the lines of "s14.invisionfree.com". --4.225.8.132 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

invisionfree.com is not blacklisted here; it was, however, blacklisted locally on the English Wikipedia.[66] I suggest you raise this issue at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. --A. B. (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Worldwidealbums.tk

The following discussion is closed.

This website was blacklisted, however, it gets its info from MEDIATRAFFIC.DE (official website of the United World Chart), and its minimal sales total (they get it by simply adding all the sales weeks of the albums from the MediaTraffic website, e.g., next week, they will add another 50k or so to Timberlake's album). It would be useful because, although Mediatraffic shows you the worldwide sales, they only show you "this week's" sales, so they don't show the TOTAL numbers. Especially useful for recently released albums, to show in the artist's discographies. They give the exact same numbers as mediatraffic, but they add them up for us. --- 72.142.234.18 23:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone replied to my post yet? --- 72.142.234.18 17:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
See here for info on the blacklisting --Herby talk thyme 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  Declined --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

aceshowbiz.com

The following discussion is closed.

The site, aceshowbiz.com, is currently blacklisted, but has information I have referenced that I cannot find elsewhere. The site does not appear to be a source of spam, so it should be removed from the blacklist. The specific URLs that I am siting in en:Jonas Brothers are aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography.html and aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography_2.html. --Scottalter 09:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Listed based on spamming last year according to this archive. Local whitelisting on en wp might be possible just for the pages you require --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  Declined --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

idigbig.com

The following discussion is closed.

Radio Station WBIG-FM in Washington, DC uses idigbig.com as their website. I have tried to add it to the respective page, but due to the spam protection blacklist, I can't. According to what I have been told the the blacklisting admin got the regex wrong (the blacklisted site should be \bdigbig\.com). If idigbig.com could be added to the whitelist (and the correct URL added to the blacklist) I would appericate it. - Neutralhomer 05:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The official website appears to be www.wbig.com and is on the en wp page so why is the site you are trying to add relevant? --Herby talk thyme 08:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That is the old website, which Clear Channel continues to use. idigbig.com is advertised online and on the air, not wbig.com. Prior to WBIG's switch from Big 100 (oldies format) to Big 100.3 (classic rock format/current), they switched URLs to the current idigbig.com. - Neutralhomer 20:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hum - you could just be right there! I've made the regex more precise which I think should mean that the radio site can be used. Could you let me know one way or the other - that way I get to learn! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, yup they added just fine :) Many thanks for your help, I do appericate it. Take Care and Enjoy Your Weekend...Neutralhomer 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

currenttimeindia.com

The following discussion is closed.

Please check the discussion at the following link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Tossing_currenttimeindia.com_up_for_additional_opinions Opinion have been presented and seem to have agreed upon the fact that having a local time information is good for a places wiki. Please remove the link currenttimeindia.com from blacklist, since its presence in a places wiki is considered to be actually useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.7.16.99 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 Oct 2007 (UTC)

Not blocked on Meta but on en wp blacklist - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
the additions of this link on a wiki are getting blocked, with the following message :

<Message Start> 

The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.

You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the Spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to allow a particular link without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the Spam whitelist talk page.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: www.currenttimeindia.com

Return to Main Page. <Message End>

Not sure what this means. Can someone please explain. Herby mentions en wp blacklist, What is en wp ? and how to request for a removel from this blacklist. Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.7.18.238 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 Oct 2007 (UTC)

the fact that you could create the link (above) here proves it is not blacklisted here. Please go to w:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist which is where you would need to appeal this decision, thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Plasmatics Question

The following discussion is closed.

Could somebody please explain me why is the official site of punk band The Plasmatics, blocked?, and if it is wrong, how to and unblock it. I tried to add the link on spanish wikipeda article, but it wont let me.--83.165.236.54 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

which URL?--Nick1915 - all you want 08:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC

Google suggests plasmatics.com. The enwiki article lists the official site as "plasmatic.com", which doesn't exist. Someone likely had to modify the URL to edit the article. --88.104.171.139 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason for this being blacklisted and can't yet find the request, I look some more --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  Done - I can see no reason why this site should be listed here. If spam arrives, we can relist the site, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

SudPontino.net

The following discussion is closed.

