Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 112: Line 112:


:In keeping with [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]], which recommends public disclosure of any close association, would you please let us know which of the accounts listed at the top of this section belong to members of your marketing team? This would help us better evaluate this case. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 16:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
:In keeping with [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]], which recommends public disclosure of any close association, would you please let us know which of the accounts listed at the top of this section belong to members of your marketing team? This would help us better evaluate this case. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 16:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi AMatulic,
As per my consultation with the marketing members none have agreed doing this.[[User:Rajsharma1980|Rajsharma1980]] ([[User talk:Rajsharma1980|talk]]) 13:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


==alighaemi.com==
==alighaemi.com==

Revision as of 13:37, 14 September 2012

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

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

    Instructions for editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 512404928 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    techpuffs.com

    Repeatedly added as reference spam. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashishchandradev is the name of the site's owner. Worth nothing that the user has now be permanently blocked for spamming. Suggest that the site is added to the blacklist ASAP to stop him popping up with IP edits --Biker Biker (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    On his talk page, Ashishchandradev claims to be new, admits to wanting to promote his site, and promises to abide by the rules if unblocked. I think there's a better than 50% chance that he will be unblocked.
    I'd say leave this case open for a while longer to see what transpires. Currently nobody else is attempting to spam this site. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has successfully appealed his block. Watch and wait.... :) ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    martinlawfirm.com

    Google Analytics ID: UA-788456 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

    Spammers

    MER-C 10:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    herbalcigarette.org

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    hairsaloninclearwater.com

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

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Another domain later spammed:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.bioquestmedical.com

    Spamming from multiple single use accounts. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 20:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi this is Raj sharma marketing executive for bioquestmedical.com.I am preety naive at wikipedia and do not understand much but I would like to mention some points after I saw bioquestmedical.com in the blacklist page....
    In the proposed addition column there is box guiding users the process of blacklisting a domain explaining why and how a domain should be blacklist.I would like to mention few points which is against or contrary to those guidelines
    1.Guideline-"Consider informing editors whose actions are discussed here"
    I am assuming that the guideline is explaining to inform the domain admin about blaclisting.
    Assuming above I would like to state that I was never informed about such activity.
    It was only through our marketing team I came to know about the blacklisting.
    2.Guideline-"Have links been placed after warnings/blocks?"
    There have been no warning/blocks or message provided by anyone.
    As stated I am naive at wikipedia, I would just request our fellow members to kindly remove this link as I get to know more about why the link have been blacklisted
    Thankyou
    Raj sharma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajsharma1980 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    here is mysign Rajsharma1980 (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    thankyou
    Bioquestmedical.com is not blacklisted, yet.
    Your assumption #1 is false. Wikipedia is responsible only for what happens on Wikipedia. Informing some external entity of blacklisting is not our responsibility. Rather, it is the responsibility of you and your marketing team to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before participating here. It has been a well known fact for many years that Wikipedia must not be used for promotional purposes.
    Warnings and blocks are not a prerequisite to blacklisting. Particularly if the problem accounts appear to be operated by the same entity and are being used solely for promotional purposes, they will likely be blocked anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I spent some time In evaluating the reasons why the link is proposed for blacklisitng...and I get to know that someone have uploaded the links in between some wikipedia articles .....We sense some foul play by someone against us to damage our image.... We would try find possible ways to avoid it happening in coming time. I request the fellow members to remove the link from the list, Thank you. Rajsharma1980 (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

    Side discussion
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    no Declined A commercial link such as this is of no use to the project, and as such there is no compelling reason to remove it from the blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, unless I'm missing something, bioquestmedical.com isn't on the blacklist. This is a proposed addition, not a proposed removal. Jafeluv (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, mistake on my part. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rajsharma1980, as has already been explained to you, your domain is not blacklisted... yet. And bear in mind that blacklisting would prevent any possibility of 'foul play' occurring in the future.
    In keeping with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which recommends public disclosure of any close association, would you please let us know which of the accounts listed at the top of this section belong to members of your marketing team? This would help us better evaluate this case. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi AMatulic, 

          As per my consultation with the marketing members none have agreed doing this.Rajsharma1980 (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    alighaemi.com

    This is a personal website that contains blogs that have been repeatedly promoted, despite warnings, removals, and a hidden comment advising editors not to add links to this site. The problem is at its worst on the article Lost in Translation (film), which includes these additions: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Other uses of the domain include [7], [8]. I offer my request here because these edits come from varied IPs, have come after repeated warnings, and because the site does not appear that it will ever have any encyclopedic significance, as one intended for personal promotion and blogs.

