MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beetstra (talk | contribs) at 08:08, 18 March 2010 (→‎projectsaviour.co.cc: should be a whitelist request, I have whitelisted the link based on this). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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 - 350558994 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    →snippet for logging: {{/request|350558994#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|350558994#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

    webs.com

    AOL IP's have been spamming this website into the pages of celebrities. There might be more AOL IP's, This IP is the newest one

    172.164.22.187 (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)

    Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5, Diff 6, and Diff 7. Please add it to the blacklist. Momo san Gespräch 05:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This concerns at the moment only:

    And the users:

    --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More charmed80048436282250.webs.com
    X-Wiki
    --Hu12 (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Userpage spamming;
    Reggielhivich (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)
    112.202.39.140 (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)
    Spamming Tommy's Pet Paradise adsense pub-4763110844767107
    98.176.121.123 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    76.212.197.220 (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)
    128.54.75.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    98.176.244.31 (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)
    Spamming csi80048436282250.webs.com
    172.129.208.12 (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)
    172.163.104.139  (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)
    172.164.119.148  (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)
    Spamming eurodance4life.webs.com
    70.17.230.166 (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)
    Djnekke (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)
    Spamming freedomsudan.webs.com
    86.89.18.208 (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)
    Freedom Sudan (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)
    Spamming related webs.com sub-domains
    Japanhero (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)
    Reimon ultra galaxy (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)
    BlackBatrusJapanHero (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)
    KomoriRUS (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)
    KamenRiderDouble (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)
    SygtWES (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)
    Zzz3 (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)
    WFWEAF (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)
    WAFw (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)
    Ewhwsa (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)
    Wgfwgv (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)
    Afqwaeg (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)
    Astrfa (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)
    --Hu12 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    webs.com appears to be a shared hosting site (sometimes free, sometimes paid); hosted sites appear to be pretty widely linked from existing articles (judging by linksearch), so blocking the entire domain would have a significant impact on existing articles. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt cleanup is needed, however blacklisting would have minimal impact on articles in which existing webs.com links reside. Blacklisting prevents editors from adding a hyperlink to a blacklisted site. Any revision that already contains a blacklisted link or a reference, is infact not prevented from being saved or edited.--Hu12 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - I seem to recall blacklisted links used to prevent an article from being edited unless the links were removed. Good to hear that's been corrected. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Spamming of teennick80048436282250.webs.com
    172.129.208.12 (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)
    172.130.34.65 (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)
    172.162.57.56 (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)
    172.163.38.63 (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)
    172.163.104.139 (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)
    172.164.119.148 (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)
    172.129.54.16 (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)
    172.162.35.100 (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)
    172.129.153.224 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    --Hu12 (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    geoplus.com

    geoplus.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

    User creating new articles and adding subsections to others about products of geoplus.com. Also, user's user page seems to be a promotional piece for the company. Am adding this at the suggestion of sockpuppet-report admin MuZemike here.

    Geo-plus (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)
    Diffs [1], [2], [3], [4]. CliffC (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.jackass3d.net

    Looking at the page histories, for the last few months someone keeps spamming http://www.jackass3d.net to Jackass 3D and Jackass (TV series) to promote their ebay auctions. The IP keeps change one days its 76.172.177.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) the next its 85.227.157.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and then its another one.

    Old Wikipedia mirrors

    nationmaster.com/encyclopedia: 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 statemaster.com/encyclopedia: 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 are not "spam" in the strict sense of the word, but often used misguided (unacceptable) sources. Nationmaster.com/encyclopedia is an old copy of Wikipedia, and Statemaster.com is a copy or mirror of nationmaster.com. Every few weeks, a sweep is done to remove these links, but it would be much easier to stop them from being added. There are e.g. for the moment 63 links to the statemaster.com encyclopedia[5], which are essentially (outdated) selfreferences to an advert-included version of Wikipedia. If there is a more efficient or procedurally more correct way of keeping these links out, feel free to guide me in the right direction! If this blacklisting is accepted, make sure to only blacklist the /encyclopedia part of these sites, the remainder of nationmaster is generally accepted as a source for info on countries. Fram (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this really spam? Would an edit filter be better? Stifle (talk) 09:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, I'm not really familiar with either the blacklist or the (abuse) filter, and this one seems to fall somewhere between the two. Links to the above sites are not added to spam them, to promote traffic, but because people honsetly believe they have found an interesting reliable source. On the other hand, they are not acceptable sources but mirrors with ads. Disallowing them will improve our articles, educate some editors, and relieve some strain from other editors (who are now regularly removing these links). How we best exclude these links is less important. Since they are external links, the spam filter seemed the most appropriate process. Fram (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a better way to find these links. There are 105 links to statemaster, and 570 to nationmaster. (Many of these links are from outside article space and therefore of little concern, though.) Zetawoof(ζ) 08:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm inclined to approve this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we add Answers.com to this? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Answers.com contains info from many sources, including Wikipedia. I would prefer if every Answers.com link was replaced by a link to its source, but it's not really a pure Wikipedia mirror. Fram (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fallingrain.com

