MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

Archives (current)→

The Spam-whitelist page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist and the local spam-blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (web pages to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to reblock), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Please enter your requests at the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and not at the very bottom of the page. Sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

Also in your request, please include the following:

1. The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
2. The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
3. An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
4. If the site you're requesting is listed at /Common requests, please include confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you still desire to proceed with your request

Important: You must provide a full link to the specific web page you want to be whitelisted (leave out the http:// from the front; otherwise you will not be able to save your edit to this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar with nothing after the / character) are likely to be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked please visit the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Note: Do not request links to be whitelisted where you can reasonably suspect that the material you want to link to is in violation of copyright (see WP:LINKVIO). Such requests will likely be summarily rejected.

There is no automated notification system in place for the results of requests, and you will not be notified when your request has a response. You should therefore add this page to your personal watch list, to your notifications through the subscribe feature, or check back here every few days to see if there is any progress on it; in particular, you should check whether administrators have raised any additional queries or expressed any concerns about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in the request being denied.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|239507852#section_name}}

Note that requests from new or unregistered users are not usually considered.

Admins: Use seth's tool to search the spamlists.

Indicators
Request completed:
Done	{{Done}}
Stale	{{StaleIP}}
Request withdrawn	{{withdrawn}}
Request declined:
Declined	{{Declined}}
Not done	{{Notdone}}
Information:
Additional information needed	{{MoreInfo}}
Note:	{{TakeNote}}

Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)

Official Flight of the Conchords Blog

This should be whitelisted because it is the band's official blog. They post news on it. News that should be on the Flight of the Conchords wikipedia article, but one cannot reference to a blog. They announced their second season via this very blog: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=58557805&blogID=374524428 71.231.175.227 (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely to whitelist on the request of an IP I'm afraid. Established users would be need to make such a request. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I established enough? Flight of the Conchords would benefit from links to their official blog. The old official site hasn't been updated for a couple of years, their myspace page seem to be current. The bit to whitelist would be "friendID=58557805", and the specific URL I was attempting to add is blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=58557805&blogID=374524428 Orpheus (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

infolive.sytes.net

There is an external link in 2B1 Oka article about a soviet self-propelled mortar. The link points to a blog or alike with a real in-depth historical explanation (if you don't know Russian, just look at the photos) to the otherwise very stub wiki-article. First I thought it was a wiki-markup error when saw a whitespace beetween “infolive” and “sytes.net”, but when tried to correct, I received an error message from spam blocking filter. Please, white list the site, because as for now the link looks broken and is unusable unless extracted manually. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely to whitelist on the request of an IP I'm afraid. Established users would be need to make such a request. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Symphony in Peril's MySpace blog

I was doing some work to expand the article for the band Symphony in Peril and found that MySpace blog URLs were blacklisted. I would like the following two URLs whitelisted as they pertain to specific announcements directly from the band regarding a member change and the band's breakup:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=2215155&blogID=19583901 http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=2215155&blogID=55272717

Theonethird (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have whitelisted this based on the fact that this is the band's blog; that's the one time we link to blogs.

 Done. Sorry you had to wait. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that! Theonethird (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually the links still don't seem to be working. I tried editing the page and they're still blocked. Theonethird (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Official I Bet You MySpace blog

1. I think it should be whitelisted as it is as far as I could find the only, and more important, a quite reliable source for current and future information on the show and behind the scenes developments.
2. In this case, the article on I Bet You would benefit from it, as I would like to use it as a citation to back up the claim on an upcoming season three. It is currently placed between html comment tags after the relevant sentence.
3. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=97068158&blogID=395526769

I hope that this blog or at least this url can be whitelisted, just as Zach Braff's MySpace Blog. Thanks in advance!
Ewald (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts yet? Some MySpace blogs seem to be able to obtain whitelisting. Such as the recently approved MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Another_one_of_Jenna_Fischer.27s_MySpace_blog_entries. Thanks in advance. - Ewald (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Official Pendulum MySpace blog

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=75424283&blogID=379158051

Contains irrefutable information about a disputed release date for use in the article Propane Nightmares which will help to resolve any further arguments regarding the release date.

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=75424283&blogID=407371549

Contains information about the (faulty) Australian version of In Silico which may be useful in the article at some point.

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=75424283&blogID=413030364

Information confirming the release date and formats of The Other Side which may be useful in supporting the article up until the release.

Several pages from this blog would be useful if whitelisted. I've listed them all separately to make it easier to read. Whitelisting any of these pages would be helpful, particularly the first page – Ikara ^{talk →} 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading through the blog I have found other references that would be useful in several Pendulum articles, however I cannot list all the ones that will definitely get used right now. Ideally it would help to have all pages on the blog whitelisted, as well as the top level page for general reference, using an expression similar to:

\bblog\.myspace\.com/index\.cfm\?fuseaction=blog\.(view|ListAll)&friendID=75424283\b

I haven't seen this method used in the whitelist yet so it may not be approved of, but it should be noted that the expression will only match pages in the Pendulum blog, and assuming one of them is allowed, there should be no problem with the others. In any case the above entries would still be very useful, and there should be no problem with them. I could really use the above three, so a speedy reply would be very helpful. Thanks – Ikara ^{talk →} 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another related request; blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=6039370, which is Rob Swire's official MySpace blog (the band's blog wasn't used before mid-2007) where he states that the band does/did not endorse JungleSound Gold – a CD released boasting "Mixed by Pendulum" on the cover. This is stated in Pendulum discography and should most certainly be supported with a reference, but this is the only one I have found so far. As before the ideal would be:

\bblog\.myspace\.com/index\.cfm\?fuseaction=blog\.(view|ListAll)&friendID=6039370\b

Any chance of a reply soon? Thanks again – Ikara ^{talk →} 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

nefac.net

NEFAC is one of the most prominent anarcho-communist organisations on the planet, and there should be a link in their article to their official website. On behalf of the Anarchism task force, Skomorokh 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate, see below. MER-C 09:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

www.associatedcontent.com

The link added to the Montauk Monster wiki article, taken from AssociatedContent, should not be blacklisted. The link in question is to an Associated Content article that contains a firsthand interview with a USDA official and makes reference to a statement by the Director of Plum Island that was emailed to the author of the Associated Content article by the Department of Homeland Security officials. This is verifiable information and it contributes to an understanding of the wiki article. Without this information, wiki readers do not know the DHS or USDA position on the Montauk Monster and may be left with a mis-impression concerning a link between the facility and the Montauk Monster. This is the link (excluding the root because it would be blacklisted again): /article/920725/dhs_debunks_monster_of_montauk_mystery.html?page=2&cat=8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catloverbonifant (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely to whitelist based on this being the only contribution from this user. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined per Herby. The rationale for whitelisting includes the reasons we can't use this. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

da Vinci Surgery Systems

Hey Guys,

I think there's some mistake, because da Vinci Systems is a surgical utility Web site for the surgical equipment. I am desigining a Wikipedia page for a robotic surgeon and the site is a major External Link, so I'd appreciate it if you could check it out and see what the deal is. Thanks. --Nmishra9 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)nmishra9

For background, it appears that the site was originally blacklisted due to multiple parties posting the link to multiple articles on Wikipedia, and appeared to have been done for the purpose of promotion/advertising. For reference, the spam report can be viewed here (note, link is to an archive, please do not add new comments): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jun_1#davincisurgery.com

The whitelisting (or removal from the blacklist) will need to be evaluated by admins with access to make the change ... I'm just providing the link for reference purposes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hum - very spammy history - personally I would not be happy whitelisting this one. Sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sensing a conflict of interest from what appears to be a single-purpose account here. All his edits are to the device mentioned or to the company's champion surgeon (medical device companies make heavy use of champion surgeons in their marketing). Guy (Help!) 10:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Declined in the absence of reasons why this link should be included. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

MySpace blog

Mike Skinner, more commonly known as The Streets, has announced on his MySpace blog (blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=2536242&blogID=421632554) today the title of his next album (excluding Everything Is Borrowed, to be released next month). I've made note of this in the article, but would like to source it properly. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 12:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined, blog entries are not reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A specific signed and dated review published as www.suite101.com/article.cfm/poetry_magazine_review/76867

I only need this one link, to add to the References section in Agnieszka's Dowry. Exact form given below. Actually, it's already in the article, minus the "http://" part. I am responding to another editor demanding more sources. This is an independent third-party review of a fairly in-depth kind. It's only fault is that it contains outdated links to the magazine, since moved to asgp.org from enteract.com --Mareklug ^talk 13:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Heather O'Neil. [www.suite101.com/article.cfm/poetry_magazine_review/76867 "Agnieszka's Dowry (AgD)"], Suite101.com, 7 August 2001. (Accessed 7 August 2008).