    NTox · talk 00:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.myetymology.com

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

    Sometimes used as Sources (ref tags), but it not lists authors of texts.

    In the encyclopedia part of site (www.myetymology.com/encyclopedia/*) there is strange copyright text, e.g. here www.myetymology.com/encyclopedia/Symbols_of_Spain.html a text in the footer: 

    © 2007-2008 speedlook.com; article text available under the terms of GFDL, from fr.wikipedia.org

    If it was translated from fr.wikipedia, there must be link to list of authors. But there is no link. Also, if it is wikipedia-text based, it can't be an Reliable Source.

    The etymology part of site (e.g. www.myetymology.com/romanian/confec%C5%A3ionare.html ) has no such text about wikipedia; but lists no sources too.`a5b (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    easygreenoffers.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    mesotheliomainformation2012.blogspot.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    samuraicast.com

    This is a fansite that is constantly being pushed as a reliable source. I believe it woudl be best to block the site so it cannot be used, as it will never be considered a WP:RS.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    dreamboxok.com

    Spammers

    MER-C 13:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP attack sites

    Used to attack the subject of our Robin De Groot article:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    customautosbytim.com

    Spammers

    MER-C 04:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done with some urgency as spamming was ongoing. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Spamming by adding javascripts to our articles

    See this discussion at WP:ANI of how an IP tried to do this: [9]

    Here is the site:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Subsequent discussion at WP:ANI indicates blacklisting may not be effective:[10]
    Reviewme is not a useful site and it encourages affiliates, so I will leave it on the blacklist for now unless an established trusted editor objects. Otherwise, we can expect more spam, even if it's not from the same person.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    comixdownload.com

    See [11] and [12]. Thanks, – Connormah (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Features bad-faith replacements of relevant links with spam links:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 11:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    hightrafficacademy.com

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Eight years of Express Companies Inc (Encinitas) spam on Wikipedia

    Spam domains
    Spam accounts
    Domain owner
    Express Companies, Inc.
    565 Westlake St.
    Building 100
    Encinitas, California 92024
    United States
    Edit behaviours

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Giftbig.com

    Repeatedly added to Gift card. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    Proposed removals

    lexnet.co.cc

    lexnet.co.cc: 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

    Please remove lexnet.co.cc from your blacklist. It is an academic website hosted on a freehost. It contains articles with free useful legal information.

     Defer to Whitelist. Lexnet.co.cc is not blacklisted, so there is nothing to remove. Rather, all of *.co.cc is blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    LatestMoviez.com

    I requested the same removal last month too, it was all banned due to the SEO optimizer we had hired, i have fired the guy responsible for this ban and i now need the site to be unbanned from Wikipedia so that it can serve as a relevant source of information about the Hindi (Indian) cinema. If the site cannot be completely removed from the spamlist, we can try out with removing particular sections of the site so that it can be proved that our intention is to help. Looking to the earliest response.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.132.90 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 August 2012‎

    no Declined We rarely remove sites from the blacklist at the request of someone affiliated with the site. If trusted high volume editors feel that the site may be useful for the project, those requests are considered and sometimes approved. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I do see the point here, but you can still go and review my site and off-course decide whether or not it is relevant. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.129.18 (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    External links are a convenience, not a necessity, for an encyclopedia. In that sense Wikipedia is no different from print-version encyclopedias, which don't need to publish any links at all. A review of relevance would need to occur on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if it happens at all. As far as we are concerned on this page, the excessive problems latestmoviez.com caused for Wikipedia (fighting block evasions and blacklist evasions, probably a hundred wasted hours that will never be compensated and could have been used for more productive purposes) has been solved by blacklisting it. Your failure to perform due diligence in selecting SEO services is no longer Wikipedia's problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    A lot of history, a lot of ignored requests and warnings:
    Here are possibly related domains:
    These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted but should probably be reviewed.
    no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    durgapurcity.co.in