    (Carried over from wrong place of discussion). Myself, Darwinek and many other active editors are well aware that this site fallingrain.com contains false information, particularly population and altitude which have regularly been shown to be grossly inaccurate. For instance it would say "771 people" in a 7 km radius yet according to official Chinese census data it actually has 35,000 in the town notincluding surrounding villages. Others include a coastal village in Madagascar which falling rain claimed had an altitude of 360 metres when it is clearly barely above sea level. The site is 15 years out of date and I've seen it used by lesser informed individuals to reference articles which is a major threat to reliability. Worst affected are Pakistan and India. I believe the community expressed concern previously about fallingrain as fialing to adhere to reliable sources. The coordinates are generally accurate but little else actually is. I propose the blacklisting of this website and the removal of links to it from all articles which I believe would be a major cleanup. The shoddy name alone is enough to think the article is false which uses it as a reference or link. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    True Fallingrain.com cannot be trusted. From my own experience it is grossly unreliable website with simply false information about population, altitudes and even the names of towns/villages. Wikipedia should be a respected source of knowledge, which it cannot be with this website used as a reference in many articles. There are much more reliable statistics and sources (especially official ones), which can be used. Blocking this website and removing all links from Wikipedia would only benefit the project. - Darwinek (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a note asking me to come here and comment on this site. I don't remember ever having used it myself. I checked however, and at this moment, 9,530 wikipedia articles have links to it.
    If the suggestion is to blacklist this site, are we talking about replacing every instance where it is used with a more reliable link? That is at least 9,530 links. If this is to be done individually, by humans, and it takes a human, on average, one minute per correction, a minimum of 150 person-hours.
    Never having used this site, I think I should stay neutral. If, however, it is blacklisted, I will agree to be part of an effort to look for replacement links. I'll sign on for sixty articles.
    Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL Geoswan. You are an old fashioned guy! 9,530 links could be removed in just a few hours using AWB or even better a bot. Nobody is going to be spending 150 hours on that job for sure!!! But the fact it is used in 9530 articles is extremely concerning in terms of reliability....

    So, setting a bot to remove the URLs, without trying to replace them with more reliable links is an acceptable option? That's a relief. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A bot or AWB could be used to remove the links. In a lot of cases they are used along side other sources so removing the falling rain website is in my view a case of despamming and avoiding misleading editors by exposing them to unreliable population and altitude data. The most serious cases are those though where no reliable sources are available and falling rain is used as a primary source, often to source population and other data which is unavailable. Relying on fallingrain for population and such figures (as I've myself been guilty of with Tibet for instance) as caused a major reliability problem and mass of errors and should be cleaned up and delisted asap.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Not to mention that the site still thinking it is 1995-6 still shows some closed railway lines in numerous articles and has been used as a primary source, so in effect it is giving misleading information and implies that certain railway lines and small settlements that have been abandoned still exist. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is with some concern the amount of usage of innacurate information from the site can be found in wikipedia as a 'valid source' - some time ago - the Australian project editors who had reviewed the innacuracy actually voted for and succeeded in getting an article about fallingrain afd'ed - that had been created by an editor who had over-relied upon the fallingrain source - and by any account may well still be doing so - any definite action in reducing reliance upon an unreliable source on the web would be appreciated by those who have to debate with editors who claim it is a useful source - when editors who have sufficient knowledge of context of some of the information - see it as a misleading and often incorrect source SatuSuro 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the site already in XLinkBot? That seems like the appropriate way to warn editors that the site contains unreliable data when they try to add it, while still allowing editorial discretion. While the RfC showed that unreliability can be a factor in blacklisting, there was little support for blacklisting merely unreliable sites absent actual spamming. Youtube is a similar unreliable site, and IIRC it's in XLinkBot, not the blacklist. Let me see: [6] Gigs (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in support of the move to remove the site from the whitelist - my understanding is it relies rather heavily on an old list which has got some circulation on the net already (the original version of Mapquest circa 1999 was based on it for non-US mapping, for instance, but more recent versions use their own mapping which is almost exactly accurate). The Fallingrain map of my own city contains towns which have never existed, misspellings/mislocations of places which do exist, a suburban boundary that is around 40 years out of date and a number of key features missing. Orderinchaos 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklisting this site solely because it's an unreliable source is not supported by larger consensus. While the recent RfC did indicate that reliability can be a factor in blacklisting, there was also near universal consensus against using it as a sole factor. Since the addition of these links were not for spam purposes (but rather added in good faith), I see no justification for blacklisting this site. That said, if the data truly is unreliable, I would not be opposed to systematic removal of the site as a reference, and its addition to XLinkBot. Gigs (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from requested removals to requested additions. I am minded to grant this request, but as there is some opposition, a consensus is necessary. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference link for easier review:
    --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    absoluteastronomy.com and economicexpert.com

    Links to these wikipedia mirrors get added constantly. They are mirrors of articles on wikipedia and people think they are valid sources of information to cite to. Nightkey (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Additional information needed--Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Inst' absoluteastronomy already blacklisted? Amazing... Not only is it, as a Wikipedia mirror, an unreliable and unwanted source, but it is the site of one of the more persisting Wikipedia vandals/sockpuppets. Blacklist please. Fram (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely agree with this listing. I haven't noticed anyone spam the links, but they are always being added, and are of zero interest to us. I've cleaned out several hundred of these links before, but there's still several hundred left. It's probably worth removing them before or in conjunction with blacklisting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, I've gone on mirror-removal sprees before, and agree we should almost never be linking to them. If there's an interest in blacklisting mirrors generally, I have a list of several more, including some that are just minimal transformations of Wikipedia article text. Many of these are being used to link someone's preferred "archival" version of an article, which is six kinds of bad idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    hotelsinrishikesh.in

    Serious block evasion. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 03:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    r.fm

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#r.fm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbsdy lives (talk • contribs)

