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 1,013: Line 1,013:
I use this redirect service for my website because my hosting changes periodically, so it gives me a more or less stable place to link to. It has some electronics schematics and detailed descriptions of their operation that are useful to those who want to learn about electronics. [[User:The Lightning Stalker|The Lightning Stalker]] ([[User talk:The Lightning Stalker|talk]]) 09:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I use this redirect service for my website because my hosting changes periodically, so it gives me a more or less stable place to link to. It has some electronics schematics and detailed descriptions of their operation that are useful to those who want to learn about electronics. [[User:The Lightning Stalker|The Lightning Stalker]] ([[User talk:The Lightning Stalker|talk]]) 09:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
* {{declined}} There is no practical chance of a redirect site being removed form the blacklist, and in any case they are on the meta blacklist not enWP. I'd suggest you asked for whitelisting of the individual link but [[Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing_yourself]] shows why even that would be a bad idea in this case. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
* {{declined}} There is no practical chance of a redirect site being removed form the blacklist, and in any case they are on the meta blacklist not enWP. I'd suggest you asked for whitelisting of the individual link but [[Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing_yourself]] shows why even that would be a bad idea in this case. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

== badastronomy.com ==
I suspect this was added by mistake. I don't see anything particularly spammy about it. —[[User:Ummit|Steve Summit]] ([[User talk:Ummit|talk]]) 13:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


=Troubleshooting and problems=
=Troubleshooting and problems=

Revision as of 13:44, 11 November 2008

    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 regex — 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 - 251096935 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    →snippet for logging: {{/request|251096935#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|251096935#section_name}}
    →A user-gadget for handling additions to and removals from the spam-blacklist is available at User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-blacklist-Handler

    Proposed additions

    iirgroup.com

    122.169.124.122 (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) Continually being added to every site under the sun.--otherlleft (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More comprehensive request below. MER-C 12:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    watchindia.tv

    This site is continuously being added, I have removed it on past ocassions and was added as recently as earlier today. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we have some IPs/users who are placing this please. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - problematic I agree. Reflecting & looking to list. If they do place the link again once the block expires request blocking & I will link for sure. Regards --Herby talk thyme 19:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    oldunreal.com

    Accounts that have re-added the link:

    Links to this website have been repeatedly added by IPs to the Unreal article since the beginning of July when the article was cleaned up. In addition, the following users are the site owners/contributors:

    They have participated in discussions on Talk:Unreal, in which they are not shy about admitting that they asked people from the website to come to sway opinion on Wikipedia. I've already given them ample policy reasons to stop adding the link, firstly because of WP:SPAM, which I believe is justified because the content of the website is not significant enough to meet the requirements of WP:V -- it is not documented by secondary sources. The website's proponents (who are all either from the website itself or related community sites who couldn't help but leave their own URLs also) argue that the usefulness or popularity of the website justifies inclusion, but again there is no objective evidence that the website is either of these things. They have continually reiterated OR-based arguments despite being told, repeatedly, that OR is not allowed on WP, and they apparently refuse to read or accept established policies, believing their own case to be exempt. In some cases the visitors have also vandalized the article, used article space to make personal attacks, or overwritten official game information with information about their own mod. I believe it is an attempt to promote the website or its work on Wikipedia. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Note this off-Wikipedia thread:
    and this vandalism.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Before any decision is made here, we should get some consensus among established editors. I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Comments wanted re: disputed link for the Unreal article asking for comments. I suggest centralizing the conversation at Talk:Unreal#Unofficial 227 patch. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that oldunreal.com is not a reliable source, but I'm not sure if a spam blacklist addition is the right way to go here as it's only being added on a single page. In this instance it might be better to request page protection for a short while. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    searchmycampus.com

    I have reverted most of the spam adds by the above IP for searchmycampus.com. IP blocked for 24hrs. They may add the link again. Please blacklist the website -- Tinu Cherian - 08:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not as far as I am concerned. I'd rather see what happens after the block expires. If they do repeat it then it should be blacklisted but blacklisting is a last resort. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok no issues.Considering the style of contribs of the this IP editor, they are likely to try again. Anyways let us wait for the block expire. I reported this here as it was a big pain reverting these all the large scale additions of this website.-- Tinu Cherian - 09:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I kinda agree but AGF for now I think. With rollback it only takes a moment? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    sermonindex.net

    While cleaning up the above, I came across this one: sermonindex.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

    Spammer

    I can't imagine how we missed one that blatant! I cleaned the links. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    wiki.d-addicts.com