• When did we change policy so that blogs became reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 10:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not a blog, it's a huge basically spam site that at least for a time in the early 2000s acted as a host to bonafide reviewers in music and small press, but it did not last. Nonetheless, it is a repository of some good content, esp. when signed and dated. There are suite101.com entries on the frigging white list! Why is the signed and dated review I need to complete referencing a small press entry, notorious for difficult sourcing, not to join them? What policy is that? As for Heather O'Neil, you can search for her reviews precisely because it is a signed review, and compare it on merits to those published on more respectable urls. Best, --Mareklug ^talk 07:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined, too many issues with that site. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Too many issues with suite101.com? Did I understand correctly? If so, how do you justify denying my request, while the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist already contains the following suite101.com items of similar content, approved by several administrators:
    1. www\.suite101\.com\/article\.cfm\/heavy_metal\/110910 #Req by User:M3tal H3ad, appr by User:J.smith Feb 16, 2007
    2. pcs\.suite101\.com\/article\.cfm\/interview_with_merijn_bellekom # Req by User:CyberRax, approved by User:J.smith Feb 16, 2007
    3. www\.suite101\.com\/article\.cfm\/wisconsin\/110633 #A specific link on suite101.com, requested by me and added by me, Grandmasterka.
    4. internationaltrade\.suite101\.com\/article\.cfm\/top_cocoa_bean_processors
    5. \bafrican-american-playwrights\.suite101\.com\/article.cfm\/black_nativity_by_langston_hughes\b
    6. \bsuite101\.com\/view_image\.cfm\/198319\b
  • Thank you for you kind attention in this matter. I would like to remind you, that it is the content that I require, not turning on the spigot for all suite101.com. The review I need does not even contain any advertising. --Mareklug ^talk 05:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Mareklug, besides the massive spamming, a problem with Suite101.com and similar sites (like ezinearticles.com) is that 99% of their material is self-published by non-experts with no editorial oversight. The whitelistings I'm aware of were congruent in one way or another with the spirit of our reliable sources guideline.

• A globally acknowledged expert published elsewhere.
• A photograph (we assumed it wasn't Photoshopped)
• An interview with the subject of the article in which the link was used.

I don't know if this was true of all whitelistings but it was with the ones I was involved with.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

www.storz-bickel.com/

This site deserves to be unblocked because its commonly accepted to link to the website of the company that manufactures a product that is notable, as the Volcano Vaporizer is. While I understand not wanting to unleash the floodgates of every head shop on the internet wanting to spam the Bong or Cannabis article, an exception should be made for the actual manufacturer of the product. SiberioS (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recently declined here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it technically feasible to unblock for one specific page?SiberioS (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And may I also point out its a bit absurd to block a site on the presumption of its abuse by anonymous IP addresses in spamming, or its potential for abuse, even though it DOES have a legitimate purpose on a specific page. It would be like presuming that linking to Apple or Microsoft's websites are dangerous because they may be used to bolster or spam vast numbers of articles in order to drum sales or support. We should err on the side of allowing it. SiberioS (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just presumed abuse - the site was abused. The IP who made the initial request for whitelisting also spammed it to a bunch of other articles on en.Wiki and others. See COIBot's report on the additions of the link before it was added to the meta blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 00:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This really needs to get whitelisted! It's a totally legitimate site, especially for the Volcano Vaporizer article --Holscher (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Er.... no. Maybe the url for the home page, for use solely in that one article. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

lluisllach.pl

I want whitelisted: lluisllach.pl. Is applies to the biography of the Catalunyan singer Lluis Llach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lluis_Llach

It is interesting to know that Llach songs are known even in Poland, and another example (Mury) has been already approved.

The site is indeed based on Geocities and cannot spam; anyway, the location change is possible, if it is just about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.28.26 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined, does not appear to be a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

tvrage.com

It is a useful sight that has been blacklisted. It is useful to get upcoming episodes for List of Wizards of Waverly Place Episodes so it shouldn't be blacklisted. It says it is spam but it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icealien33 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately your upload history shows you've uploaded copyrighted images, disregarding warnings. Therefore your POV about the site not being spam does not have much credibility. -- Alexf⁴² 00:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined, prolific history of spamming and not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

www.diplomaticsociety.org

please unblock www.diplomaticsociety.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.111.238 (talk)

Given that the link has been spammed cross wiki (report at meta)- including by several addresses in the 71.112.x.x range your request seems unlikely to be granted. Generally whitelist requests are granted for established editors who show an encyclopedic need for a link. -- SiobhanHansa 10:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined per above. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

www.worldchesslinks.net

I have also no idea why this was blacklisted. It has an enormous amount of chess related information, useful as a reference for many chess related articles. For instance the historical chess tournaments: www.worldchesslinks.net/ezq00.html , which can be used for many articles in Category:Chess competitions (such as Vienna 1882 chess tournament). Voorlandt (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• This page is for requesting that a particular page on a blacklisted site be permitted while the rest of the site is not. Which page do you want to permit? If you want to delist the entire site, please see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

www.squidoo.com/biomed

Why the site should be whitelisted:
I understand that there is likely a lot of spam from squidoo.com, however this lens (page) represents a good example of a truely informational Squidoo page with history, link lists and references. This resource listing is useful because I have not found such a comprehensive collection elsewhere on the internet. It is not filled with excessive hype or promotion. The page is titled "Biomedical Services: Maintaining essential medical equipment for hospitals & physicians" Which articles(s) would benefit from the addition of the link: This would be a helpful addtion to the "information sites"of the biomedical equipment technician page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomedical_Equipment_Technician Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added: www.squidoo.com/biomed Thank you for your consideration. Redunitone (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Still an unreliable source, though, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Declined due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

www.goascii.com

Hi everyone,
There is a global blacklisting on goascii.com because of a spam incidence.
I think, this site could be a good extension to the Page ASCII. I develop websites and use the site very often to check charcodes. The german domain goascii.de is whitelisted on german wiki
Could you please whitelist goascii.com locally?
Excuse my bad english, Im active in geman wiki and wikia. View my wikimatrix at my profile.
Best Regards --Cy (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody check it out please? Best Regards -- Cy (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

or maybe someone could serve with an short answer please. Regards --Cy (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

anybody here? --Cy (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cy, if an established, high-volume editor asks to use this domain, we'll be happy to reconsider this domain. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

hope if I am a high volume editor, there is a little quicker response as 1 month. I know, everybody works for free here, but this page should have a little bit more attention. thx & Regards --Cy (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- there's a real backlog with some waiting as long as 3 months. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined in the absence of a request from an established user. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

www.petitiononline.com/mml3p/petition.html

why this specific link should be whitelisted:
first of all why is a petition site blocked, and second this link might be of intrest to fans of the game the article is about and third if the petition for a third installment is acknowledged the article would grow a lot which is good for every one.
Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Man_Legends

•  Declined. Wikipedia is not here to attract signatories to petitions. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About

There is no harm in allowing a link to the about page. This is used numerous times as a reference on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article and the nowiki'd link looks ridiculous on our part. Thanks. —Giggy 10:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• What's wrong with using reliable independent sources? Self-sourced articles often fail WP:NPOV. I think it would be hard to find a site which is less likely to be reliable as a source about anything, even itself. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is basically the same discussion at AN, but it isn't fair to call this a self sourced article. this is an article which, frankly, is scrupulously sourced detailing a notable subject and should be allowed to do so in the same fashion as any other article on a corporation, organization or website. The limitations imposed by WP:V are sufficient to ensure that information cited only to the subject not be used excessively. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's currently being used to cite the launch date, a basic description of itself (quoted in ref 3), and the fact that it's trying to copy The Devil's Dictionary. I'd agree that using this to cite other things would go against NPOV, but these particular facts are hardly controversial. —Giggy 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also, if there is a problem with the POV in an article, this is the wrong way to fix it. Blacklisting the site doesn't prevent us from citing it. It just makes wikipedia look petty. We've had enough trouble building an article about ED, let's just collectively be the bigger person and treat it like just another site. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• The site is blacklisted due to long-term abuse and that is unlikely to change (ED is of no conceivable use as a source for an encyclopaedia, after all). This is about whether one page should be whitelisted as a source for an article. I remain entirely unconvinced that the site is capable of being honest about even the most basic facts, for example I dispute absolutely their assertion that they are modelled on sites which elevate themselves above the simply childish, something ED has historically failed to do. I've checked ED articles on subjects with which I am familiar and they contain not just distortion but blatant falsehood, so like I say I would like to know if there are reliable independent sources for the same facts, because I think those would be better in respect of this particular site. I don't trust a word they say, and for good reason. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, but that has nothing to do with the spam blacklist. the site is already referenced in the article, per WP:SPS. All we are asking is for the links to not be blocked by the spam filter. This isn't about our personal feelings regarding the site's reliability, devotion to truth or maturity. Protonk (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Protonk. Guy, while I certainly respect your opinion here (and in other areas) I think it might be good if another admin without the strong feelings on the subject that you may have takes a look at this. Would you object to asking a few other regulars (Herbythyme comes to mind) to take a squiz? —Giggy 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• The opinion by Guy above this is still worded slightly antagonistically ("childish", etc.), indicating a personal dislike for the site. The About page for the site is not done "dramtically" like the other pages are; I just visited it (for the first time) and it really does do nothing other then tell about the site. If Wikipedia has an article abuot the site, it would make no sense whatsoever not to link to the site from the article. Since the home page is apparently not allowed to be linked to, this page would make a good alternative.RayvnEQ (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• To be totally fair to guy, I can 100% understand why he might not like the site...at all. Protonk (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have firmly shelved the fact that they reportedly assert that my recently deceased father was a paedophile, I was thinking more about the shit they published about Phaedriel. Fact is, they have sown beyond any possible doubt that they care more about "lulz" than about any pretence to accuracy, and I don't think that they are likely to be any more honest about themselves than they are about anything else. which is why I would suggest that we use only what can be verified from reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• (arbitrary indent reset)
• Just to point out ... I checked the article, and it appears that the about page has been listed as a ref sinse mid-May sometime. It's just listed as plain-text and not linked. If it's okay to have the ref in the article, then I agree it should be whitelisted - if it's not appropriate, then the ref should be removed from the article. It may be worthwhile to open the issue for broader comment at WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Or an article RfC (although they have a long history of meatpuppetry so that may not work well). Guy (Help!) 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Deferred WP:AN. I am uncomfortable adding this in the absence of discussion before a wider audience. This page is a bit of a dark alley as Wikipedia goes. If it is still desired to whitelist this site, please open an AN thread. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

anderszorn.org

Hello,

can you please whitelist this site - anderszorn.org ?

