Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 177: Line 177:
* {{Userlinks|Tancarville}}
* {{Userlinks|Tancarville}}
* {{Userlinks|Mobile historian}}
* {{Userlinks|Mobile historian}}
* {{Userlinks|Vassallo5448}}


This link has historically been spammed. We've got a probable sockpuppeteer. I'd like this site blacklisted to take the wind out of his sails. This will save much volunteer time. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This link has historically been spammed. We've got a probable sockpuppeteer. I'd like this site blacklisted to take the wind out of his sails. This will save much volunteer time. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

: I've also, in the course of looking over the links from the suspect site, discovered [[User:Vassallo5448]], who works with the same site, shares a similar name to Tancarville's (whose real name is Charles Said-Vassallo, the owner of the suspect website), and who started his Wikipedia account in September, within three days of Mobile historian's. The common link of all three editors is in their heavy interest in Maltese aristocracy, in their use of this website, and in the website's promotion on Wikipedia. [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;RGTraynor&nbsp;</span>''']] 15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


=Proposed removals=
=Proposed removals=

Revision as of 15:17, 20 November 2009

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 326937719 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    504experts.com

    Accounts adding
    Sba504guru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Jwolcott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    208.82.161.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    208.51.111.34 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Merca123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Sdinatale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Obviously these are WP:SPA accounts, using Wikipedia for promotion and advertising purposes. I see the domain is limited to their respective (yet spammy) articles, unfortunatly this is appropriate. Lets hold off for now or untill this develops further. --Hu12 (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    pharmacy-0x6.tk

    Various Ukraine IPs adding spam links at Clomifene. We could just sp the article, but considering that we've had various IPs reverting the spam links that is kind of like a slap in the face. ;) The other version of the spam link thats been added recently is untitled02.tk but I don't know if we've blocked that one and thats what cause the switch to the pharmacy one or what. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked the untitled02.tk after adding it to XLinkBot did not help. I also added this one now to the blacklist. Unfortunately, it is not only Clomifene, there were more pages involved, so protecting is probably also not going to help. Blocking the IPs may also result in damage, there are also more:

    Someone creative with rangeblocks? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More
    Links
    ranges

    Nothing from range 95.133.1.36/16 for the past several weeks has been more than spam and vandalism. I've blocked this range for a week, and blocked range 99.235.232.104/32 for 1 month. Also plus Added the new urls--Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    suvenirograd.ru

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

    Various IPs persistently adding links to this online souvenir shop, masquerading it as a website with pictures and/or information (in Russian) relevant to the article the link is being added to. The relevant information is in fact there, but it's obvious it had been included only as a deterrent to remove the link; the primary goal of the site is still sales.

    This has been going on for months and months; I myself must have reverted dozens of these. Blocks would be unfeasible as the edits come from a variety of different IPs; protection is ineffective as well as the number of articles affected (or that potentially can be affected) is rather large. Diff examples: Sochi, Barnaul, Orenburg, Chelyabinsk, Tomsk.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

    lamu-house-rental.com

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

    No encyclopedic value. Diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4]. --R.Schuster (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lamuhouserental
    Accounts
    Lamuhouserental (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Lamuhouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Sockpuppeting to spam is never a sign of good faith.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    zunzun.com

    Articles;
    partial list of IPs


    This seems to have been going off and on since 2004. There have been some blocks and a bunch of warnings on various talk pages, but none of that has successfully got this editor to discuss their edits. - MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added, thanks MrOllie--Hu12 (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    energizedseller.com

    link
    accounts

    Persistent spamming of a link which is an on-line community website which contains a combination social-networking/blog/advertising-forum. Has been warned and reverted by multiple other editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    terabitconsulting.com

