MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2009

= Proposed Additions =

Attorney spam
A little while ago, I tagged and bagged several dozen advertisements disguised as new User and User Talk pages. They've all been deleted and reported to WP:SPI (see Sockpuppet investigations/Nakesha7c), but new ones still keep getting created (see User:Melodiwo1 and User talk:Katlynloy. So I thought I'd be proactive and just submit the spam links for the blacklist:



--Calton | Talk 07:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional
Addendum: Sorry, another couple just cropped up: --Calton | Talk 03:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks Calton--Hu12 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, thank you, as you've saved me from having to play Whack-a-Mole. --Calton | Talk 17:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've played whack-a-mole and its no fun. glad to help, if more pop up, please report. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum 2: Sorry, I overlooked one, plus another just cropped up: --Calton | Talk 04:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Addendum 2: Sorry, I overlooked another one, plus another's been cropping up: --Calton | Talk 12:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

porn site referral spam
An IP just added a bunch of links to porn star articles in the form of: followed by long referral codes.
 * join.kobetai.com
 * join.clubamyried.com
 * join.pornstars-ambermichaels.com
 * join.transexualstarr.com
 * join.amberpeachraw.com
 * join.clubangelcassidy.com
 * join.clubangeldark.com

Can some regex guru figure out a way to block such links without blacklisting the entire site? I think these are "official" sites.

Thanks, -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could blacklist track/MTA5MzU2OjM6 as that fragment seems to be in all the links. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you or someone else more knowledgeable either do this or else show me how to do it? I'm good at plain-vanilla blacklisting (i.e., bexample.\com\b) but not the advanced stuff. I don't understand regex -- I just plagiarize what others have done.


 * Also, I can't clean up porn-related pages (this is a shared computer and it's not wise for me to go to those pages); if there's any of this junk still out there, can someone remove it? Thanks, -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't adding a variation of "join" work? might catch other non-porn spamlinks.--Hu12 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This might work join\..*\.com/track/[A-Za-z0-9]{10,} Blacklists join.anything.com/track/a string of alphanum characters longer than 10 chars

Triplestop x3  01:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

afterelton.com
This site is being used (among other uses) to identify people as gay or as having gay relatives, etc. See for instance Special:Contributions/Shojego. Looks like clear BLP violations. We still have a lot of links to the site. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive296
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive296
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is polemical and not an appropriate source; it also seems to be subject to abuse by the accounts you list. This will result in some disgruntlement if we add it, but it is clearly not somethign we should be linking widely, if at all. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Adbrite referral spam
AdBrite is a major player in the Internet advertising business. While its overall domain should not be blacklisted, we have a spammer adding links with his referral code and it should be blacklisted.

URL:
 * http: //www.adbrite.com/mb/landing_both.php?spid=121235&afb=468x60-2

Spam accounts sharing this referral ID: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can figure out a regex for URLs that include the code, it would seem sensible to blacklist that. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a regex expert; but presumably it would look similar to the paypal referral regex, so possibly something like this:
 * Not sure if it should also end in  ... I would think it would need that, but the existing entries for the paypal referral don't use that at the end, so maybe it's not needed here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More accounts
 * The the general blacklisting of the sites link is ✅. I've whitelisted this specific link,  http://www.adbrite.com/index.php , for use in AdBrite article only. Variations other than the format above, will not work or be linkable.--Hu12 (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The the general blacklisting of the sites link is ✅. I've whitelisted this specific link,  http://www.adbrite.com/index.php , for use in AdBrite article only. Variations other than the format above, will not work or be linkable.--Hu12 (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The the general blacklisting of the sites link is ✅. I've whitelisted this specific link,  http://www.adbrite.com/index.php , for use in AdBrite article only. Variations other than the format above, will not work or be linkable.--Hu12 (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

redtube.com


Currently on the xlinkbot list, I think it should be upgraded here as there are some non-new users adding it. It's even led to an OTRS complaint. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jan_1.5
 * See also - WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/redtube.com


 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

chinatouristmaps.com
Frequently spammed across numerous pages; recent examples just from en:Mount Huang are —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjanag (talk • contribs) 03:09, 8 July 2009


 * Accounts

✅--Hu12 (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

learnislamicfinance.com
Frequently spammed on Islamic finance and Islamic economic jurisprudence. XLinkBot insufficient as the company keeps reverting the bot's reverts. Doubtful that there could be any legitimate links to/use of the website on Wikipedia. Diffs:             --Cybercobra (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Prodego  talk 04:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

adbrite.com affiliates
Please see the report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. The root URL is legitimate to link in the article AdBrite, but there are frequent additions of affiliate links. It would be very useful if all links starting with adbrite.com/mb could be blacklisted, as those are affiliate-tagged links that should not be listed anywhere in Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 18:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Extreme abuse surveys

 * See also - Sockpuppet_investigations/ResearchEditor/Archive
 * See also - Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor
 * See also - Articles_for_deletion/Extreme_Abuse_Survey
 * See also - Administrators' noticeboard case
 * See also - off site canvasing on google groups
 * Articles
 * Extreme Abuse Surveys
 * Ex-treme Abuse Survey
 * Extreme Abuse Survey
 * Extreme abuse surveys
 * Extreme abuse survey
 * Accounts
 * Extreme Abuse Survey
 * Extreme abuse surveys
 * Extreme abuse survey
 * Accounts

✅--Hu12 (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

CITS Guilin




Big long list of spammers, usually one link per spammer. MER-C 12:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)



Forgot one. MER-C 08:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

jwsuretybonds.net

 * link


 * account

The same IP user who was originally adding jwsuretybonds.com (which was previously blacklisted), is now adding a link to jwsuretybonds.net - hiding the link addition as a ref tag. 