It is a not for profit organization, the site is commercials free and took more than 6 months to develop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.57.198 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined. No credible policy-related reason given for whitelisting. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

official artist myspace blogs

For use on This Is Home Please unblock both

• blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=197111722&blogID=378509344
• blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=4441967&blogID=390675704

If both these blogs can be unblocked via friend Id that would be even better. Thanks --T-rex 14:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

{{declined}} Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a blog. This is an official announcement by the band. The reason I want these sites unblocked is so that they can be used instead of the blog that is currently being used. This is a reliable source. --T-rex 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nefac.net

NEFAC are a prominent anarchist organization but I cannot link to their page on Wikipedia. I do not understand this because it could not be spam or defamatory etc. Wikipedia bosses please explain why this link is banned. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.172.139 (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Cross-wiki spam: [1]. It's not a reliable source as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What?!! reliable sources has nothing to do with it - it's the official website of the organization and the organization is notable. The spam was by one guy on an inappropriate article (antifascism) over a year ago. Banning it is way out of proportion. If someone started putting inappropriate google.com (also "not a reliable source") links into articles, you wouldnt ban that would you. Silliness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.126.193 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an appropriate (and recommended) external link on the article about the organization. That page currently links to the website using the IP address which is probably not ideal for us. Recommend whitelisting home page only (or possibly nefac.net/node/83 if people think it's less likely to get spammed) for this page only and maybe having it watched by AntiSpamBot. -- SiobhanHansa 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you scroll up a bit there is a second request for this site - does that indicate a better reason to possibly unblock it? (Personal interest irrelevant; I'm a half hippie and never heard of the organization, the site looks badly done but two people have said it really is offical site, it's in another language probably expalins why I haven't heard of it.)RayvnEQ (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this should be blacklisted, but it should, be dealt with by deblacklisting rather than whitelisting.  Deferred MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

listen.to/caretaker

To be used on Caretaker (band) This is the official band website so therefore a good reference source. Wonderfibre (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined, moot. Note the redlink. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Global_warming,_human-caused%3F

This is a single use URL perhaps. Don't laugh when you read the next sentence. It is my intention to link to this idebate.org article on the debate of global warming so I can use it to debate whether a debate exists in refernce to global warming on the Talk page of Methanol economy. It is my contention that a debate exists. And it is my intention to demonstrate that a debate exists by showing a hodgepodge of sources which indicate that a debate exists... I do this by listing articles written by people debating pro and con, and I felt that this link would make my case. And yes, I am actually debating whether a debate exists, as stupid as that sounds. I am in the "yes there is a debate" crowd, obviously. And while we are debating, is there some reason why the entire domain is blocked? I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The site was blacklisted because people working for the site spammed it across many Wikipedia articles (see WikiProject Spam report - this is an archive please do not edit).

I see above that you mention using the link on the talk page to show that debate exists but I think you would be ultimately more successful in your argument if you could provide reliable sources that could be used in the article showing there are other opinions that should be presented according to WP:WEIGHT. idebate.org doesn't really meet our reliable sources guidelines (nor external links) except in very narrow circumstances - the fact that something is debated does not mean there is debate among experts in the field. This is basically a scientific article so scientific papers in respected journals showing an opposing point of view (or better yet reviewing other papers and concluding there is reasonable debate) would probably be best for your case. Our NPOV policy is really to only include the POVs of respected commentators, not random opinions of the general public. -- SiobhanHansa 10:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with SiobahnHansa, and there is no notatation indicating she is a "promoted" user. Whether or not a debate exists in the field of "experts" is irrelevant to whether or not a debate exists. Whether or not a debate exists is actually factual information, rather then an opinon in itself, so as soon as you see one link to many people, or one link to one person (of any type) with a long, logical, etc., reason for their viewpoint, it means a debate does indeed factually exist. In the field of psychology, for example, "experts" define schizophrenia due to "symptoms", whereas in real life, people who have actually explored the schizophrenic person's mind, such as close friends, rather then "experts" who have only recorded "symptoms", are less trustworthy. In the field of computer programming, "experts" probably do not even know of the existence of LOLCode, yet an entire code was written by a "random user". So I do not think "expert" is always relevant in Wikipedia, especially on the topic of whether or not a debate exists about soemthing. In addition the reasons for blocking this site has nothing to do with the site itself, and that should be enough to automatically unblock upon request as long as sufficent time has passed where the SPAMmer is not likely to continue trying to SPAM it.RayvnEQ (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined The request describes use of the site as part of a novel synthesis; the source is apparently not reliable anyway, so no reason to whitelist. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

cosmoetica.com

Recently, Cosmoetica has been blocked. Of course, the "controversy" (no, it's not controversial, except to 2-3 people, and a bunch of bullying sockpuppets) is about Dan Schneider's site, the unjustified and transparent attempts to delete it, and the linking to relevant, oft-read reviews of books, movies, and other criticism. (For more information, see Dan Schneider's talk page) Note the sockpuppet accounts: Alabamaboy08, Ovenknob, Tmwns, and others, whose primary activity includes de-linking Schneider's site for no justifiable reason. Again: Cosmoetica and Dan Schneider have received attention from the New York Times, various online publications, Cambridge University Press, and so on, while maintaining a prolific level of quality poetry and criticism from Schneider and others, and even features the most-read Internet interview series in history, with people like Steven Pinker and poet James A. Emanuel. In all, the site has over 4 billion page reads. So, what's the fuss? The rationale for deletion, followed by relentless, one-man-army de-linking? Bekaymecca (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Declined, requester is yet another sockpuppet of the site owner, the total of such socks is now running at well over 20 around 40 and rising. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

www.banknotes.com/HN84.JPG

I just need it as a source for Image:1Lempira.jpg. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

irish-fiction.suite101.com

My edit of the wikipedia page, John Banville, Style, and the references to the irish-fiction links should be permitted. Both links connect to articles germain to the style description on the wikipedia page and both expand the very brief assessment of Banville's style that is provided on the wikipedia page: both articles at those links are fully referenced with direct quotes from Banville's novel, fully referenced quotes from literary critics, and fully referenced definitions in the glossary provided. Also, I'm a freelancer with a Masters degree, a published (not self-published)fiction writer, and a reviewer, etc. What other credentials and references would you need to edit a wikipedia page? So far the style page on Banville lavishly praises his style; in fact there is a lot of discussion about the merit of that style and my edit and linked articles address that discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotrocket (talk • contribs) 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

sermonaudio.com

www.sermonaudio.com is okay. Please revert this edit and see the discussion.
--71.118.38.240 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Really. YouTube style self-publishing site for sermons, and this is a reliable source for which article again? Guy (Help!) 17:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

petitiononline.com/1105/petition.html

I need to request the whitelisting of the source for the 9-11 mention @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Day ; since typing the source causes this very post to be denied, it is:

petitiononline.com/1105/petition.html
68.185.167.117 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; there is no reason for this to be whitelisted. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

web-app.net

The following discussion 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.

---

Concerning web-app.net Just found out after searching on google that our open source project is blacklisted here ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2008/05#web-app.net_attempting_to_circumvent_via_redirect ) because of a repeated spam by our competitors. It is a matter of fact the entire story started by username monty53 whom is both listed on our competitors version page as a developer with the same username (see web-app.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=ver for information) and is blocked on WP. Would also like to make it clear that my user name was banned on WP too due to the same issue and the ban was removed. Please remove web-app.net from your blacklist. Thank you On.Elpeleg (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is posted in the wrong board, please let me know where to post the request.--??? 06:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by On.Elpeleg (talk • contribs)

Even if I ignore Monty53's role in all of this, it looks like we still have a real problem with spam, incivility and disruption from the other user accounts and anonymous IPs more than sufficient to require blacklisting.