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

    Combination of factors that has resulted in multiple accounts and IPs being blocked today. The users have engaged in edit-warring, pointy edit disruption, wiki-lawyering, block evasion, and sock puppetry. All for the goal of adding links to spammy powerpoint presentations. When consensus was going against the use of the links in EL, the user added new text and used the links as refs[5], a different user found new sources from news sites and journals[6], which the IPs then reverted back to the commercial presentation slides[7]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See also:
    --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also;
    Verifigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Verifigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Misinterpretation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Antiquity10091 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
     Done--Hu12 (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's disappointing to see that these links were hastily added to the spam list when there was an ongoing discussion about them. The history of this incident is described at WP:Editor_assistance/Requests#Submarine_cables. NathanielDawson (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear evidence of sockpuppetry, editwarring, spamming, block evasion and disruption. Wikipedia is not a place to to promote terabitconsulting.com. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source, in an appropriate context. Closed--Hu12 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    kavakavashop.com

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

    Accounts

    Multiple IPs edit warring over advertising a commercial site on a few articles, mainly the Kava article. The persistence of so many attempts via a large number of IPs in such a short period of time demonstrates the need for blacklisting (COIbot shows most of the edits are within just the last week, although one dating to Oct 12). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    newlawstudent.com

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

    Persistent spamming. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 09:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spamming continues despite all warnings. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    maltagenealogy.com and saidvassallo.com

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

    Related site that the sockpuppet attempted to add.

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

    This link has historically been spammed. We've got a probable sockpuppeteer. I'd like this site blacklisted to take the wind out of his sails. This will save much volunteer time. Jehochman Talk 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also, in the course of looking over the links from the suspect site, discovered User:Vassallo5448, who works with the same site, shares a similar name to Tancarville's (whose real name is Charles Said-Vassallo, the owner of the suspect website), and who started his Wikipedia account in September, within three days of Mobile historian's. The common link of all three editors is in their heavy interest in Maltese aristocracy, in their use of this website, and in the website's promotion on Wikipedia.  RGTraynor  15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    hscripts.com

    Hi, Our site hscripts.com seemed to be blacklisted. please remove it from the blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.52.149 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Stifle (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied in the absence of a reply. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    why was it blocked. just because some one add a link to our site can it be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.124.97 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It was one of initialy seven sites spammed, all by the same owner (HIOX India, Adsense pub-3229609591361912)[]
    Incidentaly, an IP recently, from your range 115.184.52.149/17 adding another HIOX India site;
    115.184.126.70 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    --Hu12 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How much spam did you get from hscripts.com? Also how many links where submitted for hscripts.com that made you think it was a spam. Why do you block the website in wikipedia just because some one links to it. Does that mean that no site should be linked from wikipedia and our website will never be linked from wikipedia. Does it also mean that wikipedia will never use a link to HIOX India websites. If this is the case then I would be willing to give all the websites owned by HIOX INDIA so that you can block all the websites from wiki and say that we will never link nor write about HIOX nor its websites at any point of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.92.243 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I was analyzing I found that you have even removed link for the site easycalculation.com from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_calculators. The page has nothing but links to calculator sites and the link to easycalculation.com was there from the birth of the article. Its really absurd that this too was considered spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.116.233 (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    theclassicalmusicshop.net

    corrected to "theclassicalshop.net"; see below

    I am objecting to blacklisting "theclassicalmusicshop.net" and similar sites. This is my first encounter with the blacklist-whitelist concept, but I have to say, blacklisting such an excellent source of information about recordings seems fairly disruptive to me. I've done a lot of work on discographies for various classical musicians. Here is an example of an article that is affected: Antony Beaumont. It was when I tried to edit that page today that I encountered the problem. Not only this site "theclassicalmusicshop.net", but other similar ones which apparently have a good chance of ending up on this list, frequently provide useful material, including detailed track lists, artists, dates and locations of recordings, and often and not the least important, downloadable CD booklets which contain much information on the music, composers, and artists. If one incorporates this information into an article, one should quite properly provide a link to the product page with the information about the recording, and/or link to the booklet which was the source for the information. It will be very inconvenient and discouraging to good editing to require that each editor obtain an exception each time that editor would like to link to this site. Yet that's what seems like has happened. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This domain does not appear to be blacklisted:
    Are you sure that's the correct address? It doesn't look like there's anything at that page.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A.B. see [whitelist request. He means the theclassicalshop.net. --Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    theclassicalshop.net

