MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2013

= Proposed Additions =

oDesk


Multiple users spam link their user pages with links to this site. --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 23:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that adding links to one's own userpage constitutes abuse worthy of blacklisting. Is there evidence of spamming in main article space? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Register-her.com
Attack site listing women who have been targeted as enemies of men by the men's rights movement. The domain has been used to add attack text to the BLP Gina Barreca by. I see no useful purpose for this domain; it is a terrible attack site. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any useful purpose for this domain either, but then, that's also true for millions of other domains with no useful purpose. It's been abused once, but is there evidence of a persistent problem? We can't add every useless domain to the blacklist; if we did, Wikipedia would slow to a crawl every time someone tried to submit an edit. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

auditiondate.in
User has been adding links to his own website, I have reverted them and asked him not to re-add, but he has added them back again. LightGreenApple talk to me  06:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * as a spam-only account. The problem appears to have ceased since the spammer was blocked. Please re-report if you notice the abuse resuming. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Joomla article ip 182.72.119.66 keeps adding usjoomlaforce back!
The ip 182.72.119.66 keeps repeatedly adding the link usjoomlaforce.com to the Joomla page. Štefica Horvat (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also is spamming directseats.com ( Registrant: CAP Digisoft Solutions Inc)
 * Seems its a COI spam only IP (CAP DIGISOFT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD) spamming links to CAP Digisoft Solutions, Inc. sites. So rather than blacklisting these now, the --Hu12 (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also is spamming directseats.com ( Registrant: CAP Digisoft Solutions Inc)
 * Seems its a COI spam only IP (CAP DIGISOFT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD) spamming links to CAP Digisoft Solutions, Inc. sites. So rather than blacklisting these now, the --Hu12 (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems its a COI spam only IP (CAP DIGISOFT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD) spamming links to CAP Digisoft Solutions, Inc. sites. So rather than blacklisting these now, the --Hu12 (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems its a COI spam only IP (CAP DIGISOFT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD) spamming links to CAP Digisoft Solutions, Inc. sites. So rather than blacklisting these now, the --Hu12 (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

istanbulinvestments.com
IP has posted links to this site in 6 articles since July 2012:, , , , , Joja lozzo  03:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

sumgait.info
- it provides one-sided information, because it is owned by Armenian person based in Yerevan. Here is a proof, he puts biased information about Ramil Safarov, Sumgait pogrom, Nagorno-Karabakh War and other issues related to Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. Therefore I suggest putting that web-site and all its subdomains on blacklist to avoid content referring to sumgait.info (they are a lot). Best, Konullu (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

harlemshakeup.com


Several anon and registered users have attempted to include links to the website above in the prose of the Harlem shake (meme), Harlem shake (dance) and Harlem shake pages. 70.81.236.91 has been blocked for 31 hours for adding spam links to articles, and 70.82.13.53, 24.114.22.225 and Dvdlevy120 have all been warned for breaching external link policies yet the former user is still attempting to include a link to the site. I assume all three users are somehow interrelated, and that these users are IPhopping in an attempt to evade account blocks and successfully add the links. Perhaps a sockpuppet investigation and a range block is necessary if more IPs and users emerge. YuMaNuMa Contrib 08:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

fullboxoffice.blogspot.com


Various IP accounts are spamming links and to, and copyright-infringing text from, this blog. (The above list of IPs is not complete.) Examples:   ; check the IP contributions and LinkSearch results for more. Some other editors and myself have reverted many such edits but it looks to be an ongoing problem, and help with cleanup is requested. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

garsinfotech.com

 * Web application development
 * Web application development

Morphing IP from Tatacomm India spamming a web developer across a number of web development pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Spam pages
 * deleted 3 times
 * deleted 3 times


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Persistent spammer, I've had to remove it repeatedly from web development articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)