    wiki.d-addicts.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

    Links to this unnnotable wiki have begun getting more and more prevalent, as both inappropriate "sources" and as external links across various Japanese actor articles. They are beeing added by IPs and registered users, so I don't think an IP block can help. Recent removals include three links removed from Yūya Yagira, 4 instances from Joo Jong-hyuk, 2 instances from Risa Kudō. There are now hundreds, if not thousands, of links to this wiki. This is no Memory Alpha. It is not an established wiki for using in ELs, and certainly not a valid source. I feel a blacklist is necessary to address this issue and stop this flood of spam. Additionally, the main site "d-addicts.com" actively promotes the downloading of illegal copyrighted versions of licensed series, which is a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. It also has a secondary wiki on fansubs. Not sure if its better to just block d-addicts.com all together or just this problematic one. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    There are now 675 links to this site across Wikipedia, with users of the site continuing to add more and more under the false impression that existing links equals endorsement of this site. Something really needs to be done. Manual removal is a very slow process, so if there is a bot that can snag them all, that would be nice. At least one purveyor of the spam, User:Tohru-chan has been identified, but they have done it primarily on a small scale and mostly in trying to spam a single article (which is what brought this site to my attention). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    While I agree that this isn't a reliable source and is likely to violate WP:EL, on a practical note there are now 817 links to this site and blacklisting this would disable editing on all the pages with those links. Do you have any proposal as to how that could be mitigated? Stifle (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately no. Not unless someone could code a bot that could remove them all. That's part of the problem...there are so many they can't be easily removed and they are just added back over and over so removing them right now seems like a wasted effort. With another group of similar links, folks from the anime and manga project manually removed them all, but there weren't as many links and all of the articles were within its scope. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not feed it to XLinkBot while cleaning? In that way the additions can be controlled to a certain extend (unestablished editors will be reverted). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Defer to XLinkBot for now --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now watched by XLinkBot.[1]
    Question for Dirk Beetstra:
    Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/wiki.d-addicts.com -- how do I get a list of link additions given the size of the problem? For now, COIBot is saying "Too many linkwatcher records (612)- ask database maintainer when data is really needed (data will then be dumped on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/wiki.d-addicts.com)."
    If this is 5 minutes work for someone, I'd like to see it so I can see who's spamming this as well as how many of these additions are spam and how many are legitimate. On the other hand, if it will take an hour or more, it's not that important.
    Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    mymetrostop.com

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

    Persistent spamming on Washington Metro related articles from various IP addresses. Site is a business directory arranged by Metro station. Most recent diff here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you provide either some more diffs or some IPs (using the {{IPSummary}} template?
    So far, all I've seen (based on a 2-minute cursory check) is one warning each delivered to:
    We like to see more warnings normally before blacklisting, but as I wrote above, I didn't have time to really look.
    Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see 130.160.167.60 (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) Hgrosser (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking closer here are some more:
    Related domains:
    Deleted article:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.merlin.wikia.com

    82.42.175.146 (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)

    IP user has been adding Spam links to the above address, onto various user talkpages - I propose that this link get's blacklisted I had proposed it on Meta but was redirect here. Dark Mage 09:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Doesn't seem serious enough to blacklist. Have you reported the IP for blocking? Is the spamming still active? Stifle (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined -- just one warning and the user stopped immediately. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    south-beach-diet-plan.com and cabbagesoupdiet7day.com and diet-science.com

    These three four links have been repeatedly added by the same group of IPs and user to multiple articles:

    Deli nk (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The spamming of south-beach-diet-plan.com continues here along with a new one: aboutdetoxdiet.com
    Deli nk (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The spamming of these links continues. Examples here and [2]. Will someone please either blacklist these domains, or tell me that it is not proper to make this request? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Additional spam domains

    Google Adsense IDs: 7505437796731158, 0540338099227977


    Related domains


    Registration

    MalSurf

    791-G Jln Emas 6, Tmn Kerjasama, Bkt Beruang
    Melaka, ME 75450
    MY


    Accounts

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    petitions.pm.gov.uk

    There is no obvious encyclopaedic reason why we would ever want to link to a petition. There are a thousand and one reasons why POV-pushers would want to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.82.42 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagree. While a petition that is in progress might be considered POV, the result of a petition together with the PM's response is definitely of encyclopaedic interest. For example, this petition on road pricing made major news at the time, gaining over one million signatures. This, together with the PM's response are useful encyclopaedic resources and are referenced in Road pricing. Rather than ban the domain it is much better to police its use. --TimTay (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm not suggesting we blacklist number10.gov.uk, where the response and a summary is published. But linking the petition itself would be original research after the fact and inappropriate advocacy before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.82.42 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per [3] I have added petition sites. Guy (Help!) 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    fibre2fashion.com

    Caught red-handed for the fourth time today. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 10:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Related domains:
    plus Added -- all 16 domains. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Orthopedic cast page spam

    There was also this paragraph added to our Orthopedic cast article about the erotic use of "recreational

    casts" along with links to three more related web sites:

    These are addditional related domains:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    plus Added additional domains -- kinky casts and all. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:10, 31

    October 2008 (UTC)

    The original whitelist request that led to these editor-blacklisted sites has already been denied/closed and nobody has suggested they be whitelisted or kept. So I created this Orthopedic cast topic thread in the blacklist area and moved these newly blacklisted site references to it to maintain a document of historic and ongoing vendor spam abuse on the Orthopedic Cast topic. I hope its the right editing protocol and apologize if not.

    The latest/newest vendor spam to be removed from the orthopedic cast page is:

    The Orthopedic cast topic has been spammed in the past with spoofed / proxy / dynamic IP's posting commercial pay sites -- so suggest that blacklisting the offending referenced pay sites (as the editor did with the sites above) is probably more productive in killing off this spam then tracking dodgy IP contributors who may or not be what they appear.

    In addition to the above blacklisted links, previous vendor spam references to this page, some by suspect IP posts, have included:

    Beetstar


    Thanks for the report.
    I've run link reports on those five domains and I am not seeing any persistent spamming in the recent past:
    Sometimes these reports miss things -- are there any additions I should be aware of?
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Will keep an eye out for others. They pop up as single entry citations by vendor sites now and again typical of the latest one.