    OK, now I see the history; theclassicalshop.net is blacklisted

    Personally, I agree with you (see my comments in the earlier discussion), but I'd like to see more discussion here first. Could you leave a (neutrally-worded) note at the appropriate WikiProject(s) asking for input from our classical music editors? Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry about the error. I must have been getting tired when I did this. I'll see what I can do about getting more input. I just want to point out that when an artist records for very few labels, it's clear there will be a bias in the links from that page. Also, I'm amazed that someone would want to block links from Amazon.com as well. The article on Antony Beaumont also includes an effective and descriptive blockquote from Kirkus Reviews that I picked up on a product page at that site. (I must confess that I bought the book: the quote is quite accurate.) (Also I see that the quote is no longer on the Amazon page. I haven't checked yet whether it may have been preserved on the WayBack machine.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I found two discographies with multiple links to product pages which would not appear to be in the category of spam:

    Arthur Honegger discography
    Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius) discography

    Lists like these seem to be the exception, but that is because adding links or footnotes to sources of information is time-consuming and requires effort so doing it is the exception rather than the rule. Personally I think both of the editors who created these lists are to be lauded for doing so. We should encourage this kind of thing rather than discourage it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Israeli News Agency

    Why is http"//www.isrealinewsagency.com blocked? Since when does wikipedia block news sources? --Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not blocked locally, it's blocked at Meta. Your question should be posted there instead. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the original meta block request here. From looking at the site, I'd agree with the rationale behind the block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.zentechnologies.com

    Hi I found that my website is blacklisted by the spam filters. Please remove it from Blacklist as I have not done anything against the policies/terms & conditions of Wikipedia. Please remove it from the list—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.19.192 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 29 October 2009

    Excessive spam and abuse, including from the IP you used here.no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.nicoclub.com

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

    Requesting removal from blacklist. Some past staffers got in a bit of trouble with Wikipedia, but have long since been replaced. Was attempting to edit / update / rectify some incorrect info on the 240sx Convertible page and include the Official Registry of these vehicles (see forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/165498). Our intention is NOT to "spam" the page, our linking and page strength speaks for itself. We maintain a close relationship with Nissan North America, and are the web's foremost resource for Nissan enthusiasts. We're just asking to be treated fairly, as there are quite a few links on that page alone that contain misinformation and "are "spammy" by nature. Thanks for your consideration! 70.176.198.131 (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-representatives' 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. However, it does appears a second chance was given, and the additions continued. Being the the site is an unofficial fans/enthusiast forum, it is a Link normally to be avoided and would fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It also appears that the spamming of your sites continued since that time;
    24.123.89.226 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    76.172.51.238 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    69.23.66.89 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    98.100.143.96 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Those will also be added, no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    I don't comprehend Wiki's internal language well enough to understand those last 4 links you listed, but from what I can tell, it appears someone added a link to cubedriver.com? I resent the implication that just because someone posted a link to a site in our network, that "we" are "spamming". If a site is the foremost authority on that particular topic, it's bound to happen, and beyond our control.