    I request admin to remove this site from spam black list. This site has been listed in around may 2010 as I have no knowledge of wikipedia policies at that time and posted he link of this site several times on the Durgapur page. But now you can visit the site and view yourself that it does not pose any threat to any website and it complies with wikipedia policies. The site has been serving the city of Durgapur, West Bengal, India for 2.5 years. It has also attain a alexa rating of 385696. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.234.52.146 (talk • contribs)

     Defer to Whitelist to allow a specific link on that site in the Durgapur article, but be advised that the request may be declined if this is not an official site. We will not de-list the site completely, particularly if the request comes from someone with an apparent conflict of interest. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the relevant history:
    13 ignored warnings -- I wouldn't get your hopes up for unlisting. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    StatSheet.com

    I'd ike to ask that this site be removed from the blacklist. It was added due to one user inappropriately spamming it all over WP, but in truth it is a go-to site for college basketball statistics and other information back to the 1997-98 season, similar to baseball-reference.com or footballdb.com. As a heavy editor of college basketball articles, I can tell you that it is valid and accurate. Thanks for your consideration. Rikster2 (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to other admins: Back in March I replied to a similar request on the whitelist page; see MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Statsheet. Considering the over-the-top abuse involving hundreds of domains associated with statsheet, I vehemently oppose removing from the blacklist. However, I would not mind whitelisting only those pages pertaining to referees, if judged an appropriate reliable source, but I would like other admins to post their opinions. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That abuse happened quite some time ago, maybe a year or more. Perhaps it's time to try it again? It's not like the site couldn't be re-blacklisted if the abuse occurred again. It isn't just referee statistics - it's the best resource for player and coach statistics as well. Is it possible to allow the base site (statsheet.com) and not the various fansites that sit over the statistics engine (e.g. - carolinaupdate.com and the like)? Seriously, this feels like an overreaction to something that one overzealous site promoter did a long time ago. And, no, I have no affiliation to the site and, yes, I am a long-standing editor with no track record of mischief. Rikster2 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A year is not really a long time, Rikster2, I've seen spammers come back days after a de-blacklisting (when the domain was blacklisted for a long time). It is how they make money, they do not care about warnings, blocks, etc. I would really suggest to request the whitelisting of specific links for those places where it is needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    History:
    Big problems.
    There's no way we can trust this site-owner given his abuse of our site. Trusted, established editors are welcome to request whitelisting individual URLs as needed if they meet our reliable sources requirements.
     Defer to Whitelist--A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    removal of stage-gate.com & prod-dev.com

    I'm confused with the current blacklist/whitelist status of those two pages. I've already discussed on other pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#www.stage-gate.com_.26_www.prod-dev.com) regarding the blacklisting of these pages, and as you can see from that link, I was told that it was removed, yet when I tried to test on a page I'm developing on my user page, it still shows as blacklisted. I'm quite confused.

    EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Emir Ozdemir, Product Manager at Stage-Gate International; It was blacklisted as a result of Product Development Institute and Stage-Gate International's long term mass spamming and repeatedly using wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion. --Hu12 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I understand the reasons why it was blacklisted. Now that I know that, I am looking to ensure content on Wikipedia is correct, specifically as it relates to the stage-gate process. There is a reason why my colleagues, past & present, have tried to make changes to the stage-gate page: because the information is WRONG. Unfortunately any changes that I make are immediately reversed, so it is difficult to ensure that the correct information is posted there. I understand that Wikipedia is not a link directory, nor is it a vehicle to promote one's company, products and services, so my approach is rather to provide as much information from reliable sources as possible. At the same time, I do feel that there is merit to having our organization's information on Wikipedia (hence where I would be adding the URL), since our founder was the creator of the Stage-Gate process (I've cited the trademark number numerous times which were taken down) a business process that we obviously deemed important enough to have its own page on Wikipedia, AND, was referenced under the new product development page. EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "Stage-gate" page (and if you created one, I would most likely immediately send it to WP:AFD or WP:SPEEDY it depending on the circumstances. I'm not seeing why the project needs these links for anything. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a stage-gate model page, but Hu12 moved it to Phase-gate model. I think a redirect should have been left behind, personally. I do not see a problem with whitelisting a specific URL if necessary to explain something about the trademarked name. For that  Defer to Whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I'm not looking to add a new "stage-gate" page, but rather revert the current Phase-gate model page to its original format. Then, what I was trying to do was correct the wrong information using content from third-party, peer reviewed articles. I only meant to add the links to the pages to help improve the quality of the resources on that page. Seeing as the content was wrong, and my changes were not being kept, I thought that adding the link to the website that provides knowledge, expertise and resources on that topic would have been a good idea. Also, I was simply following similar protocols on other wikipedia pages, thinking that if I followed similar methods, it should have been okay. Suffice to say, I didn't quite get it right the first time. EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Commercial links rarely meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, yes, commercial links rarely meet guidelines. But when an organization owns a trademarked specific process, generally the link to the trademark owners website would contain information about said trademarked process. A quick look at the Product Development Institute's website shows that the Institute has a number of research articles (that were published in a number of peer-reviewed journals) that support the content (or at least 'should' support the content) found on the Wikipedia page. Anyways, because the trademarked name is, and continues to be mis-reference (both in content and the actual references posted), I think the websites should be whilelisted to at least provide readers with a resource for accurate information (by the trademark owners). EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you have a conflict of interest, per our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, your best approach is to propose the changes you want to make on the article talk page. If you want to propose to white-list a specific link, the place to do that, also, is on the article talk page, and let an unbiased established editor make the determination whether the blacklisted link is worthy of whitelisting. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, and I do plan on using the "talk page" as my approach going forward to change content on the pages. However, can someone give me an idea as to how to create a new page? I don't want to start creating a new page and then have all my efforts be for nothing because it gets taken down. Thanks EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times do we have to tell you: as Product Manager at Stage-Gate International, Emir Ozdemir, you have a massive conflict of interest and should not be creating a new page? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to find this process a little ridiculous. What is actually happening here is that administrators who don't really check over content to ensure it is actually accurate (but rather just go by a set of guidelines) end up leaving content that is horribly inaccurate. The stage-gate page was inaccurate, and despite my conflict of interest issues, I provided citations and references that did not stay up. If I can provide peer-reviewed articles from third party resources, what does it matter if I am affiliated with the organization? The articles should speak for themselves! But no one seems to actually be looking at the article itself! Instead, it seems Wikipedia is governed by a series of rules and guidelines that in this case is preventing accurate information from being shown. In fact, as our organization is the holder of the trademark, we have a legal mandate to ensure that the content on that wikipedia page (which is now the misleading Phase-gate model page is correct, or completely taken down. I've taken a look at the Copyright Violations page, and may need to take necessary action through those means if necessary. I'm not trying to spam Wikipedia, or simply add links (not really sure how many times and in how many places I need to get that point across) - just trying to add correct information about a widely-used (and legally trademarked) business process.EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at your edit, and I must say I don't see what would be objectionable about it. This page, however, isn't the place to discuss it. I commend you for following Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, which would make Wikipedia a better place if everyone followed it, but discussing your edits on an administrative page that deals with blacklist issues is really the wrong place. I have the article on my watch list, and if you care to open up a discussion there as I suggested, explaining what you want to add, remove, or change, and your reasoning, I am happy to collaborate with you there.
    Now, this discussion has veered off the issue at hand, which was a de-listing request for your domain. Bottom line: we do not remove entries from the blacklist at the request of anyone with a conflict of interest. Rather, we consider requests from trusted, high-volume editors. Therefore, consider this request no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    hurryupharry.org

    hurryupharry.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

    The log claims "used by a longterm serial vandal" but the citation leads to a dead end. The site is Harry's Place, a reputed, award nominated UK blog.