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. 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.

The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.

Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.^[2][3]

 Declined --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your prompt reply and information/explanation. web-app.net has nearly 7000 users on his mailing list, if wikipedia has an official email address for these issues, I will send an email to the users asking them to request the removal of the black list spam label. It is not the label itself which we found destructive, but the fact that many others follow this WP list. I found it quite disturbing that anyone can get his competitor so easily blacklisted on WP. Concerning DMOZ, I am an editor on the google Perl directory listing, but never really bothered to list webapp there, I leave this to someone else for ethical reasons. Thank you. ??? 19:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by On.Elpeleg (talk • contribs)

Soliciting your mailing list to get this link removed

We very much frown on canvassing off-Wikipedia to get a link removed. That would be very counterproductive. Refer to our Canvassing Guideline and you'll see what I mean.

Your comment

"I found it quite disturbing that anyone can get his competitor so easily blacklisted on WP."

The facts of web-app's blacklisting

1. Web-app.net's public domain registration gives a Norwegian location

1. oelpeleg [at] online.no^[4]
2. The domain registrar's site is down now, but it was showing your name with a Bergen address yesterday ^[5]

2. The anonymous spam came from Norway

These IPS traceroute to Telenor:

1. 85.164.196.163 (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)
2. 85.164.201.91 (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)
3. 85.164.202.29 (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)
4. 85.164.225.10 (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)
5. 85.164.230.64 (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)
6. 85.164.241.51 (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)
7. 85.164.250.163 (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)

3. Your accounts

Spam, incivility and sockpuppetry:

1. On.Elpeleg (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)
2. Daw24 (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)
3. Oe65 (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)
4. Sfe56 (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)
5. TooJewish (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)
6. Webapp (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)

4. Monty53 is supposedly based in Turkey, not Norway

This is according to your own comment

Again, I reiterate that there were major problems with sockpuppetting, incivility and spam regardless of Monty53's participation. When we encounter sockpuppetting, incivility and spam, we first ask nicely but after a few warnings and requests, we blacklist the domains. You and these Norwegian IPs gave us no choice.

The buck stops in Bergen.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS JUST AN IP TEST TO SHOW DE FACTO THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MY FIXED IP: 88.90.78.169, SEE SIGNATURE UNDER FOR THE IP. NO INTENTION WHATEVER TO ABUSE AN IP BUT JUST A PLAIN DEMONASTRATION TO SHOW THAT THE ALLEGATIONS ABOVE ARE FALSE. THANK YOU (USER On.Elpeleg)--88.90.78.169 (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1.) Did I ever deny that I am the owner of the domain name: web-app.net ?
2.) Why do you suggest under point 3 that these are *my* accounts? There is only one more account there which was *mine* and that is Webapp, I have requested to replace that account with the account On.Elpeleg, I have laso followed normal WP procedures when doin so, if you see the history of my account you will see that there was no "sockpuppetry" by me whatever, I asked to replace the Webapp account with a new one as advised by WP administrators and my request was granted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Webapp), an alleged "sockpuppetry" concerning this account was waved ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:On.Elpeleg ), TooJewish is located in Canada, and true he is a webapp fan (one out of 7000 others). monty53 is a competitor site developer as shown to you on the ver page of their site ( web-app.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=ver ), why would a competitor spam with our link? The other names, I have no idea who ever they are.
3.)Telenor is trading in the NY stock market, it uses a dynamic IP with millions of users, my IP is permanent, so is webapp ip: http://66.33.209.147 (I can not see any spam from this IP), our competitor is providing two languages with its package English and Norwegian. While we provide webapp in over 30 languages
4.) I have no idea who Monty is, and where he is located, and yes, I thought he is in Turkey, if he is in Norway, does that make any difference? He is a major developer of the competitor page, and because of him (and probably other competitors) spaming with our links that we are blacklisted.
5.)I am in located in Norway too, I never denied that either, you can see my apartment map photo in Norway here: http://66.33.209.147/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=forum&board=community&op=display&num=11466&start=0 also.. the webapp office.
My impression is that the entire argument started on whether one should have an article about webapp or not and then things went out of control and thanks for someone throwing patrol into the flames that webapp is now also blacklisted. Never mind article, but blacklisting is really going very far, specially when it is well documented that the competitor is the one that thrown the patrol into the flames. Thank you for your time. --??? 10:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A solution? Since the Norwegian IP seems to be the main issue, and since we at web-app.net mean that the IP belongs to the competitor who inteneded to make us look bad, may I suggest that WP forwards a complaint to the ISP hosting this IP, instead of either blocking the entire ISP or blacklisting web-app.net? --??? 11:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined -- we blacklist domains when user accounts and IPs persistently add them in spite of requests to stop. This is what happened with web-app.net and its associated domains. We have no way of ascertaining whether this spam is somehow associated with some grand conspiracy off-Wikipedia to harm some website and we have no responsibility to worry about this. If there's some outside party trying to harm you, you should take the issue up directly with them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

THERE IS NO SPAM EVIDENCE WHATEVER I assume good faith and you actually have not checked the IPs contributions which are used as a cause for blacklisting web-app.net because you also assumed good faith, so please allow me to clarify the following concerning this list after checking their contributions:

1. 85.164.196.163 (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)
2. 85.164.201.91 (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)
3. 85.164.202.29 (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)
4. 85.164.225.10 (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)
5. 85.164.230.64 (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)
6. 85.164.241.51 (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)
7. 85.164.250.163 (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)
   

1.) Four of the IPs above have NO CONTRIBUTIONS WHATEVER, logic they can not be used as an evidence for spam or as an evidence for anything.

2.) Two of the other IPs are not mentioning web-app.net at all. Again, irrelevant so called evidence.

3.) One IP attempts long long long time ago (two years ago!) to create a web-app article, this case was resolved via a vote, it is not a vanadalism nor any spam case. Again where is the evidence of the evil IPs?

4.) Further more, a google search on online.no the "evil ip" would produce 15 million hits, are you going to say that web-app.net is responsible for those hits too? Seriously?

5.) Username Webapp was replaced by my username (real name), after my application for that was granted, alleged SPAM concerning this and also alleged multiple usernames abuse was dismissed, please check talk pages.

6.) TooJewish, Aron from Canada (a web-app.net fan) Never spammed. he actually never uses WP

7.) I have not bothered even checking the other 2-3 usernames, but I do not expect much surprises there either.

I am asking you to kindly evaluate this request seriously and not take things for granted, thank you for your time. --88.90.78.169 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted contribution histories -- that is, histories of edits to deleted articles, are available only to administrators. These Norwegian IPs either added web-app.net links, edited the WebAPP spam article (which was deleted five times) or added links tp Wikipedias in other languages. I'll also note that in May on IRC, you acknowledged previously editing anonymously on behalf of Web-app.net

As I've pointed out several times, we do not remove stuff from the blacklist based on requests from site-owners. We've had major problems with spam, vandalism, ignoring warnings and requests, tendentious editing^[6][7], threats on IRC and incivility ("pathetic", "lamer", "asshole", "wanker") on Wikipedia and IRC.[8] I have zero confidence we will not be further misused in the future given this history. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See also: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Webapp --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You blacklist web-app.net because a fight you had with someone on IRC? Is this a new WP policy? or is it just because there is no evidence whatever for a spam? Maybe you may as well get rid of the ops there, they do seem to have serious issues in writing in a civilized langauge whatever on IRC?

Just to summarize:

0.) Not even one single relevant datum related to the discussion of blacklisting of web-app.net. Webapp was blocked because someone meant that this username is advertizing for a product (open source free, cms product... whatever), I accepted criticks for that and applied for a new account, the one I am using now. Excuse me, but Where is the abuse? What justfied calling this for duplicated accounts abuse? I was asked by WP ADMINS to apply for a new account, and this is why I had two account. Should I try to explain that once again, or could you please be so kind and see the talk and history logs?

1.) The IPs provided have no web-app.net related spam as evidence whatever. Same for the relevant usernames.

2.) online.no is a major dynamical IP, which produces not less then 15 million hits on google. Using this dynamical IP as evidence for spam is quite pathos reasoning. One needs only find some strange things happening among these 15 million hits and blame it on anything. Here is 1 million hits on online.no in combination with wikipedia: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=online.no+wikipedia&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= gives: Results 1 - 10 of about 1,030,000 for online.no wikipedia. (0.21 seconds)

3.) Webapp vs. On.Elpeleg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Webapp is complete nonsense as already shown you above, Webapp and On.Elpeleg is the very same account, an application for this username fussion was granted by WP admins before someone fabricated this data (which as explained above does not contain any evidence for spam whatever). Do you want me to fabricate a list of 100 links that also contain non relevant information and pretend that you or someone else is guilty of something you never did? Are you for quality of data or quantity of fabricated none relevant data?