    Your "verifiabilty" comes from people who work for Nissan (many of us), people who build Nissans (many of us) and people who own several of them. I'm not interested in your links. I'm interested in clearing the record and being treated fairly. 70.176.198.131 (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Somehow its Wikipedias fault for having inclusion guidelines and abuse policies? Based on the above facts, the big picture clearly shows someone who is only "interested" in using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your sites. --Hu12 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Since I apparently don't follow directions very well, I'm replying. I tried to explain, I'm not interested in promoting my sites. If you could read, you'd SEE that my original intent was to contribute, with NO link to any site I run. How is that "intent to advertise"? Just take my sites off your silly little list. I'll make sure none of our 136,000 members ever offers their expertise or edits another article on here again, since apparently it's MY fault if someone references us as a source of expertise. You people are delusional, thinking anyone would covet a no-followed link. 70.176.198.131 (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    www.army-guide.com

    >> NOTE: I'm adding this again because the site is still blacklisted even though it was decided in the discussion below to unblacklist it. << - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended content

    The barmy-quide blocks it though. Flayer (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not quite, it's blocked because of spamming. Can you explain why we should not expect this to restart if we deblacklist the site? Stifle (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... No. But I've been reading this site for a while lately and everything was fine. Flayer (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to jump in here, but I'm not sure why this site is blacklisted for spam. I reviewed the requirements for listing it as spam, and it doesn't seem to meet any. It was posted frequently in external links, but this appears to have been done by one or two 'enthusiastic' users with 'good intentions' (providing additional sources on the topic), which perhaps triggered the initial fear that this was a spam link. If you look at the links posted, they were all relevant to the page that they were posted in. If you look at the contributions of the people who posted them, they're on a wide variety of topics, not just one's associated with the site in question... so it doesn't appear to be for the sake of advertising or a bot (really, what could an 'army guide' have to do with wrestling?). Finally, yes, this site was posted frequently, but it's an extensive site, so it can be realistically associated with many articles here at Wikipedia. -Jonathon A H (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if it were unblacklisted, what pages from the site would you add, and to what articles? Stifle (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I'm currently working on BTR-60 article so unblacklisting BTR-60 and TAB-71 articles on the site would be very helpful. The site is a normal site about military vehicles with some very interesting and useful information so it doesn't make sense to blacklist it. Pages for various other weapon systems should also be unblacklisted or even better the whole site should be unblacklisted. There's nothing harmful in that site. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to deblacklist the site and will do so in a week or so if I don't see any further reason to change my mind. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't cut and pase archived discussions, linking to it is sufficient. Ie MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2009#www.army-guide.com.

    Since the site is still blacklisted, it appears removal has not been decided.

    A concern here is, that after the initial blacklisting the spamming spread to other language projects. I'm not confident the spamming won't restart if removed, nor can you guaranty against its return. There doesn't appear to be any pressing need for its removal, nor am I convinced wikipedia benifits from the whole domain being delisted. However if a specific link is needed, feel free to request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where a url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As I already stated in the archived discussion: There's nothing harmful on this website. The "spamming" resulted from the fact that there is a lot of useful information on that webiste. Have you even looked through it? Articles about military hardware could benefit greatly from this source. Also you justify keeping it on the blacklist by saying "nor am I convinced wikipedia benifits from the whole domain being delisted". As I already stated Wikipedia would benefit from this domain being unlisted. Also if the criteria to not be on the blacklist is to be beneficial to Wikipedia than you could blacklist 90% of all websites and that would take too much work to be worth it. You also speak of "spamming spreading to other language projects". If a source is being used for an article about a certain subject does it mean that articles about the exactly the same subject but in different languages are prohibited from using that source?
    Oh and you say that "Since the site is still blacklisted, it appears removal has not been decided." Well a user named Stifle stated on 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC), in the end of the archived discussion: "I'm inclined to deblacklist the site and will do so in a week or so if I don't see any further reason to change my mind." Well if he found a reason to change his mind why didn't he say anything about it? I've waited for weeks for that site to delisted and then I saw that it was pushed into the archives making all of the progress made in that discussion irrelevant. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com