MER-C 11:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * , for now--Hu12 (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

radiondistics.altervista.org etcetera
Persistent spamming of Balun and one spam addition to Dipole antenna by a mobile IP user located in the same country, Italy, as the company that manufactures the product being promoted. Page protection is a possibility, but I believe, because of the location of the company, the IPs, and the single-minded focus of the spammer, that this spamming campaign involves a conflict of interest and blacklisting will have less effect on innocent parties than page protection. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

An edit filter has been placed; see WP:ANI. That may suffice. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The edit filter mentioned above failed. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now blacklisted it, so let's hope this works. De728631 (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Link URL may be evolving; I have updated edit filter to accommodate. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 09:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Something slipped through. I reverted the most recent addition of the link. Blackmane (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A letter has been changed in the domain name. I have posted the alias above. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure why [a-zA-Z] wasn't working in filter, reducing to (a|s) for now... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 17:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

cur.lv
The site purports it is "the smart way to monetize your content" and user:Hillmankat seems to have a few sites that he's hoping will help monetize him. Please see his edit history. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect site outside of scope of use for WikiMedia.  (m:User:COIBot/XWiki/cur.lv).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

makelifeexciting.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 12:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to have ceased. no evidence of recent abuse. report is --Hu12 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

tesla.li (Phishing)
An IP User:24.228.43.247 has twice (here and here) replaced the legitimate link to the Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe (teslasciencecenter.org) with (tesla.li) at the article Wardenclyffe Tower. tesla.li has an identical landing page as the legitimate site, including links for making donations. tesla.li is almost certainly a phishing web site. Please blacklist this link ASAP before someone gets hurt. Thank you. - MrX 01:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Was reverted and no evidence of continued additions. report is --Hu12 (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

survivingmesothelioma.com and related spam

 * Domains:


 * Accounts:


 * Deleted material:
 * My Cancer Place
 * Health Search Plus
 * Cancer Monthly
 * Paul Krauss (twice deleted)
 * File:Paul kraus.JPG


 * Related domains:


 * Possibly related domains:


 * Domain registration address:
 * Cancer Monthly, Inc.
 * 14460 New Falls of Neuse Road
 * Raleigh, NC 27614

Registered agent's address:
 * 4600 Marriot Drive, Suite 400
 * Raleigh, NC 27612

-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to have ceased. report is currently --Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

sachinsjoshi.com attack page on Redbox
Multiple IPs, likely same person. Many edits by one IP who appeared to have been blocked for another reason. This appears to be an attack page associated with Sachin S. Joshi of Redbox. sachinsjoshi.com probably not useful on Wikipedia. How likely that the owner of sachinsjoshi.com would just rename the website and resume adding it to Wikipedia?



-- Jim1138 (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) diff 27 Feb 2013 74.92.226.109
 * 2) diff 16 July 2012 206.188.60.100
 * 3) diff 19 July 2012 68.178.97.106
 * 4) diff 19 July 2012 184.78.226.208
 * 5) diff 20 July 2012 184.78.226.208
 * 6) diff 21 July 2012 184.78.226.208
 * 7) diff 7 Dec 2012 184.78.226.208
 * 8) diff 24 Dec 2012 184.78.226.208
 * 9) diff 7 Jan 2013 174.255.161.81
 * 10) diff 5 Feb 2013 174.255.176.253
 * 11) 26 Feb 2013 174.239.224.200
 * Seems to have ceased. no evidence of recent abuse. Report is --Hu12 (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

servicescleans.com


Persistent spam campaign active for at least a couple of months (Edits can be traced from October 2012, with at least a few instances every couple of days). IP editors from what seems to be the 69.235.81.1/16 block blank (part of) an article and replace it with the above spam links.

I would list the various instances, but the range contributions tool demonstrates the situation quite well. The edits are easily identifiable - the summary is ALL CAPS and fairly consistent (Examples: "NICOLAS CLEANS.O.C!! ", "/* PROMOTIONS - NICOLAS CLEANS.O.C!! - IN */", "/*SERVICES CLEANING*/"). The range itself is to large and to busy to issue a rangeblock. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

grook.net
This self-published blog formats its blog entries so as to look like legitimate engineering sources, which results in good-faith IP editors adding them to various external links sections.