4.) I repeat again, the whole webappp discussion started as a result of a request by webapp fans to make an article about webapp, the location of the article was suggested to be Webapp and not web-app by several WP admins, 2 months after the article was added, it was suggested for a delete because of non notability and deleted after a vote was taken place. The Webapp fans accepted the verdict. The other event of blacklisting came over a year later and therefore it is a twisting/fabricating of facts to use any of the old discussion (a harsh discussion without any doubt! but no reason whatever for blacklisting) as reasoning for blacklisting, there was no spam nor any vandalism whatever. Please kindly use ethos and logos with facts as reasons, conspiracy spam theories based on some links selected from 15 million hits super ISP provider is not very relevant with respect to that. Thank you.--און 16:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I never had a fight with anyone on IRC. Those quotes were stuff you said about other Wikipedia editors and admins.

I look at hundreds, maybe thousands, of anonymous IP edit histories, whois and traceroute reports every year. We get very few edits from Norway or Telenor. Only about 1 in 40,000 of the edits made to the English Wikipedia over the last seven years have come from the Telenor 85.164.xxx.xxx range (excluding deleted edits).^[9][10] Restricting it further to just the six smaller geographic ranges within that large block that were actually used would give you a still smaller percentage of edits. Finally, if we then restrict our edit counting to just one month windows around the dates of these edits, the percentage of total Wikipedia edits coming from these IP ranges would probably become almost infinitesimal when you exclude web-app.net related edits. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Statistics can tell the truth but it can also tell lies, the restricted geographical are you refer to would include the entire west coast of Norway if not more. Lets say about 1 million people. My address (even a photo of my house!) was provided by me (see link above). But, so what? Are you suggesting that all evil posted from that domain are is by me or by anyone among these 1 million people? I guess not, you mean to web-app related links only. Therefore it was shown to you that while our competitor has two major languages in which he (re)distributes the webapp package (English and Norwegian hint...hint..), we have 30 languages. It was also shown that one of the spamers is a developer on the competitor project. If I meant any harm at the first place when the issue of not having an article for webapp resolved, why would I apply for replacing the Webapp username with my real name? Has there been any abuse from my account at On.Elpeleg ? I do not think so, on the contrary, I see several contributions there and no spam complaint whatever. --און 18:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1 million people in the area you're talking are live in Norway. They are editing the two Norwegian language Wikipedias, not this one -- about 5 million edits so far.^[11][12] That's a lot more than the several thousand edits made by anonymous editors in the larger Telenor range to the English language Wikipedia.

You're also overlooking the 50 or so edits you made to the WebAPP article, deleted so many times.

Finally, I see no proof that these other accounts, including Monty53, aren't yours. You've demonstrated blatantly bad faith as demonstrated with the links I provided above. I just see a lot of wikilawyering from the owner of a persistently spammed domain about how all that spam is some else's fault, along with no acknowledgement of other problems we take seriously here (incivility and page vandalism).

Good day.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

...That's a lot more than the several thousand edits made by anonymous editors in the larger Telenor range to the English language Wikipedia. * COMMENT: You are saying your self that there were Several thousands anonymous editors in Wikipedia English. It is exactly what I am referring to. I have also shown that except one of those IPS that actually edited web-app.net related content, the others did not, it would only make you or whoever posted those links look more serious if you actually cleared the list from the fabricated/not related links added to it.

...You're also overlooking the 50 or so edits you made to the WebAPP article, deleted so many times.... * COMMENT: Did we forget I have nearly 100 edits here too? Can we start getting serious? Again and again, why taking things out of their context? Check dates, you are talking about an argument that took place nearly two years, that has nothing to do with the spam allegations. There was a consensus to have an article about Webapp in the discussion page of web-app where editors suggested having this article, 2 months later it was requested to be deleted because a lack of notability, but this is a two years old case! and the final voted decision was fully respected! I did mention this above. It was explained in at least 2-3 places above here about how the all issue started. I am asking you once again Please let us all hold to the relevant facts and not mix issues that are from many years ago, if you have evidence of recent spam, show us that. The issue back then was about notability and it was challenged and debated according to WP procedures for suggested delete for articles. There is a long way to go from removing of an article which was originally suggested by WP admins and editors to nominating the respective link as spam.

...Finally, I see no proof that these other accounts, including Monty53, aren't yours. * COMMENT: I also see no proofs that these accounts are not yours. So what? Does this justify you judging me or anyone else? By the way I use my real name here, what is your real name? Why hiding behind a username? I am trying very hard to take you seriously, but besides pathos reasonings there is not one evidence for a relevant spam. I for one was educated not to judge people and certainly not without evidence. You are pointing at issues that happened two years ago, when I first started using WP and had no clue about the WP codes of editing/debating and desperately attempts to present it as misconduct, are you going to suggest a death penalty for a mistake I did two years ago being a newbie? Have you looked at my positive contributions to WP. Once again, I am open for honest and open discussions, I do find it difficult to discuss on such a level with a stranger hiding behind anonymous nick name throwing pathos allegations, I for one use my real name to start with.

Once again, I would like to state, there is not even one proof that the spam was not an act of revenge by the competitor, on the contrary it is shown that a developer from competitor team was found to spam WP, it was also explained that the competitor should have no problem to use Norwegian IP, as it actually distributes only two languages with its package one is English and the other is Norwegian. It is very alerting that WP allow competitors so easily to blacklist competing sites. It is also quite scary to learn how fast one was allowed to pull the trigger in this case. Have a lovely week.--און 08:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see the link has been abused (only additions recorded by IPs, several wikis. We do not de-list on request of site owners, but when long term, established editors request that. I suggest that you take this to an appropriate wikiproject (see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject), engage in discussion with them, and find out if they think that the link is of interest to this wikipedia. If that is the case, one of these editors can request whitelisting. Until that time,  Declined. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated/established above any abuse of the link must have been by our competitor. Thanks for the advice about WikiProject, I for one still mean that there is a need for an article about flat files db applications, there are very few such CMS systems, and this one is a free, open source project too, but this is beyond the scope of the discussion here... I only try to get the link off the blacklist. Thanks anyhow. --און 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

SUMMARY:
1.) A recent blacklisting of a link based on fabricated/non relevant data which contains no evidence whatever of relevant spam (check the contributions on this impressive long list- they are either empty or has no evidence whatever for spam).
2.) Confusion: when one noticed that there is no relevant ground for the recent blacklisting, one has "mixed" in some "documentation" from a two years old debate where inappropriate actions were taken place by newbies.
3.) Despite of the long and overwhelming listings above, there is still not one evidence for relevant recent spam linking to web-app.net
4.) Having difficulties in producing logos and ethos reasoning for blacklisting led to a discussion focused on arguments such as "...you had an argument on IRC with someone..."... the only thing missing now, is that someone will argue: "..well, I know you from real life, and I don't like you".

Can we start getting serious? You are arguing for blacklisting as spam, an Open Source Perl Project that offers a free CMS portal, this project has nearly 7000 users. It is WP own interest not to have such projects blacklisted or even have articles about them (as suggested by some WP admins to start with). --און 10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Replies:

1. The link was added cross-wiki by 3 IP accounts, that behaviour alone is enough to get the link blacklisted, whether or not being done by the owner of the site. Blacklisting prevents further damage, which was likely to occur.

2. Already answered in 1, there is reason to blacklist

3. There hence is also evidence of spam

4. - not my argument.

Serious recommendation: leave the link on the blacklist, if it is removed, it is likely that it is likely that it is again being spammed (by whoever tried that before). Also my earlier recommendation still stands.

On.Elpeleg has now placed links to the IP of the server of web-app.net on both the userpage of Webapp and on his own userpage user:On.Elpeleg.

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

I regard this behaviour is promotional, in order to link the site. I have removed the links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Replies to "Replies":

1. The link was added cross-wiki by 3 IP accounts, that behaviour alone is enough to get the link blacklisted, whether or not being done by the owner of the site. Blacklisting prevents further damage, which was likely to occur.

Thank you. This sounds as a reasonable explanation, that is of course if this is WP policy. Are there any exceptions to this rule? What would one do if he means that the links were posted by a competitor?

4. Serious recommendation: leave the link on the blacklist, if it is removed, it is likely that it is likely that it is again being spammed (by whoever tried that before). Also my earlier recommendation still stands.

Are there any means to stop that? We are having a similar issue with adsense, someone has (nearly) managed to mess up our adsense account by remote ads and multiple clicks, luckily we acted fast and filtered it out via the adsense account. Does WP have any means of dealing with such a problem when a competitor messes up things (and I know some WP admins still do no trust that we have a problem with a competitor and think that it is use behind the spam).

..has now placed links to the IP of the server of web-app.net on both the userpage of Webapp and on his own userpage user:On.Elpeleg. and I regard this behaviour is promotional, in order to link the site. I have removed the links.

This is NOT true, I have NOT placed web-app.net ip link here: Webapp, your apology would be appreciated. I assume could faith and that you actually meant to post another link. However I am having hard time to assume good faith when it comes to some of the other material posted here as evidence, this is because despite my request to the poster of those links to remove the irrelevant links, he/she insists on reposting them again.