    Why is this listed? it seems like a legitimate news source for the Houston area. RayTalk 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind. I found the archive listing. I agree that it should stay blocked. RayTalk 02:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    no Withdrawn Stifle (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: If a site is considered as a spam site, should it have a WP article then? Or should that be up for deletion as "non-notable"? Example: Examiner.com. I was under the impression that it *was* an acceptable source based on the fact that it had an article on WP. Thus giving the impression of notability. But when I used Examiner as in-line reference "examiner.com" kicked off a spam filter blacklist notice when I submitted. So that made me wonder. If a site is regarded as a spam-site then should it even have an article on WP? Are there any cases where it would be useful to have an article about an entity that is currently also blacklisted? CaribDigita (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject of an article may be notable for a bunch of reasons that are not related to the subject being a reliable source. Sites are blacklisted when they are extensively spamlinked, particularly when most instances are not particularly helpful to Wikipedia. Accordingly, I do not see a problem with a site having an article and being blacklisted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    please take a look at project talk:WikiProject Spam#ein Schildbürgerstreich

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

    Dear friends; I am travelling and can neither be online nor on IRC. Thanks for your help in advance!
    ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 10:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This link is not blacklisted--Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    visitalgarve.pt

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

    This site was wrongfully added to the blacklist. It's the official tourism board website for the Algarve and shouldn't be blacklisted as it needs to be added to the externals links of that article. --Algarvean (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunatly, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them Xaman79 (talk · contribs), [9][10].no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I never spammed this link, you're mistaken. Please remove it from the blacklist as explained it's the official website for the tourism board of Algarve, it shouldn't be blacklisted and needs to be used, as it is in articles from other languages. Thanks. --Algarvean (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read what is on your user page and talk page? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to add links. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who the fuck asked you? I'm asking an administrator to unban this site, not some lousy editor. Please keep the usual bullshit predefined remarks to yourself until someone asks your opinion on something. --Algarvean (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, you want admin attention, you've got it: one more post like the above and you're blocked. I'd strongly advise you to strike your comment, then take some time and reconsider your approach to Wikipedia. Abusive nonsense like the above is not acceptable. no Declined--Ckatzchatspy 11:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you just shove it up you ass? I'm tired of listening to frustrated power-drunk morons running Wikipedia, no wonder more and more it's being considered a biased, flawed, non-reliable and non-coherent source of information, where any piece of trash can force their opinion and use power to silence the others, leaving little or no room for discussion. Some clueless editor considers that the article for Algarve can't have a link to the official tourism board website and removes it and bans the site from Wikipedia, when 99,9% of all location articles include at least one link to the official tourism website. And when you out-reason their arguments, they throw predefined answers, assuming that makes it right. Well, that's it for me, it's like reasoning with pigs. For you and all of those, GO FUCK YOURSELF! And have a nice day too. --Algarvean (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    newworldwine.suite101

    Why is this site on the Blacklist? While editing Wine, I discovered that a cited source linked to non-relevant info, so I decided to replace it with a better link. newworldwine.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_effects_of_oak had a very informative discussion about wine taste + oak barrels, but unfortunately, it's blacklisted. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The site is blacklisted due to massive spamming (hundreds of links spammed by multiple Suite101.com editors).
    Additionaly Suite101.com;
    • Has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Suite101 dot com
    meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/12#suite101.com
    Previous Suite101.com discussions
    I think you ment your edit on Oak (not Wine), However this single link seems to be fine, I've whitelisted http://newworldwine.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_effects_of_oak, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ehow.com

    Not sure why this site is blocked, but the following link is needed for the History section of the article on Dice. Relevant URL in ehow : /about_4570456_history-dice.html --Mehrshad123 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    eHow.com links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    Here's the same thing withought all the adverts;
    • http://www.diychatroom.com/content/the-history-of-dice_65ba69cf-bc93-f46c-9b66-8f1078415355/
     Not done, reasonable alternative availiable, however don't think it meets core content guidelines to be an appropriate source.--Hu12 (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    cais-soas.com