Sorry guys, i don't understand why the sudpontino.net website has been blacklisted. The website speak about 19 cities of the province of Latina in Italy and every city have own section with much info, story, photos, links and more more so i think add every city section of the website to wiki could be a good service, also thinking to the fact that SudPontino.net is the more recent website about this cities and contain mu updated info about it. Is it possible to include it again the white list? -- Markuspizza80

Can I point you to the request above (here). That amount of link placement will always been seen as a problem --Herby talk thyme 10:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
i can understand, but, talking about differente cities i thought to insert a link to the sections for every city described, i think this will surely give a service to the users, is it wrong? If yes, i will remove PERSONALLY every link to my website in Wikipedia. -- Markuspizza80
Markus, typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means, Markus, feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, Markus, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/. --A. B. (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot for the informations! Markuspizza80

iqpe.com

The following discussion is closed.

Why http://www.iqpe.com is banned? - The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://www.iqpe.com I wanted to add it in IQ directory ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.37.176.74 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 Oct 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you can create the link here (above) means it is not blacklisted here. If you are on en wp then you need to ask here, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's the background on that domain:
--A. B. (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

hometown.aol.com/musica60

The following discussion is closed.

It's a personal music page about '60 no active Spanish and Latin American bands. Without publicity (except aol publicity). http://hometown.aol.com/musica60 it's not spam :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.30.84.76 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 12 Oct 2007 (UTC)

As with the one above the fact that you can create the link here (above) means it is not blacklisted here. If you are on en wp then you need to ask here, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

african-american-playwrights.suite101.com/article.cfm/black_nativity_by_langston_hughes

The following discussion is closed.

Can you remove this from the blacklist? I'm trying to link to it on wikipedia as a reference for the article on black nativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Nativity 71.190.91.195 14:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (futurebird)

It is suite101 that is blacklisted so the best bet will be to go to the en wp whitelist and request that the specific page you want is whitelisted there - thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing more heard - closed,   Not done --Herby talk thyme 14:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

tutorialspoint.com

The following discussion is closed.

Hi Admin!

My site was blacklisted early in this year because of some unintentional spamming. Whoever added my site links to wikipedia was not aware if addition of these links will lead to a spamming otherwise it would have not happened so.

So I am requesting you please remove this site from blacklist. This is a very clean site and is build up purely for educational purpose. This site does not have anything to do commercially and many tutorials like Ruby on Rails, Six Sigma, WiFi, WiMAX are quite useful and they are not available anywhere on the net with this type of rich content. Now I can make sure that no further spamming would be generated for tutorialspoint.

I hope you will explore this site and if you find it useful then please remove it from blacklist. I'm again repeating whatever has happened in past I'm regretting a lot on that and would not be repeated.

Best Regards Mohtashim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tutorialspoint (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 Oct 2007 (UTC)

So far I can find at least two previous appeals both of which have been rejected (one here with quite a bit of discussion). I'll await other views for now --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
References:
  1. en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#tutorialspoint.com talentgroups.com amrood.com
  2. en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar#tutorialspoint.com
  3. en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#tutorialspoint.com talentgroups.com amrood.com
  4. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/03#tutorialspoint.com
  5. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/04#www.tutorialspoint.com
  6. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Removals: Not Done#tutorialspoint.com
  7. Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Removals: Not Done#tutorialspoint
Domains:
Google Adsense ID: 7133395778201029
--A. B. (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting -- compare Refnses Data's W3Schools web site at w3schools.com and tutorialspoint.com.
Also this site-owner also owns an additional domain not previously identified:
--A. B. (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Most of the 700+ Wikimedia Foundation projects that use this Foundation blacklist have conflict of interest guidelines: if you own or are otherwise affiliated with a site, you are not supposed to add links to it. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
This blacklist is used by more than just our Wikimedia Foundation projects. All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have elected to incorporate our blacklist data in their own spam filtering. Each MediaWiki wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so; their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/. --A. B. (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I think, given the history of cross wiki spamming from this (unintentional seems an odd word in this context) and associated sites together with A. B. excellent summary above, there is little likelihood of this site proving valuable to foundation projects. Should an established editor find a need to place a link local whitelisting is always possible. I'll leave it open for a day or so just in case there are other relevant views --Herby talk thyme 07:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Herby! Here I used unintentional word because the time I had added links at wiki, I was totally new to wiki and was not aware of any policy related to wiki spam and I found the places and I had added links because I saw other links added there but till I realized this mistake it had become very late for which I regret till the date.