It is also not quite true when it comes to the "now", I've added an http://ip.link to my talkpage, but the link was added here (on this page) first at several places and since no one really cared or reacted on it (see above on this discussion), I did not think anyone would care that it stands on my personal page either. Is that a problem? There was no promotional intended there whatever, please see pageranks for both my talkpage (page rank zero) and web-app.net (page rank 4), under no circumstance would my personal page enhance promotion to either web-app.net and sepcialy not to... http://ip.address, we never used our website ip for promotion (kindly check on google if you do not trust that). I assume good faith in your advices and would appreciate it if you would strike this part of your comment. Thank you --און 18:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional related domains:

• not.as: 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
• elpeleg.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• morsmal.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Added to Bilingual education by On.Elpeleg, the domain registrant two days ago.

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

Google Adsense ID: 8510977985742886

Blacklist? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Explanation and a remark concerning personal attack:

This looks like a personal attack and an apology from A. B. would be appreciated, please see under for explanation.

not.as and yes.as

- Both sites are web-app testing sites.

elpeleg.net

- elpeleg.net is my family site, it is under construction now, is that relevant for the discussion here, if so please explain how. Otherwise this does look like a personal attack and your apology would be appreciated.

*Added to Bilingual education by On.Elpeleg, thedomain registrant two daysago.*migped.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

- Both http://www.morsmal.org and http://www.modersmal.net were added by me to Bilingual education they are both notable websites with respect to the article presented, if you see this as an abuse you are most welcome to challenge the links adding at the respective discussion page here: Talk:Bilingual_education#Bilingual_education_in_Scandinavia ,but just to save you energy: http://www.morsmal.org is linked from the ministries of educations both in Sweden and Norway and are well known to be the most important portals when it comes to bilingual education in Scandinavia. As far as I can recall also Unesco has linked to those site among many others.

Google Adsense ID: 8510977985742886

- Is this relevant to the discussion? All incomes from this adsense account go the webapp development and support organization which provides an open source, free Perl, CMS portal. Please explain.

Blacklist? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

- To the WP admins attentions. I see this as a witch hunting, there are hundreds if not thousands of important and notable websites built by the webapp script. An apology would be appreciated. Thank you.--און 19:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, see these edits for acknowledgement of sockpuppeting and characterization of Hu12 as a "maniac" and "psychopath": [13][14][15][16] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this looks very bad, you should terminate this user account: Oe65. However, I am afraid that it has nothing to do with the discussion here. The resquest was to remove web-app.net from the blacklisting as resulted by spam from web-app.net competitor.

I think there are more than enough good reasons to keep this on the blacklist, and immediately block anyone who tries to circumvent the blacklist. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As stated above. There is not even one evidence for spam by web-app.net developers. However I agree with you that there is plenty or as quote "more than enough"... not reasons but rather irrelevant links. I assume that because this discussion is very long, that you may have missed the explanations provided by me above. Please disregard the comment under it was meant as a summary of the events by the admin whom tries so hard above to find evidence for blacklisting, without much success so far. It was not meant as a personal attack against him or you --און 19:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And now a WP admin wants to blacklist all the 7000 X 5 sites using the webapp script, calling it for blocking "promotion", is there any admin with a common sense who agress on this?--און 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're "common sense" comment is a personal attack. Make another one, and you'll be blocked indefinitely. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

English is not my native language and if the phrase common sense for itself is wrong to use on WP I would like hereby to apologize for using it. Otherwise I would also like to apologize if it is the context that the common sense phrase was used in which gave anyone an impression that my intention was to attack anyone personally, it was not my intention and therefore and hereby I would rephrase it and strike it off from the above comment.

Is there any consensus among the WP admins which based on ethos and/or logos to blacklist any website out there just because it is created by the webapp, open source Perl portal script? If so, please explain why. Thank you --און 17:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ANALYSIS OF THE SO CALLED "EVIDENCE", (no evidence what ever, but fabricated data):

Following is the so called "evidence" used for blacklisting web-app:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.164.225.10

- Fabricated spam evidence. The word web-app.net is not mentioned here at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.164.196.163

- Fabricated spam evidence. Reason: no contributions whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.164.201.91

- Fabricated spam evidence. The word web-app.net is not mentioned here at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.164.202.29

- Fabricated spam evidence. The word web-app.net is not mentioned here at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.164.230.64

-Two years old link from Web-app where the argument ended by suggesting by the WP admins to start an article page for webapp (the script you blacklisted its link). If it was an evidence for a spam, why did one then suggest to start an article page for it? This link is simply irrelevant for the blacklisting due to spam for that reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.164.241.51

- Fabricated spam evidence. Reason: no contributions whatever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.164.250.163

- Fabricated spam evidence. Reason: no contributions whatever.

Once again, I am begging you... show me an evidence for spam and I would eat my hat. --און 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Widespread shared views of these links and those adding them:

• Editors warning one or more of these accounts:
  • User:Beetstra
  • User:George
  • cs:User:Japo
  • User:Jayron32
  • User:John 3 times
  • User:JonHarder 2 times
  • User:JudahBlaze
  • User:Luna Santin
  • User:Mike Rosoft 2 times
  • nl:User:MoiraMoira
  • User:MuZemike
  • User:Pedro
  • User:Robertissimo 3 times
  • User:Sleepyhead81
  • User:Ultraexactzz
  • User:Veinor 3 times
  • User:VoABot II
  • User:Zoe 2 times

• Admins deleting spam and/or attack pages:
  • User:Centrx
  • User:Chairboy
  • User:Coredesat
  • User:GlassCobra
  • User:Hu12
  • User:Steel
  • User:Zoe

• Admins blocking (or declining to unblock) one or more of these accounts:
  • User:FisherQueen
  • User:Hu12
  • User:Sandstein
  • User:Sandstein
  • User:Slakr
  • User:Ultraexactzz

• Admins blacklisting or concurring in blacklisting domains:
  • User:A. B./meta:User:A. B.
  • User:Beetstra/meta:User:Beetstra
  • User:Hu12/meta:User:Hu12
  • User:Ohnoitsjamie

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See also this request for a review of On.Elpeleg's indefinite block at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#On.Elpeleg's indefinite ban -- review requested (permalink) --[[User:A. B.|A. B.](talk

See also my request from User_talk:On.Elpeleg&diff=239017649&oldid=239016974 "This is not an unblock request, but certainly a preview request. It is a request for an infinite page protection and infinite blocking of my account on WP, following my official resignation from WP.

Hi!

I found WP as a treasure but at the same time I found it quite difficult to use as an active user whom wish to contribute, my fields of contributions to WP were:Biotechnology, Bioethics, Content management system, Crohn's disease, Israel, Learning Management System, Multilinguaism and Bilingual education and Perl

However as per today seeing a clear power abuse and vindictive actions by several WP admins expressed with fabrications of data, plain lies and without any serious response from their colleagues, on the contrary, it seems like the "scratch my back and I will scratch yours" is very common among many of the WP admins (not all of them, but too many), I see no reason to continue as a contributor. Thank you for your time and good luck!

Please delete my frontpage userpage, you may as well like to replace the content there with this message (I doubt it)
Kind regards
On Elpeleg --??? 13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)"

And otherwise, not that it is expected any respons from any WP admin, just to your attention a WP admin with the fixed ip: 67.166.201.11 is to be blocked on dozens of thousands of WebAPP websites for d.o.s of attcks and bad faith (spreading lies about the webapp script), a complaint was sent to his ISP. The ip to be blokced is provided here: web-app.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=forum&board=public_security&op=display&num=11662
This drama could have been avoided if the resepctive admin would have apoligized for his false claims and lies. But instead he chosen to go on a massive and ilegal d.o.s attacks. I am in great doubt that WP support such as.

contribs)  11:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=108050538&blogID=431088741

This is the band Angra's official MySpace page. Incorrect information has been circulating recently about the band breaking up, and I am trying to fix the Wikipedia entry to reflect the band's official response.

Entry in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angra_(band) 132.177.70.217 (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 Declined, myspace is not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that the only other couple recent requests to link to artist's MySpace pages have all been blocked by the same person, Stifle. If you scroll just a few entries up (the Symphony in Peril whitelist request) you will see the exact same type of request I have made being approved by a different admin. This isn't just some blog or a random Joe's Myspace, it's an official point of communication for the band. I would request this be re-evaluated and not just refused because of some blanket mistrust of anything to do with Myspace. More and more artists are using sites such as this as primary sources of band announcements, and to completely disregard those sites due to to some of the other content hosted on them seems like a rather unfortunate judgment call. Just because an artist chooses to communicate somewhere other than "BandName.com" doesn't suddenly mean the information is invalid or the credibility suspect.132.177.70.217 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission is not to assist contact with the band. Their official website should be sufficient, we do not need to link to every single site with which they are associated. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Approved Requests

www.shooting.ho.com.ua

The Ukrainian Shooting Federation (main page at www.shooting-ua.com) uses this domain to store some documents, including the ones linked from [17], e.g. the Ukrainian records. I tried to add these as references for List of national shooting records surpassing the world records, but apparently it's considered spam. I have no idea what kind of site ho.com.ua is, but at least an exception for the shooting subdomain sounds reasonable, no? -- Jao (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems odd but I guess the higher level domain hosting may well have had some spamming. Either way this looks valid so  Done. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

www.allaahuakbar.net/ansaruallah/

A useful page previously linked on the Dwight York and Nuwaubianism pages that is on a site that has been blacklisted for some reason (spam, I think). In any case, this particular page is useful and wasn't added by a spammer or for spam purposes. -Moorlock (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the history:

• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008/05#Six links from cross wiki for discussion
• Meta:User:COIBot/LinkReports/allaahuakbar.net
• Meta:User:SpamReportBot/cw/allaahuakbar.net
• Meta:User:SpamReportBot/cw/claasfamily.org
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2008#allaahuakbar.net

Offsetting this

• This link was not spammed on the two pages requested
• The whitelist request comes from an established user.
• The request is for a subdomain, not the entire domain

 Done --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Declined Requests

Official Julian Morris Facebook fan page

I am editing the wikipedia entry of the actor/celebrity Julian Morris and would like to add a link to his official Facebook fan page which contains photos, videos and news. This is a vital link and addition to those that are interested in learning more about this actor.