I just removed 8 links, all recent.

(BTW, is there a way to earch for links after they have been removed? External links search only finds current links.) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See the COIbot link at the top of this section. It reports accounts/IPs that have spammed the link, as well as the individual contributions, up to the date COIbot did the scan. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

HowToDietEasily.com




Multiple IPs are inserting this link into multiple articles. See QR code. Glrx (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ on Meta m:User:COIBot/XWiki/howtodieteasily.com--Hu12 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

ebookatron.com




Multiple IPs inserting into various articles. PDFs of Public domain books offered for $0.99 (since they are publi domain there is usually a free alternative available). Herostratus (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are also other IPs that added this link:




 * I think I recall seeing others, but those are the ones that I can find that I personally reverted. - SudoGhost 03:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ongoing persistent abuse, --Hu12 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

linkfame.com






IPs are replacing links to various porn sites with links to linkfame.com; appears to be an affiliate link. Trivialist (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And some of my deletions were just reverted; I've added diffs to the list. Trivialist (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite a lot of long term cross project spamming;
 * fr:Special:Contributions/79.172.242.193
 * fr:Special:Contributions/31.7.187.248
 * en:Special:Contributions/31.7.187.248
 * it:Special:Contributions/84.255.215.38
 * es:Special:Contributions/94.46.240.232
 * zh:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * da:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * de:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * en:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * es:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * fi:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * it:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * ja:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * nl:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * no:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * pl:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * pt:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * ru:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * sv:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * tr:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * vi:Special:Contributions/Pdstaff
 * I've cleaned some of the multi-project spam, however --Hu12 (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

zaiqa.com

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Feb 1


 * Sites spammed

Other sites spammed:






 * Spammers


 * See also
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Lukmanplz

MER-C 11:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

essays4india.blogspot.in
User and his/her other account  have been adding links to pages in essays4india.blogspot.in (possibly his/her personal blog) on daily pages  on the portal Portal:Current events on a semi-regular basis and has received several warnings. -- Francis Pontifex ( talk ) 12:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * More user names are listed at Sockpuppet investigations/Cvpatel95. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * , report back if continues. --Hu12 (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Compromised site
This site needs blacklisted ASAP as it is hosting Trojan. Werieth (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * HTML:Iframe-ZG [Trj]
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

silkroadv5p5cbl6.onion
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silk_Road_(marketplace)&diff=549062869&oldid=549041550 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silk_Road_(marketplace)&diff=549035351&oldid=548630898

This is *not* Silk Road, the real and multiply cited URL is on the page already (silkroadvb5piz3r.onion), this is a phishing site (I visited it, it asks for the user details, including pin. This would allow whoever owns the domain to steal bitcoins). It was "cited" by one user with a single-post recently created wordpress blog, but this has obviously been created for the purpose. Please blacklist this domain. Quantum Burrito (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Additions of working links should already be impossible due to the rule '\bsilkroad.*\.onion\b' on the blacklist. Is that link not clickable on that page?  (added note:)  I see it is not clickable.  If that editor returns, I would suggest that they get an indef block without further warning.  (/note  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Looking further into this:
 * and
 * Are, obviously, making a large number of edits (were those genuinly correct, or just random number changes) to become autoconfirmed, and then add the links they want. This is very abusive.  I'll stand with my suggestion below.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are, obviously, making a large number of edits (were those genuinly correct, or just random number changes) to become autoconfirmed, and then add the links they want. This is very abusive.  I'll stand with my suggestion below.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are, obviously, making a large number of edits (were those genuinly correct, or just random number changes) to become autoconfirmed, and then add the links they want. This is very abusive.  I'll stand with my suggestion below.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