    I've had a closer look at this, the results are horrific. See WikiProject Spam report. Also:
    Not sure if this should go to meta. MER-C 10:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    www.multanfancypigeons.co.cc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.141.230.226 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian travel citation spam

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    nfldraftdepot.com

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 09:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    sites.google.com/site/nswcnn/

    sites.google.com/site/nswcnn/: 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 which has been added by a two of IP's (Latest IP was 123.3.170.133and the oldest 123.3.79.155), possibly the work of an individual who has a hatered or POV against the police. Bidgee (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    sites.google.com/site/dnapolice/

    sites.google.com/site/nswcnn/: 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 above though this link was added to the New South Wales Police Force article by one of 123.3.79.155. Bidgee (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a WP:BLP violation, a blacklist for this site would be protective. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    cutedeadguys.net

    http://cutedeadguys.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 I haven't gone to the link to find out, but I'm under the impression that this is a shock site, which has been repeatedly added to the ogrish.com article. It's not currently used anywhere else in Wikipedia, so collateral damage from blocking would be minimal. See the recent history of Ogrish (ever other diff for months) for details. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    works.bepress.com/daniel_bevenuto/1/

    Block evasion. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 12:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    gibnet.com

    Please see discussion at the WP:RSN board here [7]. The examples I provided there are:

    This is the personal site of User:Gibnews, who has been adding many of these links. [10] [11] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is part of an agenda by the above editor who wants to remove sources of information about Gibraltar in order to rewrite wikipedia pages 'his way'.
    Gibnet.com is NOT a personal website, it is a long running repository of information about Gibraltar and the documents section contains original documents which are not readily available elsewhere on the internet.
    The above editor makes a lot about the page The campaign for the Eurovote Yes it was a long struggle, it took ten years, the article on gibnet.com lists the history in chronological order in a neutral manner listing references for everything described. I am not sure how this can be described as 'partisan'
    In relation to the article [[http://www.gibnet.com/fish/waters.htm RH says this is unreferenced this is an outright lie as the article cites the UN convention on the law of the sea, and the map shown is sourced from the House of Commons library and cited as such.
    The article on ID cards explores the fact that Gibraltar is the ONLY British territory which issues ID cards that are valid as travel documents in the EU. It contrasts the system in Gibraltar to the proposed one in the UK and has a link to the NO2ID site. The article is of general interest and I fail to see why RH is making a fuss about it.
    The majority of links to this site have been included by other editors as it is a long running stable site for reference documents about Gibraltar on the Internet. Google lists some 22,100 hits for gibnet.com
    RH has tried unsuccessful to get another website banned, gibnews.net simply on the basis that I designed it. This is another attempt at the same. He has now informed me he intends to delete any links to gibnet.com on wikipedia BEFORE any decision has been taken and before I have been able to counter his attack. This is harassment. --Gibnews (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gibnews, I do think that most of your arguments are not to the point, or not true: yes, you did add most of the links to gibnews.net, and are only second after ClueBot (who I am not giving credit for 'thoughtful insertions' of external links) for gibnet.com; and 22.100 hits on Google is not a figure that impresses (see WP:GOOGLE), it may be a figure that tells that it is of interest, but may just as well be a product of clever search engine optimization. Fact remains, it is basically an unreliable source containing practically user-supplied non-reviewed material.