The link I am requesting to be whitelisted is:

facebook.com/pages/Julian-Morris/6301232551 76.91.179.243 (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would love to include this link as soon as possible. Please let me know if there is any further information I can give you in order to help the process. Thanks in advance. 92.234.10.193 (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely to whitelist on the request of an IP I'm afraid. Established users would be need to make such a request & even then a facebook link is unlikely. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per Herby and because fansites are deprecated anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Herby and Guy for your input however I would urge you to reconsider for the following reasons:

The fansite in question is official and endorsed by the named celebrity. As such it includes pertinent and relevant information on the person that could not otherwise be placed on his Wikipedia entry eg video interviews and copyrighted photos and literature.

For those that are trying to learn more about this actor/celebrity this official site provides a plethora of relevant information and therefore having this access to this link is a vital resource for the Wikipedia user.Apekingdom (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 Declined fansites are not required on an encyclopaedia generally. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

www.womadforum.freeforums.org

This appears to be on the spam list for Wikipedia. The original link was incorrect, it had a .com ending - no forum exists with this url. On amending the page to the correct .org suffix I got the message that it was on the blacklist. Whereas the root domain may or may not be the originator of spam, the forum itself is not. Thank you--83.67.68.190 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Forum links are very rarely suitable for inclusion on articles. What article do you intend to place the link on? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per Ohnoitsjamie. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

www.squidoo.com/software_ip_management

This page at www.squidoo.com/software_ip_management documents problems and solutions related to software intellectual property management. It documents the general problem for which Black Duck software provides the leading solution. It provides links to the general issues around the problem as well as links to tool and solution providers. It also provides original content in the form of analysis and opinion. I would like it removed from the black list and put on the white list. I would like the Black Duck Software page at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Duck_Software to have a link to this page hosted at www.squidoo.com/software_ip_management. This page at Squidoo has multiple links pointing back to Black Duck Software and its competitors, which you would expect of a site that lists general problems, general solutions, and the providers of specific solutions. 99.224.63.36 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your Squidoo page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per Ohnoitsjamie. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

www.squidoo.com/sqlitehammer

This page at www.squidoo.com/sqlitehammer documents problems and solutions related to embedding the SQLite Database. It documents ways to use SQLite, its legal issues, and competing products and solutions. It provides links to the general issues around SQLite as well as links to tool providers. It also provides original content in the form of analysis and opinion. I would like it removed from the black list and put on the white list. I would like the SQLite page at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite to have a link to this page hosted at www.squidoo.com/sqlitehammer. This page at Squidoo has multiple links pointing back to www.sqlite.org and its competitors, which you would expect of a site that lists general problems, general solutions, and the providers of specific solutions. 99.224.63.36 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your Squidoo page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

 Declined per Ohnoitsjamie. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

randorguy.galatta.com

This is the only source on the web where Randor Guy's date of birth is mentioned (See: randorguy.galatta.com/myprofile.asp). Randor Guy is a famous film historian and his blogs could be used as reference in numerous articles related to Indian or international cinema -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's the only place it's mentioned then we should not be including it. Obscure information should be left out of WP:BLPs even if the only source is a good one, which in this case it is not. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The DOB argument is now obsolete anyway. There is now one online and one offline reference in addition to the one originally requested, both added by the same editor. -- Jao (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

 Declined seems unnecessary now. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

www.lulu.com

This website contains books avaiable no where else. With this site being blocked, users do not have access to books related to the topic they are searching on wikipedia. One such book is a NEW BOOK on Mario Cuomo. It is only avaiable on lulu.com, but wikipedia users won't ever hear of it if it remains blocked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.52.91 (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 Not done. This site would not appear to be on the blacklist at this point in time, but it is on User:XLinkBot's revertlist. You may try requesting its removal there, or create an account and the bot will stop reverting your edits after you become an established user. There are a few pages from the site that appear to have been added pre-emptively, but they currently serve (as best I can tell) no functional purpose. All the best – Ikara ^{talk →} 02:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these "new books" on lulu.com are of course new self-published books, and thus extremely unlikely to be valid sources. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

-After going to the revertlist I was told it is blacklisted. The book I want to have a link to is a self-published MA Thesis written under the guidance of a Pulitzer Prize winning author. Egolembiewski (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

lulu.com is here on the blacklist (\blulu\.com\b), as it contains mainly self-published sources, and was often 'spammed' (i.e. multiple placement of links with intent to get traffic to lulu.com), &c. &c. If you have written a book/thesis, then please get an ISBN, and when you have that, use the ISBN to link to the book. Otherwise, specifically define which link, and established editors will see if the link would make an appropriate reference or external link. Hope this helps.

hence:  Not done --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

After a quick search I did find the local blacklist which has lulu.com blacklisted. However the page is not mentioned anywhere significant here (there is one link at the bottom of the page). Shouldn't that be at the top somewhere? – Ikara ^{talk →} 15:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

freelancer.com.ar

Dear wikipedia editors: may you please remove / unblock freelancer.com.ar ?(domain, not specific url) The website contains mainly photos about southamerica destinations and destination information such as history or geographical data, even when might be useful to wikipedia I ask for no inclusion at all on any pages if you don't consider it proper, only do not appear as blocked. I'd appreciate your consideration about it. Thank you very much. --Juanchetts (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This exact domain is blocked on the Wikimedia spam blacklist, if you want it unblocked you may have better luck asking to have it removed there. You will also have a better chance of getting it white-listed if you can give specific pages on the site, and some relevant articles for which they are needed. The domain was blocked as a result of IP-based spamming, not because of content, so if a page is crucial to an article I should think it will be allowed. Good luck – Ikara ^{talk →} 01:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 Declined no further contributions by user. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

z10.invisionfree.com/Margo_Fans_Lazarus/index.php?act=idx

Dear Wikipedia Editors: The above site is a fan forum for the actress Margo Harshman. I can understand if you do not want forums to be added to external links sections of Wikipedia pages, but I thought there would be no harm in asking. Therefore I am making this request, so that I may add it to the external links section of the Margo Harshman's Wikipedia page. She is an actress who has limited online fan activity and my forum is a more centralized location for her fans to be talk. I wish to add it to her Wikipedia so that other fans of hers may find out about the forum. Again, I understand if you do not wish forums to be added as links. Thank you for your time and future response and candor. --Iceblade, forum Administrator of Margo Fans Lazarus Forum 05:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

 Declined Fan forums links are not required. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

www.sunglasses-direct.co.uk

This site offers designer sunglasses manufactured by luxottica and offers people a chance to view and buy their products —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily2008 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 Declined spam and not encyclopaedic. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The same editor went on to subsequently spam:

• tomfordsunglasses.co.uk: 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

It should be blacklisted also. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

already done. --Versageek 05:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My Tiny Life

Please whitelist www.lulu.com/content/1070691 for linking from Julian Dibbell. It is a link to the online PDF version of the book referenced from the article. Despite being on lulu.com, it is a republication of the published book, not a self-publication. Sanxiyn (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While it is downloadable it is a selling page. Not inclined personally --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider this fact: since the book is out-of-print, this website is likely to be the only way for readers to get the work cited in the article. Why cite the work if one cannot get the work anyway? See also publication and copyright status of this work from the author's blog.

The book is also cited in LambdaMOO. Sanxiyn (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If one reads to the end of Julian Dibbell's blog on the subject, one finds the reason that this request must, at this time, be denied on a technicality. Apparently Mr. Dibbell's former publisher, whilst they were empowered to do so, authorized Fourth Estate, an imprint of HarperCollins, to publish My Tiny Life in the UK and Australia. Unfortunately, this means that My Tiny Life is still technically "in print" by Fourth Estate. HarperCollins' failure to even acknowledge Mr. Dibbell's various attempts to contact them might be, and in fact is currently being, interpreted that they do NOT intend to grant him the waiver necessary to meet Wiki requirements in re to copyrights. Entirely within their rights, of course, but it seems a bit dodgy given the commercial magnitude of My Tiny Life. JimScott (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. to Sanxiyn: It may be out of print in the States but for those adventurous souls who would might wish to obtain a new or used printed copy, there were 23 copies listed as available on amazon.com as of this edit.