    Beetstar —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Thanks!
    FYI, we normally look for 3 to 4 warning across all accounts before we consider blacklisting, so don't forget to give escalating warnings from the grid at Wikipedia:UTM. It also helps to put a live link (with the http://) to the spam site on the user talk page so we can find all the user accounts. Don't get indignant -- just give a warning an move on.
    I hope this helps. Thanks again for your work on this. We take help from all quarters. --13:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

    trainpetdog.com

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

    This domain has been repeatedly added to dog-related articles. I removed it from 25 en.wikipedia articles yesterday and from pt.wikipedia and no.wikipedia today. After reading this link and this link I can only conclude that this is a criminal scam run from India and it should be blacklisted immediately. The pattern of adding the spam is interesting, a different IP address is used each time, but always from the same Indian-registered ISP. Below are a few of the IP addresses used, but this list is by no means exhaustive:

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimTay (talk • contribs)

     Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 13:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    rootsweb.com

    Is a great site and doesn't count as spam but (and especially) freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com is user-written thus doesn't meet WP:RELIABILITY. There are 7134 hits for "rootsweb" in en and most of those seem to be refs. Saintrain (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are hundreds of editors adding thousands of these links, then blacklisting this domain should really get broader discussion and consensus than it would get here with the several editors that are active here. I agree that in general, these links may not be reliable sources, but I don't feel comfortable unilaterally blacklisting the site. I suggest starting a discussion at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and then posting links to that discussion here and at the Administrators' noticeboard. If there's strong consensus established, then we can blacklist it. An alternative to consider in these discussions is having it monitored by XLinkBot.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Defer to XLinkBot Stifle (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    pleasestopmoving.com

    Do not attempt to visit the following site without first reading the comment below!

    This is a malicious link which leads to a porn site with a malicious script which makes it very difficult to leave or close the page without force quitting the browser. It has only been added twice that I am aware of, here and here (in both cases a reference was removed and replaced by the link), but because of the nature of the link, and because Googling the url shows that it has been spammed all over the Internets today and yesterday it seems like a good idea to blacklist it now. --Bonadea (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Stifle (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    freewebs.com/savenyc

    freewebs.com/savenyc: 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

    [5] [6] [7] (October 20)
    [8] (October 13)
    [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (October 8)
    [14] [15] (September 26)
    [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] (September 20)

    These are just some of the link additions that I saw, and there may be more. Whatever the merit of the "Save the World Trade Center" idea this site puts forth, the site repeatedly gets re-added to various Wikipedia pages including Skyscraper, Empire State Building, Brooklyn, and others. The IP changes from time to time, so I think the blacklist is the better way to deal with this. --Aude (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    iirgroup.com researchoracle.com

    Massive coordinated citation spam. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 12:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Done, good call. I believe that citation spam is emerging as one of the most deceptive forms of abuse. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User page spammer (2)

    See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 13:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. You put a ton of work into finding and cleaning up all those spam user pages -- thanks!
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CDladders

    The CDladders.com website has been spammed repeatedly in the certificate of deposit article.

    Oct. 21

    Oct. 18

    Oct. 17

    Oct. 12

    Oct. 9

    It's had to be removed by myself several times, as well as a couple of other Wikipedia users. Having the site blocked would be welcome.

    I mistakenly placed this in the discussion section earlier but am moving it up to the requests section now. Tiredofscams (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    swamilive.com

    swamilive.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

    [21] and [22] by JeremyJamesJohnson (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)

    [23] by Atribuncle (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)

    [24] by Crustacean Consumed (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) (a wordplay on the username of the user who had reverted the previous instance)

    [25] and [26] by Stan Harrison (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)

    And that's just the last few hours. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done It got added to the list by Consumed Crustacean following the lastest Swamilive sock party. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    franzkafka.0fra.com

    franzkafka.0fra.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

    spammed to Franz Kafka by multiple IPs. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/franzkafka.0fra.com. This request was deferred from m:User:COIBot/XWiki/franzkafka.0fra.com as there's no reason to blacklist it globally at the moment. --Erwin(85) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    injustice.info/jewcon.com

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

    These appear to be an anti-semitic hate sites masquerading as a "judicial misconduct" sites.

    Spammed to Proskauer Rose in place of its normal homepage (see this diff) by

    Update-- a previous diff shows that
    spammed the link "jewcon.com" to the same page, Proskauer Rose. This site is similar to the "injusticeusa.info" site, and I'm pretty certain it is run by the same people. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to be a lot more to this including previous accounts, hate sites and a number of other domains. I've been looking at this, but it may be Monday before I can wrap this up. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Also spammed


    Related domains


    Formerly related
    Now owned by opponents (possibly obtained through litigation?)


    Accounts


    Deleted material
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    zuguide.com

    zuguide.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com This link has recently started to be added by a few newly registered users to the articles of various actors. The site contains trailers from films. Although the new users and the site itself contend that the trailers are licensed, copyright questions still remain. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Account


    Deleted articles


    Additional domains spammed


    Related domains
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    davidbenariel.org

    This guy has been POV pushing through spam to self published pieces for a long time. I asked for and received blacklisting on a bunch of blogspot articles and ezine.com last year on Meta [27].

    Turns out he's been back with his own domain since March of this year. Sites added to multiple articles by multiple IPs over a fairly long period of time so blocks and protection aren't going to work.

    sample spamming

    See further documentation of recent actions at User:SiobhanHansa/Checks#Articles_by_David_Ben-Ariel.

    Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 15:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist: Since this person has a history of extensive cross-wiki spamming, please take it to Meta in case he spams other projects with this domain.
    Thanks for catching this new round. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the original articles were crosswiki spammed and this one hasn't been as far as I can tell. It was blocked on Meta because we didn't have the local blacklist back then. But I'm happy to put the request there if you'd prefer. -- SiobhanHansa 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I thought I recognized that name so I went through my old cross-wiki edits and found this ezinearticles spam cleanup edit I made:[28]
    As I recall, there was a lot more of this out there.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I found more detail from:
    Here are some sample edit histories:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. As usual your thoroughness puts my efforts to shame. I'll submit the Meta request now. -- SiobhanHansa 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now blacklisted on Meta along with 15 other Ben-Ariel domains.[29] Thanks for catching this. I'm sure he'll be back with more domains in the future, but this should slow him down for now. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MattSEO and Nochex spam on Wikipedia

    Spam domains


    Related domains


    Accounts

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mion (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I see the connection between 128.61.116.7 and the MattSEO stuff. The other IPs are in the U.K. and 128.61.116.7 is a Georgia Tech IP. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    bstat.eu

    Accounts

    Large amount of links on lots of articles, added rapidly. Could be script based, maybe. - MrOllie (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 02:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now blacklisted on Meta. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    neuralnation.com

    Accounts

    Still adding links after warning level 4. Please blacklist this site to prevent more time wasting. Aff123a (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    aylak.com

    Accounts

    88.249.98.46 (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)

    I have removed the advertisement many times. IP blocked twice, but it is back again. Site has no useful content. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 17:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist. This spam has been added to other projects, so I will list it there. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Howcast spam

    Spam domain


    Spam accounts

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    528Hazelwood.com

    528hazelwood.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


    Some pretty random personal blog, but a static (update: not sure if it is static, as it is assigned by an ISP, but it doesn't seem to have been assigned to anyone except the person behind 528hazelwood Protonk (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)) IP keeps inserting this exact diff each time. If they did it more frequently I'd just block the IP, but this works too. Protonk (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. Thanks for the report. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    unclesirbobby.org.uk

    Link
    Editors

    There was a big effort to get this link included in several dream articles at the beginning of this year (see IPs with warnings). Editor has been back several times over the last year. Spamming is slow and almost always with a different IP address so blocks and protection are impractical as deterrents. Requesting blacklisting. -- SiobhanHansa 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. Thanks for reporting. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Related domain that has also been spammed scarboroughphotos.org.uk :
    Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.greatdogsite.com

    www.greatdogsite.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

    Added by a number of IPs to a bunch of dog breed articles with misleading edit summaries ("fixed citation", "broken link", etc). Exactly one link added per IP in the 72.184.0.0/16 range, which makes me incredibly suspicious. Even more suspicious is that all the articles they've been added to, so far, start with 'A'... Zetawoof(ζ) 04:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've since removed the link from the pages it was added to. Affected pages and the users adding the links included:
    Zetawoof(ζ) 05:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Sold to the man with the comprehensive spam report. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice catch, Zetawooof. I saw exactly what you were describing last night, but didn't investigate further because it was the only edit from that IP. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    asyncop.com

    asyncop.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 Per this please add \basyncop\.com\b - it should have been added here instead of the global blacklist. Once added here, it will be removed at Meta.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    buzz.igg.com

    buzz.igg.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

    buzz.igg.com is the referal spam version of links to the igg.com websites. While some articles properly link to various other *.igg.com sites, it is never appropriate to use the buzz version of the link that is supposed to earn the submitter money. These get substituted for the non-referral links quite often, for example twice on Myth War Online today:

    - MrOllie (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I've got a Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/buzz.igg.com report, I can see this was x-wiki spammed. Can someone list on Meta then remove here? I've got to travel. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    thefitnesspersonals.com and thefloridadatingcoaches.com

    Sites
    Accounts

    All IPs have been warned and the 65.118.76.139 IP has been blocked once but the link continues to be re-added. -- SiobhanHansa 14:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    xn--12cm1c1bgj0d1a.net

    Sites
    Accounts

    IP have been warned, yet continued to add it every two hours, occasionally changing the IP. andy (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    markets.com

    Sites
    Accounts

    IP has been blocked for excessive linkspamming. See initial report at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#markets.com. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    4dasoul.com

    4dasoul.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/See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 10:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    SermonAudio.com

    I am requesting that the domain sermonaudio.com be considered for removal from the local black list. I tried to update the entry about Giuseppi Logan with a reference to the page (blacklisted domain/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10180811720)that houses a recent interview that proves what is said about him being found by a mission group in New York. The article currently states that it is not know if he is alive. This is a good reference to prove that he is. Evidently someone in the past has abused the use of this site as a resource but I believe this is a valid use. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.163.233 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not a reliable source, polemical, a YouTube for sermons, virtually everything linked fomr there violated WP:NOR and WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.160.209 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is that final? Is there a way for a blacklisted domain to be used in case like this. The article says that the guy may be dead! This is proof that he is not.72.155.163.233 (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    \bpostchronicle\.com\b

    I am requesting that this be removed. This is required to add a verifiable 3rd party reference to an article (which I would mention, but I can't because the spam filter even blocks on this page). It's not clear why this is on the list in the first place, as it seems to be a straightforward news site. Mdwh (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    scififantasyfiction. suite101. com