.onion
Again. We've talked about this before (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2011) .. for me, still, .onion links, except for some very rare exceptions, do NOT comply with our external links guidelines at all, nor is there a lot of information to reference on these sites (reference links on a .onion site will be quite rare). On the other hand, there is regularly 'abuse' of these links, and they are for many editors near impossible to check whether they are genuine. Let the whitelist handle what is suitable, the rest can, IMHO, be blocked. I'll repeat what I said in the previous discussion: "If I go through the additions of .onion sites, I see that most of it is being pushed - hard. Several established editors (including now me) have removed these links, over and over, as inappropriate. In several cases there are, arbitrary, linkfarms containing a handful of .onion links, unencyclopaedic, and unnecessary. These removals are undone, over and over, by a large number of SPA's (mainly hit and run IPs). That is the type of abuse that gets links onto blacklists, especially since the proper use of these links is minimal. Whitelisting these specific links, which have a reasoned and reasonable use, can take care of the few links that are of interest, keeping the (slowly getting massive) abuse low ..". --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is this, like, the fourth time we've discussed this? See also the section below . Like .co.cc, there is no good reason to keep .onion off the blacklist when the whitelist can take care of the 2 or 3 legitimate URLs with that subdomain. . ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

sitetrail.com


Seems to be escalating their attempts to get links, both through external link spam and refspam. See, , , , ,. Each is a different account, all created with apparently pseudo "real" names, all with edits solely to promote sitetrail.com through spam. Can't imagine they would have resorted to this particular plan of attack unless they had experience spamming either this site or another one here in the past. user: j (talk)  08:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Continuing;
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

jewiki.net


Continually added by blocked HaTikwa using both sockpuppets and IP's. This is being done across a great many articles and has been ongoing for a while. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * With respect, I disagree entirely.This is no spam, but useful additional information. Let the readers decide, not the hounders and their sockpuppets. - J ewiki &#38; W iki pedian (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/HaTikwa
 * Accounts

Long term disruption, spamming, sock puppetry and block evasion. --Hu12 (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

All these accounts are sockpuppets of Michael Kühntopf who wants to spam wikipedia with links to his own mini-wiki, called jewiki? In the german wikipedia, Kühntops account is blocked indefinite. Now he tries his spamming and vandalism in the english wikipedia. 188.104.207.128 (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Long term disruption by a particularly relentless group of related accounts. I don't think a single person controls all these accounts but the effort is clearly coordinated and has been coordinated for years, using multiple accounts on multiple wikis. Pichpich (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

buddylead.com


Affiliate site repeatedly added to Raging Stallion, COLT Studio Group, Falcon Entertainment, and Hot House Entertainment by multiple IP editors. By the way, someone might want to fix the copyvio on COLT Studio Group and block User:Johnsfer and User:ETMedia. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Clear abuse, --Hu12 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

dyingscene.com
The site features music news and interviews. I'm not sure why it's blacklisted as the log doesn't even state why. -Joltman (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was blacklisted due to being spammed by multiple accounts. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2010 as well as other entries when you search for "dyingscene" in the search box at the top of this page. At the time, the site also consisted primarily of user-generated content, which isn't acceptable for linking on Wikipedia. Not sure why the log reason is blank in this case.
 * If you can make a case that this site can be considered a reliable source, please do. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

grimedigital (dot) com


Needed this for grimedigital.com/artists/amplify-dot for Amplify Dot. Seems legit to me. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like you need to allow just one link to be included in an article, and you don't need the entire domain removed from the blacklist.
 * to request white-listing of a specific link for use in a specific article. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

triestelibera.org


This has been removed by a POV-driven intervention of an Italian moderator onto English wikipedia: it's in no way justified (see discussion on the page) as it represents a Movement of more than 1.000 Triestine citizens. Free Territory of Trieste It needs to be considered safe for the very same reasons. 149.126.139.245 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the global blacklist since your pov-pushing campaign has gone crosswiki, there's nothing to remove here and, ofc, I wont remove it from the gbl. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Therefore, but don't get your hopes up unless other administrators there besides Vituzzu are willing to consider your request. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