     Defer to Whitelist. This is a recurring request, and the home page of the site is already whitelisted, which should be more than sufficient for linking in the Harry's Place article. Blogs are generally not acceptable as references in other articles per WP:ELNO. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2011#hurryupharry.org. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid the homepage is blacklisted as well - I just attempted linking to hurryupharry.org in the Harry's Place article and was denied. 79.181.202.12 (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The specific link http://www.hurryupharry.org/index.php is whitelisted; all others (even if equivalent) are currently not allowed. But that article already has that link, why would you be adding another? Anomie⚔ 10:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is linked in the external links section, hence it is whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Best Things On Earth

    This site was blacklisted because it was described as simply an 'internet rating site that contained no useful information regarding the items it was being used as references for'. The site has recently undergone radical redevelopment and now includes amongst other things latest news about films, comics, music etc written by established editors. It has a significant number of users and all of its sources are verifiable. I am requesting that it either be unlisted generally for reference purposes, or that it is whitelisted for its founder's page and related pages.

    Colin Larkin is the founder of this website. I am requesting it be removed from the blacklist or whitelisted, because I just noticed that he has written an article on the home page about 'Desperate Dan'. I think this would be a useful external link on Colin Larkin's wiki article and would be of interest to people who are interested in his work. Since the site is no longer simply a rating site, I would like it unlisted for use generally. Can you advise? Pamela Gardiner (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist for that particular link (which I don't see on the "home page" of that site; site still looks exactly like the blacklisting describes it). OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What does template defer white mean? Did you check out the latest news section?Pamela Gardiner (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I botched the template. It means that you should request it at Wikipedia's whitelist instead (which is for requesting that individual links be permitted while still maintaining a general block of the site). Also, now that I've noticed that you are a contributor to the site, you should familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest policy. With regards to blacklist/whitelist requests, we rarely fulfill requests from COI editors or site owners, instead preferring requests from high-volume editors who aren't involved with the site in question. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ===I don't think I have a conflict of interest being a contributor to Btoe anymore than I have a conflict of interest having a Facebook account and writing facts about Mark Zuckerberg. Anyone can be a Contributor to the BTOE site, just like anyone can be a contributor to Wikipedia, or Getglue or Wikia or Tumblr or Buzznet etc, I have accounts on lots of other user generated sites which I don't think mean I have a conflict of interest? If that were true practically all the wiki authors would have a conflict of interest I think, because these sites are like Wikipedia, for people like me and you who like to write stuff on websites they don't own. I'm not Jimmy Wales anymore than I am Colin Larkin. I understand the conflict of interest policy and am not planning to refer to my own profile page on Getglue, Btoe, Wikia or indeed Facebook as a reference. Which would be quite funny and a definite conflict of interest. I was just planning to refer to certain pages on this website that are written by its Founder and Owner, in articles about its founder and owner. So will request it at the whitelist page. Thanks for your helpPamela Gardiner (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined Blacklist removal; I glanced at the "news" section; none of that is of any use to the project as a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Russian club Beatles.Ru has chance be free of the black lists

    To use: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Категория:The_Beatles (here). I ask to restore honor of the club Beatles.Ru (black list of EN Wikipedia and RU Wikipedia can become less). Website is located inside of two the black lists only. Possibly, the club is without the fault (I respect all presumptions). Exist many reasons to think so. Several of the proofs are located here (main proofs and other info). Besides, during long time spam attacks not exist (attacks, which can have relation to the club). Because website is located inside of two the black lists, the such attacks can be directed against of other language sections of Wikipedia (but attacks not were implemented there). Also: In RU Wikipedia I can not to organise the process output the website from the black list (because of OneLittleMouse) - I ask you to implement needed measures there. I hope to find the wise decision on this issue. Thank you! - BeatlesRuHelper (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

    no Declined Block evasion; no use to the project. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We the People (Whitehouse)

    This is an extension of a US government site. I can see why it may have been preemptively blacklisted, but I can also see it serving as a valuable external link in certain cases, particularly for noteworthy closed petitions. The potential of links to this site being used for promotion is possible, but I think the ratio of abusive edits to valid links there (not that it would be a very frequently occurring link anyway) would be relatively low. Thank you. --CrunchySkies (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It is still a petition site. Open petitions are generally, if not always, violating WP:SOAPBOX, and the closed ones are only notable enough if there are independent reports on them. For the few cases where they are suitable, we have a whitelist to whitelist the specific link, hence  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    DZone NetBeans Zone