But now I'm making sure that no link will be added from my side because I understand all spam policies at wiki.

My site is having few common tutorial like HTML, XHTML which may not be useful for site visitors because we have plenty of stuff related to these subjects. But tutorials on EVM, Six Sigma, CMMI, Ruby on Rails, Makefile, WiMAX, Wi-Fi are rarely available on the net and I have written them using my 10 years of experience in telecom domain.

I'm again repeating that it was a mistake and I confess for that and give my commitment that it would not be repeated from my side. Apart from this you will find tutorialspoint to contribute valuable content for wiki and not any link.

If you still don’t trust me, then….really I don’t have other words to convince you except requesting you once again.

Best Regards Mohtashim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tutorialspoint (talk • contribs) 10:39, 6 Oct 2007 (UTC)


Hi I would also recommend not to put this site in block list. I found this site pretty useful specially for PMP preparation and to understand CMMI and Six Sigma concepts. I liked their Earned Value Management tutorial as well.

Thanks R.A. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.129.187.15 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 Oct 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with trust at all but please review A. B.'s posting which to me explains things very well. To the anon IP, I am sure you found the site worthwhile however that does not make it a necessary site for Foundation projects, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add Ruby on Rails link from Tutorials Point at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails but I found that this site is blacklisted. Their Ruby on Rails tutorial is really very useful and I could not find such material on any site. Currently given links at wikipedia are of no use. I won't say you should unblock this site or not but I would definitely recommend to have tutorialspoint.com/ruby-on-rails/index.htm in the link list.

John. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.234.250.71 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 8 Oct 2007 (UTC)

John, if an established editor (a named account, not an IP, with at least several hundred substantive edits) requests that page be whitelisted, then I suspect an admin would do this for that particular page. That section looked substantive based on what I saw of it. Whitelisting is done "locally" on a Wikipedia-by-Wikipedia basis. On en.wikipedia (the English Wikipedia), you can make your request at
For other Wikipedias, just substitute the appropriate language code (such as "fr" for French) for the "en":
--A. B. (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Herby/A.B! So conclusion is that my site would not be whitelisted. According to Herby its not usefull. Fine, May I ask two questions:

(1) If someone comes on wikipedia for he first time and finds that there are few links added at the bottom of each page and he adds his site link as well because he thinks this link will be useful for others , then how will you inform him if he has created a spam to add that link ?

(2) Don't you think there are thousands of links from commerial sites added at wikipedia even english sites are having links at other language's pages ?

If you have fair answer for these two question then I will think its fair to keep my site in blacklist because I had created spam....

Thanks Mohtashim webamster@tutorialspoint.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.169.143.102 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 12 Oct 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why people here read so selectively - I can see nowhere I have said that your site is not useful. The reverse is actually true, what I did question was whether is is necessary. If an established editor finds it is then it can be whitelisted where it is needed. Your first question would be better answered by a wikipedian. Your second I can answer - just because other links exist is no justification for keeping yours I'm afraid (although I have seen the argument from many site owners now). Links will get cleaned when folks get around to them. --Herby talk thyme 11:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Herby if I have misinterpreted your statement. I really appreciate your reply and I'm more than happy to know that you find my site useful and moreover other people are recommending my site. I asked first question because same has happened with me I was not aware that my link addition will lead to spamming. I would suggest to have a mechanism that without proper registration people should not be allowed to make any modification on any page. In case there is any spam, at least we can warn to that guy before putting him in blacklist, which is not happening at the moment and I’m sufferer of that.

However, thanks for all attention and your time you have given to look into my case. I don’t mind now if my site is in blacklist. It’s a mere a matter of luck….otherwise people liked this site.

Best Regards Mohtashim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.169.162.75 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 Oct 2007 (UTC)

I think tutorialspoint.com is a clean website and its information are unique . It`s a perfect website for easy learning . Omid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.186.209.76 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 Oct 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly value to this site but local whitelisting should be sought where necessary so this is   Declined --Herby talk thyme 07:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

beatbox.be

The following discussion is closed.