DBO English Project Website
This link is needed for the following Wikipedia article: Dragon Ball Online. I don't know why this domain was blocked but it seems fine to me. The domain is now owned by someone else and used for a different website, it has no relation to any previous claims made on wiki talk pages. Hei Liebrecht 18:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=267907304#dbmmo.com Werieth (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Those abuses are from long ago, if there aren't continued anymore, it would make sense to unblock it. Hei Liebrecht 19:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 2009 is not "long ago", and abuses haven't continued because the site is blacklisted. From these facts, there is no logical path to arrive at the conclusion that "it would make sense to unblock it."


 * to allow linking to a specific page on that site in the Dragon Ball Online article. I suggest whitelisting dbmmo.com/about, because there doesn't seem to be any other page on that site that would be appropriate for use as a reference or an external link. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Stansberryresearch.com
I was not able to figure out why this site is blocked. The article on the man who runs this investment research company, Porter Stansberry, says that he produced an online video that (according to links) was very widely viewed, but there was no link. So I found the link, which is at the domain in question, but I couldn't save the edit because it's considered "spam". Which doesn't make sense to me. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The site was blocked in 2008 as part of an extraordinarily massive attempt by Agora Publishing to spam Wikipedia with links for just about every domain associated with them. The case is documented at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Oct 2.


 * If just one link is needed, and hardly any more are anticipated as useful for referencing in Wikipedia articles, then to white-list specific links on that domain. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

www eutimes net
The archives show someone complaining back in 2010 about some IP address using a lot of links to the place. Then in 2011 a discussion about an unrelated site www eutimes com which is a dead link, whatever there before not there now. http://www eutimes net/about/ states "European Union Times is an international newspaper based in Europe with operational branches in America and Canada." It seems like a legitimate newspaper. I don't see any reason listed why it would be on the blacklist.  D r e a m Focus  03:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You should look at that site a little bit longer, e.g., www.eutimes.net/2011/11/obama-issues-ron-paul-kill-order-as-russia-prepares-for-war/ --j⚛e deckertalk 15:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The about page and the main page look like a legitimate newspaper.  Close and ignore this please.   D r e a m Focus  15:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . ~Amatulić (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Petitions.WhiteHouse.gov

 * I wanted to add the link from Petitions page of White House, but Wikipedia says that it is added to blacklist and can not be referred. I think is is quite reliable source to be referred in Wikipedia articles, therefore please remove it from spam-blacklist. Best, Konullu (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly what facts, in which articles, could a petition site serve as a reliable reference for? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles that discuss particular petitions ought to be able to link to that petition, either using the facility or as an external link. A reasonable reader may wish to read the petition itself.  Examples include 2012 state petitions for secession, Carmen Ortiz and even Death Star.  I'm betting there are probably at least a dozen more.  TJRC (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll bet there are even more than a dozen articles which don't discuss a petition but to which petitioners have attempted, or would like, to add a link to their petition in violation of our external links and referencing policies. Notable petitions are rare enough that whitelisting them on an article-by-article basis might be a better way to go. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But the determination shouldn't be whether there are more spam attempts than non-spam attempts. The determination should be on whether the spam attempts are so pervasive that they cannot be addressed with ordinary anti-vandalism efforts, and therefore justify obstructing legitimate editing by putting it in a the blacklist. TJRC (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The response to the previous removal request for this domain suggests reiterates what I wrote above, and notes that it was originally added as a pre-emptive measure. So perhaps there's no hard evidence that links to this site have been added in violation of policy, though there are at least two or three editors (myself, User:Beetstra, and whoever added the site to the blacklist) who strongly suspect that they would.  If the site is removed from the blacklist, it would be good if one or more editors did some regular link searches for it over the next few months to check whether it is indeed being used appropriately. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I do not remember specific examples, I am sure that there have been petition pages that were pushed/spammed (i.e., linked for the sole purpose to gather more votes, i.e. a form of promotion). It may not have been one of the petitions on petitions.whitehouse.gov, but it happened for multiple petition sites (I recall that the British official petition site had one occasion).  I think that was the reasoning behind the blanket blacklist of a number of petition sites (and petitions.whitehouse.gov may not even have been in the original report, but covered by the blanket '\bpetition(?:online|s)?\b'), and I think it should be under that blanket.  For specific cases, I would consider using the whitelist to whitelist the specific petition that is needed (which will be very, very few anyway).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The petition blackisting began in January 2008. it initially covered only petitions.com, which no doubt had some abuse. About a year later it was expanded to snag any domain name with "petitions" in it. However, it clearly was not intended to cover official petitions to the U.S. executive branch under petitions.whitehouse.gov, which was not launched until September 2011. This still looks to me like a tuna net snagging a dolphin by mistake. Absent any evidence that the White House petitions site is being abused, it ought not to be mechanically disallowed, requiring manual intervention anytime an editor legitimately wishes to point to it. TJRC (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no good reason to allow petition sites - all that happens is that well-meaning newbies get bitten by citing there's a petition about it" to the petition, and spammers abuse it. Individual links to a designated homepage can be whitelisted for notable petition sites. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . I believe regex like  (without the trailing \b) should allow only the home page without allowing linking to any subpage. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