    I want to use this article [scififantasyfiction. suite101. com/ article.cfm/ nicola_griffith] as a reference is an article about Homosexuality in SF. It looks like a reliable source, and the interviewee is notable. I assume it was blacklisted for a spamming reason, but it remains a useful reliable source (this interview is not hosted elsewhere).Yobmod (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, i see this site has much spamming, therefore i requested white-listing of just that page instead.Yobmod (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greentealovers.com

    I have been contributing to the Green Tea Page since its inception - recently I moved one of my citations that had existed for years on the Green Tea page from the second instance of the discussion of Green Tea history in China to the first instance (the grammatically the more correct thing to do). The reaction from Ohnoitsjamie (an editor I've had issues with before showing a particular bias) was to remove 1) ALL my references immediately, 2) ban my IP for protesting, 3)indicate he would not discuss the issue further (despite Wikipedia's rules on trying to arbitrate the issue) 3) blacklist my site when I tried to get around his jihad against it because of his insistance not to discuss the issue further. Efforts I made to reinstate the reference were because of his insistence not to discuss the issue futher and my inability to get anyone else to respond to my concerns -- however, they only seemed to give him more justification to define my site as "rogue" to get around his unfair bannings and citation removal in the first place. If ohnoitsjamie had in issue with my moving my original citation the appropriate thing to do would have been to move it back. Instead my contention i he displayed a particular bias and heavyhandedness towards my citation versus others on the same page by removing (rather than moving back) *ALL* citations because I questioned his authority and pointed out his bias. Please see the greentealovers.com discussion and his responses at the bottom of the ohnoitsjamie talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie. I feel he is unfairly targetting my site. My simple request is that the greentealovers.com site be unbanned from the local blacklist and references I had on the green tea page prior to October 07, 2008 be reinstated. If he wishes to keep the citation in the same place (at the point that Chinese History referenced the second time in the page), although its grammatically incorrect, I am willing to compromise on that. What is the wikipedia policy for editors who demonstrate this type of bias and treat some contributors differently than others??? I've never had such an issue like that with any wikipedia editor before in all my years of contributions. Any issues have always been reasonably resolved in a mutually collaborative way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The site in question (1) is owned by you, (2) is clearly commercial (selling tea and other products and (3) has been added by the Jpeizer account as well as a few anon IPs and a single purpose account. I suspect a checkuser would find a relation between Jpeizer and the single purpose account (as well as the IPs in question). As such, the link belongs on the blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am formally requesting a third unbiased party and not Ohnoitsjamie review this as I do not consider Ohnoitsjamie an objective party. He is the only editor I have ever had an issue with is all my years as a wikipedia contributor. The reference in question had been there for years and its clear other references on that page also sell tea. Please review my site it is rich in green tea medical, preparation, and history information and as such has been a contributor for wikipedia for years. The appropriate thing for you to have done if you had an issue was to simply replace the citation in its original position. Instead Ohnoitsjamie chose to remove ONLY my references (all of them) while seemingly ignoring the other sites which also sold tea on the page. Any sockpuppets etc. were the result of your unfair bias towards my account, and designed to circumvent your banning it while as at the same time indicating your unwillingness to discuss the issue further in violation of wikipedia arbitration rules. You're only now commenting it seems because eI have put in a formal request to unban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Other relevant info: this user has previously filed a complaint about it, and has attempted to use Wikipedia for self promotion in the past. In fact, you should probably be blocked for sockpuppetry, since it's pretty obvious that the User:Jpetino was created specifically to avoid the "final warning" I put on your Jpeizer account. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Again I request an unbiased third party editor and not Ohnoitsjamie (the editor that is at the source of my concern) review this issue. Ohnoitsjamie is correct in that I have contributed to the green and white tea pages over years and have cited greentealovers.com, the site providing those contributions. I also concur with his sockpuppet inference. Having been blocked inappropriately and told the issue would not be discussed further I did take the issue into my own hands when there was no feedback to address my concerns with this editor. There are few other options when he can cut off conversation and ban and blacklist at will. Ohnoitsjamie seemingly has an issue only with greentealovers.com because I question some of his judgements. I think he is biased because he deals differently with my information site, which also happens to sell teas demonstrating health benefits while having no issue with vendors like Stash Tea and blogs with tea advertising wrapped around their information also being listed on the same wikipedia GREEN TEA page. Although this request is to unblock greentealovers I seriously question *HOW* he dealt with my recent citation edit -- by removing all citations and also indicating he would not discuss the issue further. Any blocking and subsequent banning stems from the original bias I am questioning. Please note editor Ohnoitsjamie is still making no attempt to discuss the issue directly with me to come to a compromise as I have offered. Rather he prefers to continue to justify his bias. Jpeizer (talk • contribs)