    This site was apparently added a couple of years ago due to somewhat dubious reasons. It is an important and credible reference site for Iranian archeological sites as well as related publications.--Mehrshad123 (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not dubious. This site was blocked at Meta after being identified as carrying images and content in violation of copyrights [11]. This site violates WP:Copyrights, Linking to copyrighted works.no Declined --Hu12 (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    examiner.com redux

    It was proposed for removal above and then withdrawn, but I'd like to reopen it. I agree that it's not a particularly reliable source. If someone used it to back up a dubious fact or to establish notability, I'd challenge them on it. But sources of questionable reliability are not blanket banned using technical means; there's no community consensus for that (that I'm aware of). Our reliable source guidelines say that articles should primarily rely on reliable sources, but as with all our guidelines, it's subject to discretion and exception. I believe that using the spam blacklist in this way exceeds the scope of what it's supposed to be for, and that this case is gray enough that it shouldn't be listed. As well, I don't believe that examiner.com has any unique conflicts of interest in terms of the author's compensation... I can't imagine many web sites where a goal isn't to drive traffic. Anyway in summary, I agree that it's "blog like"... I agree that it should be used with caution, but I disagree that it should be blanket banned using the blunt instrument of the spamlist. Gigs (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I poked around to see if there was a standing community consensus on this, I didn't find one, but I did find this arbcom finding that says specifically that "Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions." Gigs (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems


    Logging / COIBot Instr

    Blacklist logging

    Full instructions for admins


    Quick reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.
    Note: If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

    The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

    1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
    2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


    Discussion


    Restructure this page?

    Something that has bothered me for a while about this page is the awkward page structure for editing. It would be simpler to start new discussions if we broke this page into sub-pages, then used this page to provide links to those subpages and to transcule the contents of those subpages here for a central review page. To accomplish this, we could create these sub-pages:

    Do others have any opinions on this? Worthwhile to others, or a waste of time/effort? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Six more pages on the watchlist, six different links to archive and log, may be a bit cumbersome. Guess I'm not seeing why this would be a practical improvement to justify breaking up the board. I'm for keeping this in line with Meta, and the other 57 or so major language blacklists for now. Uniformity is important (IMHO), as many Meta., Commons. and en. admins cross work multiple MediaWiki Black/White-lists. Although transcluding the "Logging / COIBot Instr" makes sense; its a static, rarely edited instructional portion of this page.--Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was already thinking of transferring the whole spam-whitelisting and blacklisting process to Wikipedia:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As i understand it, MediaWiki pages are predefined with the default configuration on all Wikimedia projects is MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Namespaces such as "Wikipedia", outside the MediaWiki namespace are not intended to be customised for this, and if tried probably won't work as expected. These are MediaWiki software interface pages, not Wikipedia:Projects or intended to function as such. Don't think this would be a practical improvement. Unless all the other projects uniformly do the same, I see no reason to support either changes. --Hu12 (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the blacklists themselves would need to stay in MediaWiki namespace, but the request pages could be transferred to Wikipedia namespace, rather than MediaWiki talk. This would also give us the opportunity to put requests to block something on one page and requests to unblock on another page, rather than the current situation where unblocking a whole site and permitting one or a few links are requested in separate places, which is unduly confusing. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I notice in the editnotice for this page the injunction not to use the "new section" tab. The tab can be suppressed using __NONEWSECTIONLINK__. See Help:Magic words. Rd232 talk 11:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent, I've added __NONEWSECTIONLINK__ to the header, and removed the related text from editnotices  ;). Also transcluded the "Logging-COIBot Instr", FYI--Hu12 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I requested that new magic word a while ago at Bugzilla and it was denied. I guess someone else caught Brion in a better mood :) Stifle (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    PLWHA

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

    www.plwha.org - Why is this page on the Blacklist? There is no information included which violates any laws, rules, or restrictions, and is actually an informative site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromancer (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass multiproject spamming. m:User:COIBot/XWiki/plwha.org.--Hu12 (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing cross posted; MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#plwha.org --Hu12 (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=326937719"