    However, I do not see large scale, uncontrollable abuse, I see Gibnews adding (by far) most of the links, but also some regulars who seem to have used it. I would therefore suggest, that the remaining links are cleaned, having a careful look whether they are suitable where they were placed or not, and remove which are not suitable. Gibnews, I would suggest that you are careful with further additions, and discuss inclusions (especially when they get challenged), but preferably before inclusion. As such, I would suggest to mark this one as no Declined for now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for looking at it. Any page being linked to which is not a copy of a press release from a RS I will delete. Anything which is a press release from a RS and which is being used properly as a primary source, I will leave, giving Gibnews the benefit of the doubt that he has transcribed it accurately. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has suggested you do that, A formal complaint will follow any such action. --Gibnews (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gibnews, it is in my suggestion: 'I would therefore suggest, that the remaining links are cleaned, having a careful look whether they are suitable where they were placed or not, and remove which are not suitable.'. Cleaning thus involves anything that fails WP:RS (taking into concern how the source is used and its reliability), WP:EL (see the list at WP:ELNO), &c. Seen that this site is not a reliable source, discussion about the suitability is in order, and where necessary, remove the links/references which are disputable, and discuss before re-adding is thé way forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't think the discussion on the reliability of gibnet.com was sufficiently detailed or robust and it is skewed by a particular editor with an agenda which has been forum shopped. What follows deleting references is removing content which is unsourced. Then rewriting things according to the minority POV of that editor. At present I have very little time to devote to wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like you to assume good faith, seeing the WP:RS discussion, I see several editors. Yes, when content is sourced to an unreliable source, then actually, the content should go with the unreliable source. What you deem a minority POV .. yours does not become a majority POV because there is some unreliable info about it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While assuming good faith, Gibnews, you may also wish to stop spreading falsehoods about my intentions and dispense with the persecution complex. As I posted on your talk page, I am replacing uses of your site with reliable sources. Your claims that your site contains content not to be found elsewhere is hogwash, frankly. e.g. [12]. Only time has prevented me from replacing all the links. Why you had to, for example, link to your site instead of the Government of Gibraltar's for the text of the constitution, I do not know. Perhaps a clue lies on the first version of your user page, where you told us [13] I registered gibnet.com because .gi did not exist and built it up into a popular site, Alexa ranks it 534,737th. as websites go. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are deleting all links to gibnet.com even where there are no alternative sources. That is an obsession. Other editors have noted your behaviour borders on abusive. You tried to get me banned by stating that I was a sock of a banned user on and unsuccessfully tried to claim gibnews.net was an unreliable source to get that banned. I note the determination and forum shopping. I have NO problem in replacing a link to the Gibraltar constitution from gibnet.com to the Government site however at the time the link was created the document was not online elsewhere.
    Yes, gibnet.com IS a popular site, it was popular before Wikipedia took off and it still contains a lot of reference material that is not available elsewhere. For example the observers report on the 2002 referendum where 99% of Gibraltarians voted against joint sovereignty - something that you seem to want to deny. It is not a personal or a company site its more a Gibraltar portal with mini-sites and unbiased reference material.
    I see that traffic from wikipedia amounts to 0.03% of the referrals to gibnet.com so I really don't think that removing links will make much difference to that site, although the reverse is not necessarily true because there will be a lot of missing citations. --Gibnews (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations should be to the original source, not to copies of whose copyright status we can't be sure. If this is the original source then they should not be citations as it appears not to be a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Gibnews, if the site is deemed unreliable, and that is what I would conclude from the WP:RS discussion, then 'deleting all links to gibnet.com even where there are no alternative sources' is unfortunately a way to go. If the reference is not reliable, and there are no alternatives, then how do we know if it is true. Also, if there are things linked which are only available from your site, and nowhere else, then that does not mean we do have to link to your site. Name the official source, then everyone can check if it is correct, the link is handy, but not needed (and especially when we are not sure if the copyright status is unsure, or other scenarios where the status is unsure). And again, whatever rankings or statistics you take, those say nothing. Is it clever search engine optimization, or is it really a popular site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't think the issue of it being a reliable source has been explored sufficiently robustly and the discussion is skewed by a particular editor with a HUGE bias almost as large as mine. However where the site presents original documents which are not available anywhere else 'as is' I think its valid to include a reference rather than have material removed because there is no reference available.
    As stated the site is not a personal website or a company website but a repository of information which has been going a long time and has a high reputation, sufficient that its included in the UK National Archive of websites. Where there are references to, for example the Gibraltar Government website, that is obviously preferred. However they recently reworked their site and changed most of the links and do not have the same policy of preserving links, particularly with their press release archive.
    To answer your question, Some care has gone into the front page of gibnet.com to make it friendly to search engines. Apart from the index page no effort whatsoever has gone into promotion because the site is a not-for-profit venture to present information about Gibraltar. Nor for that matter does it get any subsidy from the Tourist office etc. The idea of linking to data held there in wikipedia is to make Wikipedia better and not to 'promote' the site. As stated the site grew out of a BBS system which held a large number of files, some of which were of sufficient interest to continue onto the net.
    More recently the world and his dog has had a go at producing similar sites with Gibraltar content, they mostly fold after a year. Links come and go, indeed as an editor pointed out the article on Gibraltar contains a large number of links which are dead and point to ceased sites -or- ones which have changed their structure. --Gibnews (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been mentioned before, there were several editors (including myself) who agree on the RS talk page that the site does not meet Reliable Sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gibnews is adding his site back [14]. Any posting by me on his talk page will be ignore and/or deleted so can someone else please give him a warning? I suggest if he does this again, it should be blacklisted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This sort of thing is exactly what the blacklist is for, because the problem self-evidently won't go away. Without reference to the content of the site in question, the fact that the person controlling it is editing here to add additional links to it when others have said that's a problem really seems like an open-and-shut case. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Another readdition, this time by a one-edit anon IP. [15]. Highly suspicious if you ask me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The linking by Gibnews was clearly inappropriate, and against the suggestions given above (it is a scan of a document that was linked to ..). I have left Gibnews a message to that effect. The IP seems an (until now) SPA, if more pop up, or if this one continues after being properly informed of the issue, I amend my remark above that 'I do not see large scale, uncontrollable abuse', and will proceed in blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt the ONLY edits I have done are under my username and not with an IP. The IP used seems to be NTL Infrastructure - Lewisham with a client of cust47.bmly.cable.ntl.com which is neither a proxy and most certainly not me. --Gibnews (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    fashionologie.com

    Fashionologie.com is a blog. User Ewestlake (and an IP which is linked by comments at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist) have added numerous links to this blog, some of them to pages with multiple links to blacklisted domain modelinia.com, e.g. [16]. Ewestlake refers to modelinia.com as "we" and there is little doubt as to the identity of the user, per previous abuse. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    vgchartz.com

    Notoriously unreliable; listed on WP:VG/S as an unreliable source. However, it's common that people use the source, and since the merits of the web site are limited to sales which are definitively unreliable and never allowed to be used, I feel protection is in order. The only exception should be made is on VG Chartz, where it should be linked to. But other than that, it is of no use and allowing it to be used will only cause a spread of misinformation and confusion that may make the GA/FA process bothersome; for example, The World Ends with You, in spite of being a GA, used VG Chartz, which shows the ineffectiveness of merely listing it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    sites.google.com/site/artbatiks/home

    sites.google.com/site/artbatiks/home: 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

    Daily adding above site in last few days to Matara, Sri Lanka, and Culture of Sri Lanka. Please see my reports in WP:RSPAM and another older report. Immediate remedy is needed here.--Chanaka L (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    globusz.com

    globusz.com - hitler spam. Don't know who put in The Tale of Genji yet.