Hello , I'm from the BeatBox.Be team and we administrate a website about beatboxing (music with the mouth). The main site is being updated, but holds lots of accurate information allready. We also have a community and a beatbox database with links to movies of beatbox and learning how to beatbox,. One of our administrators is Roxorloops, who is vice-world champion beatbox.
I wanted to add some info to the 'beatbox' or 'beatboxing' page on wikipedia, about the world championship that took place in Leipzig (where Roxorloops 'battled' as well). I also added a link to our site (beatbox.be) as a reference. When I wanted to submit the content it said that beatbox.be (I cannot type the actual link) was blacklisted as spam ???

I'm wondering how this is possible ? Can't I post a link to my site to redirect users to more information ?,

Please help me out

Best regards
BeatBox.Be Team —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.198.254.8 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 9 Oct 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the section above here you will see why the site was blacklisted. Given the extent of the placement of links across wikis and the fact that it is very unusual to remove a blacklisting based on a site owner's request the blacklisting is likely to stay I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 07:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok , I have to admit that may have been my fault as I asked someone to put links to beatbox.be on all subsites of wikipedia. I thought since I was running an international site on beatbox, this was not considered spamming, as there is lots and lots of accurate info on beatbox.be to find. That person also doesn't speak French, and there was only one warning given (in French), he probably didn't understand and that's why it was ignored. This person was just helping BeatBox.Be out. My sincere apologies for this, and there will never be a link to beatbox.be posted again, unless there is content posted on wikipedia and the link is a reference. If this had come to my attention earlier, I would of acted myself. Could you please look into this again ?

Best Regards BeatBox.Be Team —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.194.176.85 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 Oct 2007 (UTC)

These 2 blacklist removal requests seem to originate from the same telenet.be nodes as some of the spam: dd5e0fbed.access.telenet.be. and dd5e0fd25.access.telenet.be. Requests[67][68], spam.[69]
--A. B. (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that person is one of the webmasters of BeatBox.Be who regularly comes to work on the computer. I'm sorry about the spam, but like I said I didn't know that was a problem, since our website is educational and relevant to the subject. Now that I've read the rules more carefully, our webmaster and I will do the right thing. The intention of the BeatboxBe-account is to put articles online about how to learn to beatbox, about the history of beatbox in Belgium (the vice-world champion of beatbox (Roxorloops) is from Belgium), and to promote beatbox in general. But the source for all of this is beatbox.be, so it would be great if this link could get unbanned. I promise you no more abuse from our part.

BeatBox.Be

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
--A. B. (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand me. I was not aware that what we did was 'spamming'. Our site is an informative beatbox site, therefore I thought it wouldn't be a problem posting this link. The only warning we had was in French, and we can barely speak it, let alone read it.

Couldn't you make an exception this time ? The spamming will be stopped, I guarantee.

Our goal on wikipedia is to post info about beatbox, especially belgian beatbox, but it always gets deleted unless there is a reference, so links to beatbox.be on wikipedia were posted. (you can check out the history for the 'BeatboxBe' wikipedia account, I had to put the history of Belgium beatbox up and up again all the time, while it was accurate information). some BeatboxBe history So if I will post an article now, it will most definitely be deleted again, since the source is beatbox.Be ,and I can't even post a link.

How am I supposed to post credible articles now ? We have learnt our lesson, and haven't been decently warned about this before. So please give it one more chance, it can always be blacklisted again if there is abuse.

Here are the relevant rules:
--A. B. (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, since our site is about beatbox, learning and talking about it with an online community, and your site is an encyclopedia of beatbox there is bound to be a common interest, offcourse. So I was not really writing about my site, I'm writing about beatbox in Belgium and put a link there as a reference.

And I understand about posting those links, they should not of been posted;

but what is written on beatbox.be is a reliable source. beatbox.be is the only website in Belgium covering beatbox, and on the forum there is a beatbox-database with info and movies on lots of beatboxers (with sources included). It may look a bit amateuristic right now, but an update to the site is in the works (by the webmaster that is assigned now). But even now everything that is written is with the approval of head-admin Roxorloops (vice-world champion beatbox), so I 'd say that's pretty reliable. The only thing that could be hold against us is that we're new and we were unaware of the hard regulations on posting links. I can however promise you that everything written on behalf of BeatboxBe is accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.194.176.85 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 11 Oct 2007 (UTC)

You focus on "accuracy", can I ask you to read all of A. B.'s comprehensive posting, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


That's because I sense the only reason my domain stays banned is because that source would not be credible according to A.B. .The vice-world champion of beatbox is administrator with us, we now have a webmaster and a bunch of volunteers and I'm constantly scoping the net for beatbox-news., how much more credible can it go. We are giving beatbox-workshops and lessons in school in Belgium. We're performing almost on a weekly basis and YOU tell me we're not a reliable source ????