    There's nothing more to discuss. As I've told you numerous times, the link is clearly a WP:EL and a WP:COI issue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That is PRECISELY why I am requesting a third part review of my information site and of this issue. Ohnoitsjamie continues on a witchhunt for the greentealovers.com information site that has been contributing to the GREEN TEA pages for years with citations while completely ignoring the blatant citations of major commercial tea companies on the green tea page. Ohnoitsjamie seemingly ignores the comments I just noted another editor made to my original complaint related to just that issue filed a complaint about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greentealovers is not a reliable source that is acceptable under Wikipedia's verifiability policy. I removed some other links from the page, and tagged others as not complying with Wikipedia policies for referencing. Editors of the article should strive to only use reliable sources, and where the article talks about medical effects of green tea, we have guidelines that explain what is expected for medicine-related articles. --Aude (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aude - first, thanks for looking at this as an objective third party. I have put in this formal request to have greentealovers.com unblocked. In my defense I'd like you to note the followingL My site cites reputable peer reviewed journals for ALL its aggregated health information. Please see: http://216.131.68.51/greenteahealthcancer.htm. Similarly it gets its processing and preparation information directly from the largest producer of green tea in Japan which it also cites appropriately on the bottom of every page (Some images and information are courtesy of ITO EN, Inc.). The question I have is why was my contributions and citations were good enough for Wikipedia for years especially in its early days when it need non-tech information, but now it isn't. Why was my reference to Tea History in China removed now (after YEARS) by OhnoitsJamie simply because it was moved -- not added. Most importantly, why did editor Ohnoitsjamie, after repeatedly being referred to the bias even by two other editors -- not act upon it? I seriously have to question the actions he took in this case and wonder if others have been also treated in an unbalanced way. This bias alone warrants unblocking consideration. I notice on his info page he talks about the numnber of times his pages have been hacked/abused. I have to wonder if it has something to do with the unbalanced way this editor treats contributors? Also in light of your green tea page edits are references citations [3] and [8] really still appropraite by the standards you are using to qualify these references? comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is okay and encouraged to directly cite reputable peer review journals in Wikipedia articles, but self-published sites like yours don't fit within what we expect of reliable sources. Standards for references have been rising on Wikipedia, and becoming more stringent. Thus, while the links may have been acceptable (or simply not noticed) before, I don't think they should be included now. Also, realize that Wikipedia is configured to use the nofollow parameter in all external links, so having your site listed on the Wikipedia page will not improve search engine rankings. --Aude (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the references I tagged, it would be okay to remove them, but ideally they should be replaced with reliable sources. Even a major tea company like Celestial Seasonings isn't a good source, since they are in business of selling tea and probably not giving neutral information. --Aude (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Your site is not what we consider a reliable source. Even if it was, you could not cite it due to conflict of interest concerns. Jamie is just doing his job. If someone persists in violating our external link and conflict of interest guidelines, then they can eventually expect their domain to get blacklisted.
    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.
    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/.


    Domain
    Google Adsense ID: 0073304188942438


    Related domains


    Accounts


    Nameservers
    • NS1.CALIFORNIA.NET
    • NS1.OAKWEB.COM


    Articles
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Greentealovers.com (again)

    I'm no longer requesting that the greentealovers reference be cited on the green tea page because the objective editors (Other than OhnoitsJamie) dealt with it in a balanced and fair way by deleting other references of similar context on the green tea page. I contend the argument to maintain the citation was previously valid when similar citations existed there from Tea vendors and OhNoitsJamie did nothing to remove them despite another editor stating a case for equity as well.

    • HOWEVER* I am still requesting greentealovers.com be unblacklisted because of the events around its original blacklisting. Greentealovers.com was a valid contributor to Wikipedia for years and wikipedia had no issue with the site when it needed that content to justify itself as more than a technical reference. Jaime blacklisted greentealovers.com because I re-referenced it, and I rereferenced it because he:

    1) refusing to deal unbiasedly with the other listings like Stash and Celestial tea on the same page. 2) refused to discuss the matter further in violation of Wiki rules on trying to come to a reasonable compromise.

    There is a cause and effect here: Since the original blocking of greentealovers.com was done in a biased manner -- it should be unblocked. Its enough the citation was removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.34.178 (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You are free to delete any other links that you feel violate WP:EL, as I've told you before. There is no violation of wiki rules here; your site was clearly not appropriate, a sentiment echoed by numerous other editors. There's no valid reason to un-blacklist it, as we've already established that it's not a reliable source, and us such is not useful for Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I note 8 warnings or requests to stop adding links followed by a block[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] That's a breathtaking pattern of self-serving persistence; we normally permanently blacklist domains after about 4 warnings. You've gotten warnings (some of which you erased) and feedback now from multiple editors:
    1. Ohnoitsjamie
    2. GraemeL
    3. Michaelbusch
    4. A. B.
    5. Yunfeng (Alexwoods)
    6. AntiSpamBot
    7. Aude
    8. Ronz
    9. Veyklevar|
    10. Iateasquirrel}
    with additional comments about your promotional activities at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Peizer
    Your blaming your problem on Jamie is an unfair and disingenuous distraction from the real source of your problems: your own disregard of our community's standards. (See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 36#Serious issues with one of your editors OhNoItsJamie)
    I lack any confidence we can ever count on you to respect our external linking and conflict of interest rules if we remove this domain from our blacklist.
    no Declined. This matter is now closed. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I have added these 4 domains previously overlooked:
    • 216.131.68.51
    • grantseekersedge.org
    • capaciteria.org
    • capaciteria.com
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You might also want to add technologyforsocialchange.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 . I hadn't realized it was this J Peizer. It's really sad to see someone who's involved in non-profit technology abuse Wikipedia (another non-profit) by subverting its mission in order to try and promote his own interests. I am quite sickened when I see this sort of unethical behavior from other nonprofit professionals. -- SiobhanHansa 09:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added: technologyforsocialchange.org --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's unfortunate and disheartening to see this self-moralizing about "self-interests" and "unethical behavior" in this discussion about a particular citation. The facts are that the Greentealovers site was a welcome and valid contributor to the wikipedia green tea page for years until Wikipedia decided to "upgrade" its citation policies -- after it had acheived enough credibility to diss the contributors that allowed it to break out of the perception by many that it was more a site for the technology-minded. Still greentealovers.com had as much validity to provide references to the green tea page as celestial seasoning, Stash Tea and other blog/advertisement references that existed on it -- and that was my argument -- PARITY AND BALANCE --until they were removed. Editors showing bias to one set of citations and not the other was hardly fair and balanced. It's unfortunate that the issue with greentealovers has spilled over into the editors deciding to also censor my addition of valid nonprofit technology references like capaciteria.org or my book about the Dynamics or Technology for Social Change. Capaciteria.org for example is a totally free nonprofit capacity resource index that I maintain for the benefit of the sector. These references were added to WIKIPEDIA over years along with other information on the topic of nonprofit technology and never challanged by wikipedia until the editors wished to make a point about this separate issue on greentealovers.com. If you'd like to throw the baby out with the bathwater and eliminate these other resources contributed to wikipedia in the past, thats fine. But please do keep the editorial self-moralizing about out of the discussion when valid contributions become invalid and unethical depending upon the year and editor deciding upon them. What disturbs me is the hypocracy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.34.178 (talk)