    Site changed content. Original ~5-year-old link, so not vandalism. Site still "not encyclopedic". (Forgot to sign.) Saintrain (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird. First time I followed the external link, the site was definitely as described above. Site's contents have changed twice since then and now self-described as 'content no longer available'. Saintrain (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    umarikadu.in

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 07:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    touring-talkies.com

    touring-talkies.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 08:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    answers.com

    answers.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 Mirrors of old Wikipedia articles, also mirrors of Allmusic and other sites. Just like Absolute Astronomy and any other WP mirror mentioned above, there is absolutely no reason to include this website in any article whatsoever. It usually isn't spammed by any individual editor, but I have every reason to believe that it should never be linked. Why the heck wasn't this blacklisted ages ago? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Answers.com does pull information from sources other than Wikipedia, so it can often be a valid source. It's important to avoid self-sourcing from it, but blacklisting is a bit harsh. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. answers.com does include Wikipedia articles and information abstracted from them, but it's a cut above most of the "websponge" sites that just have a bunch of database dumps on them. Links here do bear watching, however. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Songfacts.com

    songfacts.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 I have seen this site listed on various country music articles such as Old Things New, so I don't know if it's one user or several spamming it. A look into the site indicates that it is largely user submitted and therefore unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is massively linked, I would suggest some cleanup and more discussion on its use (is it all a result from spamming)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Some quick data (out of 3077 records):

    • Endorse this summary, I think it's stretching credulity to AGF with linking on this scale. Guy (Help!) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that this is not a site with pure user-generated content. Users may submit content but it is reviewed and fact-checked before being published; and it prefers interviews with artists for information, which is easy to check. From its origin and purpose, reliability would be important to it. The nature of the site and what it covers is that many links might be appropriate, and there is no way to distinguish without article by article review. The above accounts added a lot of links, but it's only roughly 700 out of 3077, and that might simply reflect several editors with an interest in music, who are aware of the site. After all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Resources lists it! If an editor is adding a lot of links that seem inappropriate, the editor can be warned to discuss in article Talk first, or even short-blocked if the editor is not responsive. Blacklisting is, by guidelines, the last resort. --Abd (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Abd, the three IPs with > 600 edits between them are SPA's. Moreover, 81.109.97.242 (talk · contribs) stopped editing on 21:08, 13 July 2009, where 86.26.123.204 (talk · contribs) started on 18:50, 14 July 2009; 86.26.123.204 stopped editing on 8 September 2009, where 86.26.123.197 (talk · contribs) started on 18:33, 9 September 2009 and edited until now. Though that does not prove that that is one single editor, I would find it very, very strange that three independent editors with the same provider stop and start exactly at the same time as one other stops, etc. etc. I would conclude that it is some 'semi static' IP. There are warnings on the talkpages of the first two, to which there was no response. Both Pvae and ndugu are usernames which are named (or edit themselves) on Songfacts, but without a checkuser we don't know whether they are the same, and seen the pattern, they appear to be different editors. Still, also those two have a strong air of a SPA around them.
    That a project is naming it, does not mean that it can not be spammed in an uncontrollable way. It might be a reason to be a bit slower with blacklisting.
    The last IP seems to discuss, which suggests that we may get somewhere. I agree with you that blacklisting should be a last resort, and that it may be a bit early, but the spamming should really stop now, and previous additions should be carefully examined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not contest claims that there is "spamming" involved, by the blacklist definition (not by real world standard usage) and generally agree with you, Beetstra, and, yes, this is the same editor as before. I could assist with encouraging this editor to throttle it back and take the time to make sure that Talk page approval is gained, or wikiproject support, or something beyond simply adding piles of links. But since another editor has "warned," and if the IP argued, this could be intervening in a "dispute," which, you know, I can't do, even though I'm often good at gaining voluntary compliance, it may be good-cop, bad-cop. I'll look and decide. But I'm already charged with ban violation for participating on the whitelist page, where there were no real "disputes," just a backlog. You do know, I assume, what I did before adding a lot of links to lyrikline.org. In any case, there are tools for dealing with that editor, if the editor is not cooperative. However, bad behavior by a single editor (or even a small number) shouldn't result in "punishment" for the rest of the editors, and, as you know, addressing all the existing links would be a big job, and a blacklisting would frustrate a lot of nonspammers. The question is whether or not this is the best use of our time (and our editor's time). If we have to go to blacklisting because of continual problems, then the wikiproject can provide information about how to get pages whitelisted, and might support going through existing links.

    surf.to

    surf.to: 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 Gayboylaca (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 free address forwarding site similar to dynip.