    It seems that the whole dzone.com is blocked for some reason? I am trying to add an interview for Kojo conducted by DZone with the Kojo author Lalit Pant: netbeans.dzone.com/learn-scala-with-kojo

     Defer to Whitelist to request blacklist exceptions for specific pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    nofluoride.com

    Please remove nofluoride.com from your blacklist. It is a website that contains information about and references to scientific studies that show fluoride's negative affects on human health. The website has a variety of anecdotal information in addition to links to solid technical references. In particular, the page www\.nofluoride\.com/Government_Studies.cfm has a list of references to government studies pertaining to the effects of fluoride on human physiology. It is important for the general public and the wikipedia community to have access to this information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.6.67 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7 September 2012‎‎

     Not done First of all, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. More importantly, reliable technical sources should be referenced directly, not via an advocacy site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com

    Hi, I was trying to fix a broken existing link to examiner.com. I found the original article, changed the link, and it told me it was blacklisted. I know there is quite a range of reliability on examiner.com, so I'm not going to try to advocate for them here. This is the link I was trying to put in: [blacklisted domain]/article/the-excommunication-of-elder-george-p-lee, to fix the broken one on the George_P._Lee page (which was [blacklisted domain]/x-19393-Salt-Lake-History-Examiner~y2009m8d31-The-excommunication-of-Elder-George-P-Lee) Michaeljsouth (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This has to be fixed on the whitelist,  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    neighborhoodarchive.com

    The Neighborhood Archive is an online archive of things pertaining to the children's television show Mister Rogers Neighborhood. It has in-depth episode descriptions, character bios, and countless other resources pertaining to the history of the show. The archive is purely an informational website and is not an organization. There has been a long complaint that The Neighborhood of Make-believe page lacks references. Nearly all of the information comes directly from the episodes and can be verified through the archive's episode descriptions. The website was blacklisted by Hu12 in July 2012 for spamming because of the frequent use of links on the The Neighborhood of Make-believe page. This is was not spamming, rather citing the source for the information in the article. The archive is the only available source of this information since the episodes are not available to the public. Please remove this site from the blacklist.

    MrRN fan (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest guidelines and particularly when alternate accounts are created to avoid detection. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. In addition, this site is a fansite which is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Adding 14 links to one page IS in fact, SPAM. --Hu12 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference:
    Multiple accounts spammed these links. The site-owner ignored multiple warnings and didn't discuss his link additions ... until after the links were blacklisted.
    Related domains:
    no Declined
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator note MrRN fan (talk · contribs) continued to "text" bomb his domain over multiple articles after decline and explainations. User has now been blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    freemasonrywatch.org

    I don't know how to find why this has been logged as spam, therefore I assume that it has been objected by someone who does not want articles to contain this reference as the neutral point of view. I was trying to add it to an article which lacks the NPOV but it seems someone has erroneously or maliciously listed this as spam, as I have never tried to post this link before I fail to see how it can be spam. It is also not been used for promotion but to give NPOV balance in an article which lacks some.

    This link is erroniously flagged as spam, on trying to use this link to give a NPOV on the "Talix hoax" allegedly the link has been blacklisted for spam— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 12 September 2012‎

    MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2012#freemasonrywatch.org no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    Troubleshooting and problems

    hi; for some reason, your filter would not let me include google (.com OR .ca) search links in a discussion, which was very deeply frustrating. please fix and/or explain this? Lx 121 (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    General google search links, such as this one, are not blocked. Google redirection links (e.g. those beginning with http://www.google.com/url?) that they use for tracking search result clicks are blocked globally, but that should not be a problem as you can just use whichever page the link redirects to. See meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Google redirect spam for the discussion of the original block. Anomie⚔ 10:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Logging / COIBot Instr

    Blacklist logging

    Full instructions for admins


    Quick reference

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

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

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

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

    Addition to the COIBot reports

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

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

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

    Poking COIBot

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


    Discussion


    Possible malware

    There's a question at RSN about a possible malware site. Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Please_check_the_source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ran the url through a few malware/threat detectors, seems its ok.
    Here are a few scanner tools that could be usefull.
    --Hu12 (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=512404928"