    Since this doesn't really seem to be about the blacklist I have responded at User_talk:SiobhanHansa#From_JPeizer where this message was also left. If editors would rather this continued here please feel free to move my response. -- SiobhanHansa 16:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Truth hurts sometimes.
    An edit-by-edit review of these accounts' histories shows approximately 3 hours spent adding text (about 8 paragraphs worth) in 2005-2008; much of this text was subsequently deleted by 69.123.33.133 after spam warnings. The first 3 warnings appeared in May 2006 (Jpeizer removed them) with more scattered through time. This does not include the time spent on his own article or on his web site. These accounts spent several hours adding considerable text, however much of it was from greentealovers.com and later deleted. Additional time was spent on the two deleted articles about Mr. Peizer and his web site. Much more time was spent arguing over the links, starting in May 2006 on various talk pages where they received no support:
    We overlooked this link from the Jonathan Peizer article:
    We also overlooked this additional IP:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    aluminiumleader. com

    I propose to remove this website from the black list as it is a highly educative and informative resource on the aluminium production. It was added only to articles which can profit from the website as their subject is explained there in more details or users can find daily news about them - aluminium, alumina and bauxite (bauxite is first processed into alumina and then into aluminium and after that foil or alloys or parts of things (plains, cars, furniture etc) are made from aluminium ingots as a final product). The website contains extensive information on the history of aluminium, aluminium production and ways of using aluminium - in design, transport, construction.LOscritor 16:10, 27 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.248.20.6 (talk)

    • In other words, when you spammed it you only spammed it to places you thought it might stick. But it's not blacklisted, this is simply a case of reversion by someone who did not think the links met WP:EL (and I agree). Guy (Help!) 07:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    mysmp.com

    Hello, I am proposing the removal of mysmp from the spam blacklist. This website is a free financial encyclopedia offering traders and finance professionals to develop their trading and financial markets acumen. There are very few websites that have the detailed insight that is presented on mysmp.com. We were originally blacklisted for link spamming. I honestly did not intend to "spam" wikipedia with the content on mysmp and am truly sorry if I had offended anyone in any way. I truly believed that it added value to the community and the owners of each subject actually agreed with me by leaving it on their wiki. mysmp has quite an abundance of great content that we would love to share with the wiki community. Please let me know if I can provide any further information and I would be happy to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.236.89 (talk • contribs)

    • no Declined. First, it's on the meta blacklist not the enWP blacklist. Second, this user was one of the spammers. See [48] Guy (Help!) 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Gosh, you got those warnings and blocks -- didn't those give you some hint about our view of your link additions? They had all those links to our guidelines, too.
    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/.
    Regards, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Tasselnfringe.com

    Why is this blacklisted, seems legit to me? I have no Idiaho how to apply to get my link removed from blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasselnfringe (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term problem with spam by numerous editors on multiple articles. Even once warned and blocked and auto-reverted, they persisted, including jumping among IPs and using alternate URLs to evade all less-severe attempts to prevent the spam. DMacks (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked up your domain's history -- that's a lot of spam! And many ignored requests and warnings to stop:
    I see also there were some related domains overlooked in June:
    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.
    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/.
    Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting here, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. We do not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative.
    no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added: additional two related domains. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    merekavimitra.blogspot.com

    [use above link before tis path] search/label/shaheed%20bhagat%20singh . I think only one example helps my standing... this links contain research works in Hindi over Bhagat singh. I know that wikipedia is not a place of advertising, but a place where user can get more valuable material.. all the material should not be placed here.. so, linking is not a bad option.. I think you should give one more chance to this URL

    • This is not a peer-reviewed source. Blogspot is a terrible source for most things. But actually it's not blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This domain and the one below (hindyugm.com) were blacklisted on meta because of this. MER-C 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    podcast.hindyugm.com

    Due to one mistakes which was done on 30th Oct.. this URL series is blocked.. This website comprises fantastic Hindi article over music.. u people can see this website one more time.. it may be possible that owner of this website would not gone through terms and conditions properly, you should a more chance . thanks

    • One mistake? Oh, wait, the mistake was spamming. That's what the blacklist is for. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    complaintsboard.com