\be?howto[_\-0-9a-z]+\.com\b

 * Relevant addition discussion

Per the above discussion, this spam filter was tacked onto one meant to block ehowto___.com spam sites, with the added benefit of blocking various other howto... domains that grace the blacklist. However, this ban affects a bunch of legitimate domains for things that happen to have "how to" in the name. To pull a couple of a hat:


 * How to Create a Mind – howtocreateamind.com
 * How to Destroy Angels (band) – howtodestroyangels.com
 * How to Train Your Dragon (film) - howtotrainyourdragon.com
 * How to Deal – howtodealmovie.com

Granted, some of these may redirect to other domains at this point, but there is a pattern here: we have plenty of article for things with titles or names that start with "How to," and those things sometimes have domains that match this filter. This means that in its current state the filter is likely to match a significant amount of legitimate links and present an unwelcome obstruction to legitimate editing. Therefore, I propose that this filter be removed either entirely, or be amended to. The latter option matches the spam domains mentioned in the original request, but is unlikely to block legitimate links. — daranz [ t ] 06:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have changed it to '\behowto[_\-0-9a-z]+\.com\b', so it does not blanket-catch all the links that start with 'howto'. All the previously blacklisted 'howto' links are still there.  I hope this solves the situation.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's much better.  — daranz [ t ] 08:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

FoodFacts
"This is our second email requesting to be unblocked from Wikipedia. A few years back, the marketing person at FoodFacts.com, who was at that time Mark Pastva, began editing other Wiki pages with information from FoodFacts.com. It was completely inappropriate and caused the url, foodfacts.com to be blocked from Wikipedia.   Mark Pastva was fired from FoodFacts.com and since that time FoodFacts.com has become far more professional in its marketing efforts. We have a new marketing manager who has a broad understanding of  Wikipedia and its mandate as well as what it means to a company’s credibility. At the time we were originally blocked I had sent an email through to the Wikipedia editors.  Due to the advice and recommendation of the old marketing person, the email attempted to strong arm Wikipedia into unblocking us.  I admit completely to not having a complete understanding of the Wikipedia mission and can candidly say that the employee responsible for the abuse on our account and my misunderstanding of the occurrences is no longer employed by FoodFacts.com. I can assure Wikipedia, that if given another chance, FoodFacts.com will be a responsible member of the Wikipedia community and will abide by any and all Wikipedia rules for its community. Thank you for the opportunity to enter this appeal and request the unblocking of foodfacts.com. We would very much appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience. Thank you."