AND HOW MUCH DO I HAVE TO SAY I WAS NOT AWARE OF ALL OF THESE RULES WHEN THESE URLS WERE POSTED. I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING THE GOOD THING. It's like we're stuck in a loop. I told you countless times WE were the source of the spamming, and it will be stopped.

Wikipedia needs URL's as a reference and there is NO OTHER BELGIUM BEATBOX SITE online. So how are people supposed to get an image of beatbox in Belgium, while some of the best beatboxers in the world are Belgian, if we can't even post articles.

What do you consider reliable anyway ? Some commercial website that doesn't know anything about beatbox and then suddenly decides they know how it goes ? Come on , please. We have been at it (though amateuristically), since 2004. And now we're having a semi-pro update, looking for financial support from the government, ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.194.179.153 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 Oct 2007 (UTC)

I would have hoped that it was obvious that "shouting" at us would not help you. Equally you have been told a number of times that we are not at all likely to remove a blacklisting based on a request by the site owner. If the link is needed somewhere the it is possible to whitelist a specific page of the site on a specific wiki but this would only be done if an established wiki editor's case for it was accepted by the local community. --Herby talk thyme 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the 'shouting', I was merely using capital letters to make my point. I'm telling you for the thousandst time, if you remove the domain from the blacklist, there will be no more problems, it was just a miscommunication. I CAN'T speak French, and that was the only warning we had, in French !!!...

And I do not uderstand this rule: we are not at all likely to remove a blacklisting based on a request by the site owner ? So for who DO you whitelist url's? I'm the owner and therefore the only one who benefits from a link to the beatbox.be page. And I don't earn money of it, it's to help the Belgium beatbox scene.

And I don't have time to ask for reference-url's being whitelisted on all the wiki's. Like you said, you have to get permission and our articles were allready deleted so much... I really , really don't understand your policy. Whatever happened to forgiving people for their mistakes and giving them another chance ???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.194.179.153 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 Oct 2007 (UTC)

Ok as you seem to miss reading the links provided as to why the Foundation would not require links to your site I will copy them from above
Here are the relevant rules:
Equally you ask who would we whitelist or remove sites for so I will repeat my posting above If the link is needed somewhere the it is possible to whitelist a specific page of the site on a specific wiki but this would only be done if an established wiki editor's case for it was accepted by the local community.
Maybe you should actually read through what is here rather than continuing to ignore such information. The approach you take will not endear you to folk I'm afraid. It is likely I will only return to this request to close it if no one else does in due course, thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I allready read it through, and there will be no problem in the future. That's what I keep telling you. I didn't know about this rule: you're not supposed to write about or link to your own site/organization. I thought since a website covered beatbox, it could be posted.

We only had one warning in French.

And actually, I'm allready an editor on the English wikipedia beatbox-page, but not an established one, I presume, since my articles keep on getting deleted, which is a shame. But if I am to write about 'beatbox in Belgium' on wikipedia, I need to post a website link as a reference. I have had those warnings before. And now I get blacklisted for posting too much links.

And I thought, since all this was based upon a misunderstanding from our part (posting those links), it could be solved easily in here. Little did I know...

If I had known the strong policies against links coming from our team, this would have never happened. And I am to blame for not knowing this and apparantly need to suffer the consequences.

So how do I 'whitelist' it again on the English Wikipedia ?, who do I need to contact for that ?

Thanx for you help. AB and herby, you are just a couple of lifeless nerds. You said I was shouting because i used capitals, wtf?? I was making my point.

You don't have a clue about being human, but the real problem is that your parents don't have a clue about raising children. And if your anwer is: I don't think resorting to that kind of language is going to get anything done. Well I don't care anymore, bunch of faggots. You weren't going to do anything in the first place, because you're well beyond stupid editors who can't seem to handle a situation as it presents itsself.