    Ridernyc (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    URL shorteners go to the global blacklist, so  Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 04:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done at Meta, this can be archived. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    costabrava-rentals.co.uk

    See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 05:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    bestofchatroulette.com at Chatroulette

    This site has been actively spamming article Chatroulette, esp.:

    Including most recently:

    • Readded 23 February[17]
    • Removed 3 March along a buncha spam[18]
    • Readded 5 March[19]
    • Removed 5 March 2010[20]
    • Readded 6 March[21]
    • Removed 6 March, this time with antispam comment[22] and user warning at User talk:Tag 33
    • Readded 7 March via an undo[23] (so we know the guy is aware he's breaking the rules and doesn't care)

    By its very parasitic nature, this site has no current or future value by itself for any encyclopedic article, has an obvious personal interest in repeatedly spamming Chatroulette against any rule in order to ride its current popularity for profit, and has done so. I see no reason NOT to block it one way or another. 62.147.25.111 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    e-castig.com

    e-castig.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

    Seen this being added by 86.171.89.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Typical "spam your link to earn points for prizes" site according to a quick google search. O Fenian (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    be-the-healthiest.com

    be-the-healthiest.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 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    7les.com

    7les.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 [24] this is being used by vandals (in this particular case, User:Wallflowers98, see WP:LTA/WF98) to avoid edit filters. 7les appears to be a URL shortening service. TinyURL is blocked, so it only seems logical that 7les is as well. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have instead brought this to the meta blacklist as it has come to my attention that URL shortening services should go there instead. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    lookatperu.com

    links

    NOTE: the above URL redirects to: www.247rep.com/machu_picchu/index.html

    accounts
    see also

    Multiple SPA accounts have been adding the link over more than a year, with no discussion or even edit summary despite warnings. Current IP is edit warring over the addition of the link, inserting a claim that it was sponsored by the government - however, the site is over-run with tourism spam with multiple adverts and links to travel recommendations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    Romania-Vacations

    specifically: Romania-Vacations.com

    This is a blog written by the locals in order to help visitors to find a more comprehensive resource on visiting Romania. It does NOT have a commercial purpose but an informative one, so listing this website on the spam list is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanweissenburg (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Romania-Vacations.com isn't blacklisted here, but rather on the meta blacklist, which is used for links added to many different projects rather than only English Wikipedia. If you want to ask for the link to be removed, that's the place to do so. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Control4

    specifically: Control4.com, for use in article Control4

    Link is to a company that produces well-known home automation hardware. May have been blacklisted due to a new user long ago unfamiliar with WP:CORP, who was persistently posting the same spammy incoherent article each time it got speedy deleted. The manufacturer itself has no notability concerns or spammy problems that would merit blacklisting. Reswobslc (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Abuse report is here: [25]; article was created by a WP:SPA and smells of processed meat products despite Reswobslc's efforts to tone it down. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • For being made of processed meat, their hardware actually does a good job of allowing me to remotely operate my thermostat and lights without any telltale odor of rotting flesh. I wonder how they solder pork to a circuit board. Look, I think you have made an honest mistake. Control4 is a brick-and-mortar company (maybe 250 employees?) manufacturing relatively common appliances sold through brick-and-mortar stores. They do not sell magic juice or get rich quick schemes. I rewrote the entire article, none of the original content is present, I have nothing to do with Control4 (other than owning a home in which I've installed several of their products). I have been creating articles for years: Reswobslc (talk · contribs), and feel quite certain I approximately understand Wikipedia's threshold for notability versus spam well enough to know that this is nowhere near it. Please investigate more thoroughly. If you believe there exists a possibility of deep linked spammy content (which someone else suggested but which I couldn't find), please consider whitelisting the home page, or talking back and allowing me to see such inappropriate content for myself (especially if you happen to have a full URL to it). Thanks Reswobslc (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    10bet.com

    specifically: 10bet.com, for use in the entry 10bet

    My name is Nitzan Moshe and I ‘m a part of 10Bet.com and I’m writing on behalf of the CEO Shalom Meckenzie; A few days ago after reviewing the bookmaker entry and evaluating it, I posted an entry about 10bet and linked it to/and from the bookmaker entry, when I tried to link to the site I found out that it’s in Wikipedia’s black list, I don’t understand why – because I think that as a well respectable online sportsbook that operates in the UK, it should be an integral part of the bookmaker entry, and from following reasons:

    • 10bet is licensed to operate in the UK and regulated by the UK Gambling Commission
    • As a part of the trusted legal bookmakers- 10bet is a member of [26]].
    • It has a seniority of 7 years in betting, and about 5 years in the online betting scene.
    • Thousands of players attend the site every month and it has over a half a million registered users from all over the world. From the UK alone the site has over 100,000 registered users.
    • It handles a various range of online bookmaking as fit to a well respectable site.
    • Every person who is interested in betting at 10Bet is checkout: that he is over 18 years of age and from a country that enables betting.

    In light of these facts I believe that 10bet should be included in Wikipedia's White List.NitzanM (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined. Your request does not address the reasons for blacklisting andwe typically do not remove sites at the request of their owners. Wikipedia users in good standing may request whitelisting of individual links. You personally should not be editing that article or any other article where you have a conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    NEFAC.net

    specifically: www.nefac.net/drupal6/index.php, for use in the entry NEFAC

    It is an article about NEFAC, customarly we offer links to the source in articles about organizations. Having researched the blacklist, it appears it was blocked at meta due to spam linking of an article on Anti-fascism. The various discussions (back in 2007) suggested that local whitelisting be requested. Hence I request unblocking for this purpose. I am not sure if this can be allowed, but I provide the link to the specific start page for use in the specific article, rather than to the entire domain, because if there is still concern about spam this should solve it. Also, am not an anarchist, so no COI ;) Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to post requests for a single link to be permitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Washington Examiner