The above was received via OTRS (2013021110008149). Email appears to be the site owner, however; I don't have any experience with the blacklist so I'm bringing it here. ~ Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 15:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't unblock at the request of someone affiliated with a site, especially with a past history of extensive spamming and sockpuppetry from "Stan," who appears to be the current president of the site. Furthermore, these types of contributions are not of use to Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, that's fair. Thanks for the quick response, I'll email Stan back and let him know. ~  Matthewrbowker  Make a comment! 18:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * closing.--Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

idebate.org
The site is an international organization about policy debate competitions. The original removal discussion back in 2007 was about a wiki which was a sub domain of the site Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1. It looks like the wiki no longer exists and the site has use in referencing articles on Policy debate. The dispute which prompted the blacklisting has long since past.--Salix (talk): 20:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . Would you please provide some examples of pages on idebate.org that could conceivably be used as article citations? It looks like an online debate forum, consisting of user-generated content, and as such it would qualify as a link normally to be avoided. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

airtet.in
some one spammed this website i don't know what he expected exactly this happens almost 6 months ago i know its very hard to remove from wiki spam list still i want to try — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.44.213 (talk • contribs)
 * So that you can do this a lot more? MER-C 10:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . No valid removal rationale given. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

that domain blocked when the time of no knowledge about wiki terms conditions all the spam about this domain was educational purpose. now i feeling guilty about spam. please remove that domain form wiki sbl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.44.213 (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

avoiceformen.com (again)
I believe and exception should be made for a voice for men on the men's rights movement page. avoiceformen is a men's rights movement organization that can be legitimately discussed on this page. It is also one of the most prominent of the men's rights organizations that are currently active. It should not be included as a source however. But it would be appropriate to include an external link when other sources mention that organization. For example, the following two sources are both newspaper articles that mention the A Voice For Men website. One of these articles is written about AVFM posters being ripped down as the entire subject. The sources are and I am only requesting an exception for this website for this one page, and only to be used as an external link for when other sources discuss it in relation to the men's rights movement. Here is also a new york times article that mentions a voice for men

Yhwhsks (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This site has already been discussed in the section about avoiceformen.com above. And whatever independent coverage the site has received isn't relevant to the blacklisting. You can always link to other reliable sources. to request white-list exceptions for specific pages rather than the entire site. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

netzsch-thermal-analysis.com
We were blacklisted some time ago, because one of our competitors, the owner of www.thermal-analysis.com, were blacklisted because of spamming. The regex entry of his domain in the blacklist is targeting our domain also, because it bans every domain which includes the term "thermal-analysis.com". Since we are not responsible or part of the company, which domain is "www.thermal-analysis.com" in any way, we would like to propose a removal of our domainname from the blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.243.200.14 (talk • contribs)
 * Oh, wait. This is on meta.  Either  (for adaptation of the rule), or for whitelisting here: .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I declined the whitelist request. We need to remember that the whitelist page is for request to permit linking to a single page on a site, not the whole site. Maybe we can change the template to make it clearer. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

avoiceformen 3
This site presents a political view different from feminism and, despite attempts to censor it, got a wide audience. For example it was wrongly (and maybe fraudulently) inserted into the list of hate sites mandated by Norton Symantec, who has been alerted and fixed the error (this is explained on that web-site in an article with title "Norton Symantec folds, then hides" that I cannot link because it is blocked by wikipedia)  As a reader of that site, I think that wikipedia too should fix the mistake. AnnSec (talk)
 * See discussions higher up on this page . This was spammed, including lin-hijacking, and the owner of the site himself requests de-blacklisting .. that shows why this list exists.  Wikipedia is not the place for spammers or editors who want to link to the site for promotional purposes.  Wikipedia links to sites when there is a need and a merit for it.  Again,, you can ask for specific pages which merit linking on the whitelist,.
 * By the way, you can post the link to that article here, if you leave off the initial 'http://', so that it is not linkable. Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

examiner.com blacklisted


Ladies, why is examiner.com blacklisted? I saw a news story on there, looked legit, not spammy. I looked them up, and found out that "Examiner.com is a network of locally focused web pages, offering blog-like content from national and local contributors that the company calls "examiners." The site also offers a digest of news headlines from local news outlets and the Associated Press." Looks somewhat legit.