    I had no problem adding this link last week to the wiki page for Intelius. I added the link to cite my sources stating that this company has been signing up customers to an unauthorized service called 24Protect Plus. My entry was removed and the link was blacklisted. I found numerous other websites that allege the same activity from this company. Complaintsboard.com is a forum where customers can voice their complaints. I have also found several articles that address the integrity issues with this company's business practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisM111 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Not done As a complaints board where customers get to voice their complaints it is inappropriate to link it in Wikipedia. Controversies should be covered by reference to reliable independent secondary sources, not by distilling information direct from online complaints boards - that is original research. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    kickme.to/lightningstalker

    I use this redirect service for my website because my hosting changes periodically, so it gives me a more or less stable place to link to. It has some electronics schematics and detailed descriptions of their operation that are useful to those who want to learn about electronics. The Lightning Stalker (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined There is no practical chance of a redirect site being removed form the blacklist, and in any case they are on the meta blacklist not enWP. I'd suggest you asked for whitelisting of the individual link but Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing_yourself shows why even that would be a bad idea in this case. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    badastronomy.com

    I suspect this was added by mistake. I don't see anything particularly spammy about it. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems


    List not working?

    Resolved

    Today I was able to save this edit which included the url for sexhealthguru.com (and also this one which had the url in the section I was editing).

    This URL was blacklisted yesterday as \bsexhealthguru\.com\b [49].

    Is this a problem with the list? The blacklist entry? Or me? -- SiobhanHansa 12:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hum - I couldn't save on this page with a full http:// link to that domain. --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I can save the full http:// sss.sexhealthguru.com in my own user space [50] but not on this page. But I can't save http:// www.sexhealthguru.com in either. Is this worthy of a bug report? -- SiobhanHansa 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This cleared up and began working properly a few hours later so expect it was just a glitch. -- SiobhanHansa 21:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    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.

    Have added a supplement, a general " how-to of sorts. --Hu12 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: if you do not log your entries it may be removed if someone appeals 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 do add 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. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.

    For those with access to IRC, there this data is available in real time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    poking COIBot

    I notice that sometimes people who are not active on IRC need some link reports. Admins here can now add {{LinkSummary|domain}} to User:COIBot/Poke, when COIBot picks up the edit to that page (and it should), it will put the domains into its reporting queue (high priority, which is, only behind waiting XWiki reports) and create a report on the link(s). The first report should be saved within about 5 minutes, if it takes longer than 15 minutes there is probably something wrong, and it may be useful to add the template with the link again (it reads the added part of the diffs (the right column)), or poke me or another person who is active on IRC personally. Hope this is of help. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Please don't overuse this function, everything still needs to be saved .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It had some startup problems, but all seems to work fine now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    aceshowbiz.com

    Why is this blacklisted, seems legit to me? Andre666 ([[User talk:Andre666|talk]]) 13:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because it was spammed prolifically. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingcomp (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I manage aceshowbiz.com, I need to know when did our website spam prolifically ? Did it happen lately or many years ago ? We have many worth suggest article such as exclusive interview with Demi Lovato (Celebrity News, Sep 18, 2008). Please consider unlisted our website from your spam list as there is no such action for years. Many years ago aceshowbiz.com just a small website, right now we've already doing partnership with many big / reliable company. There is no time for us thinking for spamming. Just quality. Please take a visit to our website an consider. Thank You.[reply]

    Um, help...

    I have no idea how to make a request, nor link to my profile, but I am Soulen and can you revert the text I added to the Dragon Ball Z Tenkaichi back in, and just not the link to Youtube?

    Backlog at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

    If you can, please pitch in and help whittle this down. We have editors who've been waiting several months.

    Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've cleared most of this. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    holocaustresearchproject\.org

    Why´s that!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.231.6 (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note this site was blocked on Meta (a central admin site for Wikimedia Foundation projects) not simply at the English Wikipedia so questions about it are likely to be answered more quickly and accurately at the blacklist page there. If you just want to see the reasoning for the block see this link. -- SiobhanHansa 15:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I went to the referred discussion on the blacklisting of this site and was surprised to find that the concerns about it cited were primarily someone's blog -- which seems to raise some issues about the credibility of the concerns. Issues cited also seem to be with individual entries on the site rather than the site itself -- which appears to be comprehensive and backed by some academics. I understand the concerns originally raised had to do with the site's self-referencing. The question is if someone else referenced it as a credible resource would it be cited or does someone's blog about its credibility automatically disqualify it?

    Possumldy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Possumldy (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The primary concern - the reason why it was blocked - was the spamming by this account and this one. The rest of the comment is just a user shaking his/her head in disbelief at the (in his/her opinion) low standard of the link. URLs aren't generally blacklisted for content (with a few extreme exceptions), only when they have been abused. If there is a page on the site that is necessary as a reference for an assertion in an article that particular URL could be whitelisted if the circumstances warrant it. -- SiobhanHansa 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.cosmoetica.com

    Don't know why it's blacklisted. Useful source of interviews with authors and commentaries.

    pheon (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The site was spammed as part of an extensive campaign to promote writing by Dan Schneider. It covered more than the English Wikipedia so the URL has been blacklisted at Meta. See [51] [52] and [53] If you really need a particular link for a particular article you can request whitelisting of the link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. -- SiobhanHansa 20:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Archiving

    Looks like this page could use more frequent archiving. As a non-admin I see that as a task I could help with. There don't seem to be any standards so I propose moving any section that has been completed "denied", "done" or query answered with no further discussion) for 7 days and any that has been marked as "defer to..." for 14 days. Hopefully this will make the list easier for admins to see what needs doing. Let me know if there are any objections otherwise I'll go ahead with this in a day or two. -- SiobhanHansa 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=251096935"