 Declined per JimScott, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First-hand account of horse race

• A first-hand account of the 1840 Grand National [hometown.aol.co.uk/captainbeecher/1840JERRY.html], linked to from Jerry_racehorse. The 1840 Grand National page would also benefit. Seems like a good source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeppomedio (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the page that need it is now deleted,  Declined. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

www.vuze.com/

I am requesting whitelisting of the link for Vuze (client) and Vuze, Inc. pages since it is the official site of the client and is relevant under external links. I first requested removal from blacklist, but a admin sent me here instead to request removal for specific pages, as according to him/her, the link was spammed in other places. (sorry, didn't know where the request was supposed to be). Thank you! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

 Not done – http://www.vuze.com/app?service=home is already on the whitelist, and is in fact already in use on Vuze, Inc. This link should be used in infoboxes and external links sections. If you want to use various other pages as references please list each one individually and explain why you need it. Thanks – Ikara ^{talk →} 02:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it didn't work for me earlier when I wanted to add it (at least vuze.com), didn't know it had to be the full vuze.com/app?service/someone already whitelisted it. Thanks anyway. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

www.digitpress.com/reviews/tmek.htm

Why the site should be whitelisted:
I only request the specific link be whitelisted. This specific link has information valuable to the Wikipedia T-Mek article. It was lost by the last edit.
Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Mek
Ibjoe (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep checking back every few days - or is there anything else I need to do?
Ibjoe (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a review of an arcade game.... I'm not sure I see that as vital to the project. If it is then surely there should be other sources that are reliable elsewhere? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is an outside review of the arcade game that the referencing wikipedia article is about, and a pretty good one. While it is not vital, it is useful. There actually aren't that many reviews available. I think it would increase the quality of the article if I could restore the link, which has not changed since I initiated the article. However, if www.digitpress.com is indeed evil, then I can understand even this useful page being blocked. Thank you for the consideration, and I'll continue monitoring until the request is either accepted or rejected. Ibjoe (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I give up. Someone removed the only other review link as spam anyway. Neither link was spam AFAICT, but neither was vital. Please consider my request canceled. Thank you. Ibjoe (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, here's the spam record:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jan 2#Blacklist?
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2008#www.digitpress.com repeated spam on Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tube bar

 Declined --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GameStooge

24.215.166.135 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

2old2play.com has been a source of problems

• 2old2play.com was deleted
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2old2play.com
• 2old2play was deleted 3 times

gamestooge.com was blacklisted by Nick in connection with an edit war.^[18]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

White listing specific links shouldn't be a problem if the person wishing to use the site as a reference can provide justification for doing so. I'm not entirely comfortable with links being used for purposes other than referencing though. Nick (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just referencing. A few articles were created because GameStooge.com broke the news first. (ie. Ticket to Ride (video game), Lost Cities (video game) - the links used: www.gamestooge.com/2008/03/21/ticket-to-ride-coming-to-xbla for Ticket to Ride, www.gamestooge.com/2008/03/04/lost-cities-coming-to-xbox-live-arcade Lost Cities - just samples that GS is NOT a "spam site". (It also does its own reviews, previews, interviews, etc.) Other sites often refer to some of our news stories (this X3F article is just one example) as well (GS reciprocates when it uses other site's news). JAF1970 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason GameStooge is still blacklisted? JAF1970 (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Because it was spammed and because it was being used as a source when it fails WP:RS, I believe. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It is STILL NOT SPAM, and I've already spoken to an admin who has agreed with me. I'm starting to get very very angry here. JAF1970 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • NOW 2OLD2PLAY IS SUDDENLY A SPAM SITE?! JAF1970 (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Declined, anger is not a credible reason for whitelisting, no evidence is presented that the link would enhance the encyclopaedia rather than give benefit to the site concerned. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

gargoyles.dracandros.com

Not sure why a TV wiki is blocked. Nothing offensive I could see. --T smitts (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Some aggressive adding of the link: Special:Contributions/GDarau, it may have been blacklisted for that reason, maybe specific whitelisting of specific pages on the server is the way to go? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing else heard so closed as  Stale. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

nepalelectionportal.org

I really don't know why this was black-listed in the first place. nepalelectionportal.org is an interesting site, essential as reference for many articles on Nepalese politics. --Soman (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear blacklisted:

• http://nepalelectionportal

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

well it still gets caught in the spam filter. --Soman (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a a link to the page concerned if this is still happening. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed as  Stale, nothing more heard. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Toadie's Myspace Blog

Link is blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=1839615&blogID=393290625 . The official announcement of the band releasing a new recording is big news for them and is the first place they officially announced it. This of course would help to update the toadies page on wikipedia, especially the section with information on the new album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eviladam (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this an official blog belonging to the band? If so, I'll whitelist it. Otherwise, we don't use blogs as references. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Stale

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)

• gazeteler.com is somehow on the spam list for wikipedia. I don't know why it is there and I don't know or care if there is an article which could link to gazeteler.com. All I know is that gazeteler.com is not a spam website and does not deserve to be listed in a spam list. Either name that section "sites we do not like" or take gazeteler.com out of that spam list. ????

Yuwie, and any other infrequently-spammed site with legitimate usuages

I was trying to add my Yuwie page as a way of contacing me (on user page), and I got the message back saying it is blacklisted. Many sites block this domain, and it is very annoying. Since MySpace (which I also added) was not blocked, Yuwie has no reason to be blocked. If nessecary I think you can change the block to only include the referral link, which is r.yuwie.com/username. Yuwie referral links are sometimes sent to e-mails and stuff for spammy reasons, but very infrequently. There are many legitimate usages, besides user pages, for example a link to a celebrity's page under external links, or as a reference because the blog page hosts maybe a list of links to reliable sites about a particular subject. Because of the nature of Yuwie and the fact that people want their blogs read as often as possible, and want as many people on their freindslist as possible, people often put things in their blogs such as YouTube videos (often refrenceable, such as a news story or an example of a noteable event) (YouTube videos don't always have a way to find the video on youtube.com, and not alll videos posted in Yuwie blogs actually come from YouTube), Copies of articles that are obviously written by say a newspaper or a professional (but without links in the blog, emaning the blog has to be linked), or personal opinions (example: Supporters of Barack Obama sometimes say that XXXXXXXXX [ref]ref-blog.yuwie.com/a-yuwie-blog-about-Obama-good-with-647-comments-that-agree[endref]. I believe it is unfair (not only on this site, but on all websites) that Yuwie cannot be linked to for legitimate purposes just because a few people used to SPAM it sometimes 6 months ago (happens a lot less frequently now because people have realized it isn't good money anyway, especially those who would spam). If a user is putting their referral link or SPAMming with this site, the edit they are making probably has other reasons to be deleted anyway, and the user will probably be banned etc., making blocking the site semi-unnessecary if it can also be used legitimately. I see similar requests for Squidoo above and believe it also follows the model, though Squidoo has a lot more potential then Yuwie to be used abusively because it has many more user pages that would still be blocked if they were outside Squidoo. I am not sure iof Squidoo has a specific URL either that can be blocked, as I said about Yuwie IMO it would be more prudent to block "r.yuwie.com/.....".

Also, the phrase in the title "infrequently-spammed" is intended to mean, "SPAMmed, but infrequently," and is not intended to be sarcastic, or a similar word. To say something about sites that occassionally-but-not-usually-spammed in the title would ahve been too long, and to say "similar sites" would not have been descriptive or even universally interpreted the same way.

Please notify me of responses to this article in whatever way will send notifications to my e-mail address or website inbox.RayvnEQ (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

I believe the notification page should be a banner at the top of the edit page, or of a manner that when we hit the "back" button, our text is still there. It may have taken a long time to write the text, especially since we have to use a strange coding mechanism which takes more time to implement then most coding systems, or it may contain writing that we would not be able to duplicate if we had to type it a second time. Just because a site is blacklisted does not mean we have made a negative contribution worthy of deletion in we have tried to use (such as in the case I just mentioned for myself of my user page), and we should be able to edit and just remove or change the link, or save our text to a notepad file for later usage if we don't want to include the edit without the link.

When I used the "add new section" link which is not present on most pages (so, assumed it to be the right place), it put my listing all the way at the bottom instead of here where I think it is supposed to be.RayvnEQ (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Other projects with active whitelists

• ar:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• bg:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• cs:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• de:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• el:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• eo:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• es:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• et:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• fi:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• fr:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• frp:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• fy:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• he:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• hr:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• hu:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• ia:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• id:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• it:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• ja:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• ksh:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• la:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• nl:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• oc:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• pl:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• ru:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• sk:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• to:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• uk:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• vi:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• zh:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

I was unable to format this so as to fit in the left column where x-wiki links normally go. This, as well as a similar list for other local blacklists (on our blacklist's talk page) may be useful information. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)