    "examiner.com", one of the domains of the Washington Examiner is on the english blacklist. It's a news source. Cowlinator (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This one baffled me too. I don't see anything that would make examiner.com unreliable or necessary for a blacklist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examiner.com is not "one of the domains of the Washington Examiner"; rather it's a separate domain owned by the same media company that also owns the Washington Examiner, Baltimore Examiner, and San Francisco Examiner. All three of those are reliable sources - they are established newspapers with editorial boards and accountability. By contrast, Examiner.com will allow practically anyone to sign up as "an examiner" and contribute with minimal editorial oversight; in return they pay those "examiner" based on raw page views, rather than journalistic conduct. With a little poking around on their site you can find everything from rancid gossip to "factual" reports on what the Greys are doing this week. More to the point, if you are confused about this, it's because they deliberately foster confusion about the relationship between the reliable, established newspapers and the new-media-on-the-cheap operation that happens to be owned by the same company; that confusion is one of the reasons it's blacklisted. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Kendrick7, no, it was abused, amongst others with people with a conflict of interest, the setup of the site is a huge spam incentive (and de-blacklistings/whitelistings have been performed just for that reason!), and that is why it is on the spam blacklist. It is also generally a unreliable source, and the reliable data is generally also available elsewhere, and it is still up to editorial discretion at the whitelist for specific links, as someone put it in one of the discussions, sometimes a mosquito net is more efficient than swatting all the flies. I hope this explains. Delisting hence no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for those documents which pass WP:RS and are not replaceable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    caymac.com

    caymac.com has been blacklisted without any genuine reason or prior notification. We do not run a spam website and any reference to caymac.com form wikipedia is relevant to the article it is linked from and is not done in malice. Please remove it from the spam blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentleman00 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

     Not done Wrong. There were several warnings to stop spamming. As noted in the warnings, persistent attempts to spam Wikipedia with commercial links may result in the links being blacklisted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok,i have read the warnings through the links you provided. I did not get a chance to read them before the website was blacklisted since i was not aware of the location to which the warnings were sent. Otherwise, any link i referred to caymac.com, nytimes.com or any other website on the articles on wikipedia was not done with malice. I found them a necessary compliment to the articles i wrote on wikipedia. Otherwise, i have learnt the hard way because i didn't know it amounted to spam. It will only be fair if you requested for those websites to be removed from the blacklist and give them a second chance. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.67.62 (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyway, what is Wikipedia's policy on websites that have been blacklisted because an editor added links or reference to it in Wikipedia articles they wrote. Is it fair to keep the websites in the blacklist although its content does not violate Wikipedia's guidelines on accepted references. Does any link to any website carrying any advertisements constitute a commercial link? Please help me understand by providing interpretation in your experience, responsibility and commitment as a Wikipedia administrator because i do not trust the interpretations i will derive not to be misleading if you provide me with just links to such policies. Thank you very much for you help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.217.233 (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To Ohnoitsjamie: Please give direction on the pressing issues above for the sake of the Wikipedia community and prospective contributors to Wikipedia. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.218 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To Caymac representative: you can't wikilawyer to get your own way here. The policies are clearly outlined in WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To Ohnoitsjamie: I do not have any intention to wikilawyer or force an argument of any sort because it is highly inappropriate and irrelevant in this context. All my inquiries are in good faith and genuine and are only meant to find a solution to a misunderstanding. I trust you to be considerate enough to provide me with helpful solutions to the issues i presented without assuming that my inquiries are in bad taste. I have read the policies over and over again but unfortunately, i couldn't establish why you have treated Caymac so harshly. Please, deliberate positively since i do not wish for any more misunderstanding. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.208.203 (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You used multiple accounts and IPs to add commercial links that do not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. WP:EL and WP:COI also clearly state, do not add links to your own site. I don't know what else is there to explain, and consider the matter closed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The IPs were only different because i upload articles whenever they are ready and i have time. This may be in the office, at home, in a cybercafe...and therefore the IPs are not the same for that reason. Otherwise, i don't own caymac.com so you can not call it my site. Closing the matter while keeping the domain in the blacklist indefinately may not be a fair decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.224.146 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Liga 1 Romania

    As a new editor I feel slightly burned by my experience of trying to better a subject area. Not least as the process for communication and validation is painful to say the least...neverless, as requested here is an outline and request.
    My understanding is: Liga1.Gamebookers.com was commissioned by the Professional Football Association (LPF) as the official news source for the league.
    Therefore, I added the site to the Liga 1 page, and the individual Liga 1 team pages, to improve them (noteably the smaller teams who have very little external coverage).
    Since then, and in the twoing-and-frowing to have the Liga 1 pages reflect the inclusion of this official site I find the domain is on a blacklist.
    From what I know about Romanian football, one of the reasons for that (liga1.gamebookers.com) is referrenced by Liga 1 clubs is that many sites make the "official" claim, when Liga1.Gamebookers.com is the first and only such webpage.
    Surely such a link improves the reliability of the wikipedia index through inclusion?
    There is is benefit to having the site listed on the Liga 1 page because it is the official site (there are many listed throughout WIkipedia Liga1 page, and all the liga 1 team pages which make this claim. While there are many which are returning 404.
    From what I decipher the site is produced with submissions and content from the clubs, the more editorial content written daily by newspaper sport journalists (names shown on each article), which i cross referenced with newspaper by-lines.
    The clubs could add the link to their pages (they and the Football Association were the ones requesting the site), but as things stand the domain is blacklisted, so even they do not have that option.
    adrian recordings (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I do see that there was significant pushing, by you, of this link, amongst others on this wiki, which resulted in blacklisting this morning. I hope you realise that it is content we are after, not only links in the external links sections (and if I look, I think there are three editors involved in that decision to remove and blacklist). You might want to seek consensus first on talkpages (and I saw that is where you now posted).