Should it be blacklisted? Perhaps other people know something I don't... -- Y not? 16:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you do an archive search? Rd232 talk 19:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a removal request, it is . See the archives as well as MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew you'd set me straight. No I did not.  Thanks. -- Y not? 02:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

=Duplicate entries== editrequest

The following entries are listed twice in the blacklist. One of the duplicates should be removed. \b211manchesterfacts\.com\b \b43jonesborofax\.com\b \b50newyorkcityfacts\.com\b \b51oxenfordfacts\.com\b \b5berkeleyfacts\.com\b \b77alexandriafacts\.com\b \babsolutechinatours\.com\b \ballsitesexcavations\.com\.au\b \bbargainmailorder\.com\b \bblacksonblondes\.com\b \bboatville\.com\b \bderbylimo\.com\b \bfared\.com\b \bfluoridealert\.org\b \bfoxmotorcycle\.com\b \bglobalizationautomation\.com\b \bgramsrecipe\.com\b \bhankville\.com\b \binsidelouisville\.com\b \bkompenz\.ru\b \bnuibavi\.com\b \bnu-tritionhealthfitness\.com\b \brabbit-vibrators\.com\.au\b \brufed\.com\b \bsampleged\.com\b \bscrewville\.com\b \bthewhiteglovemover\.com\.au\b \btijuanarxstore\.com\b \bworldrugbyshop\.co\.uk\b \byiser\.com\b —Psychonaut (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

On meta
\baffiliatefuture\.com\b \b67\.55\.108\.167\b \bpillowholiday\.info\b \bwanttoknow\.info\b \bglobal-offensive-codes\.com\b \bslinky\.me\b These are already on meta's blacklist. Werieth (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no pressing need for edits requests like these and can be problematic. closing --Hu12 (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Silk Road (marketplace)
We have a unique problem on this article. The website in question is something called a hidden service. As a result of this, phishing attempts are really easy because the actual url is difficult to memorize. This also makes users much more likely to rely on our article in order to get to the website. Phishing attacks have occurred on this article and real losses have resulted from them. We have a duty to protect our users from being victimized by theft.

The solution that was agreed upon at ANI was to remove the url and blacklist it. For whatever reason, this isn't working. I reinserted this addition; I'm not sure when it was removed or why it is not working propperly. Is the SBL the best technological solution here? If so, how do we get it to work right? ⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  00:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The blacklist seems to be working properly. That link went through because it doesn't start with 'http', so it isn't a live link. In cases like that a blacklist has no effect.


 * Also, I just noticed we had \bsilkroad.*\.onion\b in the blacklist twice. I removed one just now.


 * We have had a couple discussions in the past about blacklisting all of *.onion. I really can't see why not. The collateral damage would be negligible, and any legitimate .onion sites can always be whitelisted. I mean, we already blacklist all of *.co.cc for similar reasons. The .onion domain is even a better candidate for blacklisting because that domain requires special software, violating WP:ELNO. The domain should be blacklisted on meta, but absent that, blacklisting it on en-Wiki would potentially do a lot of good and harm nothing. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * .onion to blacklist per the other discussion above. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

= Discussion =

azlyrics.com


Why was this one blacklisted? It seems to be among the lighter-weight lyric sites around (i.e. not full of extraneous javascript and videos and clutter). I poked around for at least half an hour trying to find a record of the original request but the log search is terribly unfriendly to the uninitiated and at least one archive-searching tool linked to repeatedly on several pages seems to be defunct. --Arvedui (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably because they're unlicensed ("All lyrics provided for educational purposes only.") Trivialist (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the log cites WP:LINKVIO as the reason for blacklisting; a site with no legitimate use on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)