Your superiors will hear about this, I'm sure. Greetings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.164.155.2 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 15 Oct 2007 (UTC)

I will charitably assume that you are not connected with beatbox. However if you do seek whitelisting of this site at en wikipedia I'll make sure a link to this is provided. I have blocked you from editing for your approach. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Given all that has gone before I'm closing this as   Declined --Herby talk thyme 14:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sites on Windows Mobile software

The following discussion is closed.

Dear Wiki moderators, we have website on Windows Mobile software - handster-com, which has pretty high number of visitors in Windows Mobile area. Currently 500.000+ unique visitors a month. This is a high number for such area as Windows Mobile. You can check statistics on Alexa.com for example.

We ran some promotions, encouraging active users to add links on their blogs/forums/websites. I can see that our site was blocked together with pocketpcaddict - probably one of active community members added both websites at many places.

I know that we also added couple of links too some time ago, but not too much and these links were relevant, each pointing to selection of programs for specified device only. At the same time, if you have a look at "External Links" sections on Motorola_Q, Windows_mobile, Ipaq, Dell_Axim - most of the links now, except Microsoft/HP/Dell, will be as much relevant (or even less relevant), as our Handster or PocketPcAddict In the "External links" sections you will find websites that sell goods or ran Google adsense/other advertisment. The link we added had the same or even better quality for readers as links you have now in "External links" section. Please remove Handster from your blacklist section.

P.S. actually we don't really mind being blocked from wiki. What we don't like is that this blacklist is available for public access in Internet. Imagine that we would publish names of people who do frauds on our website somewhere on the Internet. What would happen? We will get lawsuites. So I kindly ask you to remove handster from blacklist or make this blacklist available for wiki moderators only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shab victor (talk • contribs) 18:05, 9 Oct 2007 (UTC)

To describe this activity here as couple of links I find surprising to say the least. Equally, as I am sure others will tell you, it is most unlikley that a site will be removed at the request of the site owner. I am sure others will comment --Herby talk thyme 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Herby, thank you for the reply. As I wrote, we had promotion for active users, asking them to add links on relevant websites, where we actually ment their own blogs or forums they participate in. Most of the links were added apparently by one of such users. That person could be active member of PPCAddict community, as their website was added as well.
And I have nothing against your blocking system - you are free to choose whom to block or whom to accept. But I don't like that you publish this blacklist on Internet for public use. The page is called "SPAM blacklist". Legally SPAM is defined differently. And you have to define on that page what "blacklist" means. And you need to have legal proofs agains each company, that you publicize in such way on the Internet. (if you keep if for wiki moderators access only, it is a different story, it is up to you). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shab victor (talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 Oct 2007 (UTC)
"Legal comments" seem rather strange to me - am I misunderstanding or is this some sort of threat? In practice all that is recorded here on wikis is factual. The disruption to many Foundation sites is available for all to see. What any page is called seems quite irrelevant. If you have legal issues contact the Foundation with them, if you have blacklist issues this is the place to be, however as I said before it is highly unlikely that an entry will be removed as a result of an appeal from a site owner after such an quantity of link placement.
I will comment no further on legal issues as it it outside my remit --Herby talk thyme 07:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Shab victor's "active community member":
Viktor Chabourov
vic_shabourov @ yahoo.com
Burggrafenweg 3
Leimen, Baden-Wuertemberg 69181
DE
(I wonder if SAP AG know their network's being used to promote this handster.com site?)


I concur that pocketpcaddict does not appear to share common ownership from looking at their web page, their registration history and their hosting arrangement[73][74]; they may have been blacklisted by mistake or perhaps because of Joe jobbing.


Here are the relevant Wikipedia rules on all of this:
I'm citing the English versions; similar rules exist on the other Wikipedias


Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation projects (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each project wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
--A. B. (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If pocketpcaddict should not be listed then let me know & I will remove it, thanks. As to the other A. B. has expressed the position very well indeed --Herby talk thyme 10:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Closed as   Declined however I have removed pocketpcaddict as this may well have been listed incorrectly (if there is excessive linkage it can go back on) --Herby talk thyme 18:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-10&oldid=1210130"
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-10" page.