    But, this is not blacklisted here, but on meta. You might either want to go to the local whitelist ( Defer to Whitelist) or to the metablack ( Defer to Global blacklist) (or m:User:COIBot/XWiki/liga1.gamebookers.com). Here no Declined --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com

    Original report leading to blacklisting: [27]. The argument presented is that examiner.com is not a reliable source, and that may be valid. However, I ran into this blacklisting when attempting to put an examiner.com article URL in Talk:Chronic_cerebrospinal_venous_insufficiency#DMSG_again, for discussion, WP:RS does not apply and the article may be useful for further research, it's up to the editors of the article. ArbComm decided last year that the blacklist was not to be used for content control like this. Please remove it, thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong, Examiner.com was abused, examiner.com is deliberately trying to appear a good source, de-blacklisting was requested for the sole reason of earning money, there is a huge spam incentive with the server, much of the content is also available elsewhere, and accidentally it is also not a reliable source. Three editors handling the request without any objection is also a form of consensus for blacklisting. Sometimes a mosquito net is more efficient than swatting all the flies. no Declined --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this should be for specific urls:  Defer to Whitelist. Also note, that the original report states more than only it not being an WP:RS. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    courchevel-webcams.com AND meribel-webcams.com

    Hello there. As a new editor I wanted to add the websites www.courchevel-webcams.com and www.meribel-webcams.com to the respective wintersports areas of courchevel and meribel. However the word webcam triggered a filter alarm block my suggestion. Both sites show the beauty of these areas and the vast skiing area. Thank you for adding these URLS to the whitelist. User: snowman201056 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowman201056 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined Advert-laden webcam links do not meet WP:EL guidelines for inclusion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Coolhockey.com

    This site has very good, unique content related to NHL hockey jersey histories. They have developed pages by team that describe in words and pictures the changes to each jersey over time, and over era's. This is really interesting stuff for hockey fanatics - just ask ANY Canadian :) An example link that I was trying to add as an external link to the Washington Capitals Wikipedia page is www dot coolhockey dot com/p53/Washington-Capitals-Team-History/pages.html. You can't find this detail of jersey evolution over time anywhere else as far as I've found, hence the request for inclusion. I contacted the site owners to ask why they were blacklisted, and their understanding was that an employee had previously attempted to add links to their jersey history pages in Wikipedia, but didn't know what they were doing and instead ended up requesting a link to the main site page, which is a hockey jersey online store, so it probably appeared like a spam link. So the site does sell hockey jerseys, but the links to the Jersey History Pages, like the one I input above, are just stories about jersey evoloution, not part of the storefront, and are really quite detailed and interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smedley8000 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined Commercial sites rarely meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines, and the fact that this link has been abusively spammed in the past cements the case for continued blacklisting. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Man, are you ever hard core on this. "has been abusively spammed in the past" - did you not read the reason above? It was apparently one attempt to add links to the jersey history page, but by mistake the inexperienced person added the homepage link - honest human error and not "abusive spam". And you shouldn't judge the fact that the site sells something in one place if the link being requested is outside of the selling area and is actually factual, original, interesting, relevant content. I mean, look at any source cited in Wikipedia - every site is commercial in some way, including news sites that generate revenue from ads plastered all over their editorial pages - the 'Official Washington Capitals' page link takes you to a site loaded full of ads and in fact has a talking advert right now urging people to click to bid on a signed hockey stick. Anyway, seems like a bit of a double standard, and seems like you have a one-strike rule - so if someone tries to add links in error (like the aforementioned low-skilled employee who input the wrong link detail), you don't just pull down that link (which is fair) and maybe investigate if this is "abusive" or not, you just say "strike one, you're out!" Again, the site has very unique, very relevant content on those pages, which don't have any ads directly on them - I don't understand the harsh line here.Smedley8000 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's also rare that we accept de-blacklisting requests from single purpose accounts, for obvious reasons. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the reason you gave for blacklisting is not quite correct. Two IP addresses were involved with adding the link into multiple articles, and ignored warnings on their talk pages from multiple editors letting them know that the links were not appropriate. Neither user chose to respond, but instead continued adding links. Later, the two IPs also both engaged in repeated attempts to blank out the report of the link on the WT:WPSPAM page. The blacklisting appears to be a result of both the abusive spamming as well as the tenacious behavior of blanking the report. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    projectsaviour.co.cc

    I wanted to link to this from an article I was creating for Project SAVIOUR. It's a humanitarian project. The domain is probably blocked as it is based on the free .co.cc, but as can be plainly seen, the site is original, verified content. As leader of Project SAVIOUR for this year, I request that this specific site be removed from Wikipedia's filters. --Superphysics (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This should be a whitelisting request. But I have added it to said whitelist based on this request. consider plus Added there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    The site subic-examiner.com is not affiliated with any unreliable news sources anywhere. It is part of an effort of practicing journalists in the Philippines, specifically the area of Subic Bay - once the site of a US naval base - to foster the growth of community journalism. If you ' examine' the site, this will be immediately obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigonzaga (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 March 2010 (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

    Should we split up the blacklist log into monthly sections? It's already 300k. I would, but I can't. MER-C 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll archive shortly. --Hu12 (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Archived most--Hu12 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was splitting up MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log into monthly sections. MER-C 04:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi!
    I agree, but please inform me before doing that, because I'd have to modify my log-searching tool.
    It would be nice, if you could do it somehow similar to meta. There should be one all-containing archive page like [28]. -- seth (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=350558994"