The site exists primarilly to promote a business (multiple links from the added "ref" to buy bonds) - any secondary value is minor. Also, the added ref does not directly support the content to which it presumably was claimed to cite. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * . Previous blacklist case? do you have a link to it?
 * Also IP's adding jwsuretybonds.com have added the following;
 * Accounts
 * This site is clearly a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * This site is clearly a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * This site is clearly a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * This site is clearly a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * This site is clearly a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * This site is clearly a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * This site is clearly a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This site is clearly a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The .com version of the site was blacklisted by on Nov 14, 2008 (blacklisting / log).
 * It appears to have been done based on postings to his talk page, now archived at User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive13 --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * jwsuretybonds.net ✅. Obvious continued abuse, and an attempt to subvert the previous blacklisting of jwsuretybonds.com.

I will be putting the link back up. Feel free to take it down, but I will be happy to put it back up just as often.
 * Threats of continued disruption are Never acceptable. Thanks for the report. --Hu12 (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

russian-services.com spam
Indefinitely blocked editor User:Greenlakes has been continuing to insert POV and COI statements and using his site as references using sockpuppets. It's clear blocking isn't going to be any help as he continues to use proxies to add his link spam. Main articles that are targeted:  GraYoshi2x► talk 19:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Causation in English law
 * Causation (law)
 * English criminal law
 * English contract law
 * Consideration
 * List of University of Essex people
 * List of companies of Russia
 * Law of the European Union
 * Agree blocking hasn't stopped the abuse, and proxy attempts to use brute force over multiple article leaves few options. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

New linkspam addresses:  GraYoshi2x► talk 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (including this one as a prevention in case it is abused in the future)
 * (including this one as a prevention in case it is abused in the future)
 * Adding both as they are simply redirecting url's to russian-services.com ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

www.russianmilitarytrucks.com
Account:

Link:

Please blacklist that spammer. Mieciu K (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * . Best place for this Now. thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * . Best place for this Now. thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

metal-observer.com
Please see the WP spam entry:

WikiProject Spam case

The spam is being added by a long term abuser. Triplestop x3  17:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the key information taken from the original discussion
 * links


 * accounts
 * NOTE: August 3, 2009 The IP above was blocked for 2 weeks for 3RR violations after repeatedly trying to re-insert the weblink to the amateur fansite.
 * NOTE: August 3, 2009 The IP above was blocked for 2 weeks for 3RR violations after repeatedly trying to re-insert the weblink to the amateur fansite.
 * NOTE: August 3, 2009 The IP above was blocked for 2 weeks for 3RR violations after repeatedly trying to re-insert the weblink to the amateur fansite.
 * NOTE: August 3, 2009 The IP above was blocked for 2 weeks for 3RR violations after repeatedly trying to re-insert the weblink to the amateur fansite.
 * NOTE: August 3, 2009 The IP above was blocked for 2 weeks for 3RR violations after repeatedly trying to re-insert the weblink to the amateur fansite.


 * I updated this growing list on July 26, 2009. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Its function and purpose in being a reliable source is certainly in question. Looks as if there are 900 + links on wikipedia. Blacklisting could cause these articles to be un-editable, unless an article-space cleanup is done first. I'm sure more accounts may be found during the cleanup, so add them here. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was linked here by the original user above (who was trying to remove the review used at Indestructible (Disturbed album)), who has only had one other person agree with him to ban it. The discussion linked at RSN seemed to me to have at least 2 or 3 others that would oppose any such action. I disagree with the action being taken prior to a more thorough discussion between editors who are here in good faith (I will not oppose that the IPs probably were not here in such a manner). That it has been contested before should suggest that a unilateral ban on the website would be unwise, at least until discussion has lead to firm consensus... --Izno (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note The original discussion (there were actually 4 separate discussions) had many editors in agreement, including several Wiki-admins. The discussion and consensus to ban was over the site being used as either a source for reviews (non-professional reviews are not allowed re: WP:ALBUM and this site is clearly an amateur 'hobby' taken on by a furniture mover and a few of his unemployed friends)... it was also rejected as a reliable source since most of the attempts to use it as a reference came from quoting the amateur album reviews hosted by the site. The website is also under scrutiny from several music labels since it has been linked to an online file-sharing scandal where the site was pirating its advance release album copies and sharing them to online torrent link webhosts. And, as suggested by another administrator who was not involved with the original discussions, Wikipedia would be better off if the links were removed. Numerous editors have taken on this task and it it has now been pared down to less than 200 links left in Wiki mainspace. Cleanup of archives and talk pages can begin once the mainspace cleaning is done. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't be citing this website's album reviews or the articles written by it's "staff", however, I disagree that we should blacklist the entire website altogether. Currently, I know of two articles (In Flames and Mikael Stanne) that cite metal-observer.com in an appropriate manner. These two articles do not cite some amateur album review or some amateur article written by the website's staff, instead they cite interviews that were conducted with Mikael Stanne. The interview is being used on those aforementioned Wikipedia articles to cite statements attributed to Mikael Stanne and as such should be appropriate unless there is any sort of indication that the metal-observer.com staff fabricated the interview without Mikael Stanne's knowledge (which does not appear to be case). In the end, I politely ask that you assume a bit of good faith and realize that not all editors linking to that site are spammers. --Nova Weaver (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

✅. Clear multi IP spam abuse. Also seems to fail Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. There are 109 mainspace links that still need to be removed. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source because of its encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages.--Hu12 (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

aerobaticteam.blogspot.com
More of the usual aerobatic team nonsense. MER-C 08:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

wavelengthsat.com


Thanks in advance... — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This editor added a spam link to their site at Ranney School (,, and ), Long Branch High School ( and ), and Shore Regional High School . This editor was on 23 July for violating username guidelines.
 * This account (created on 24 July) added the same link to, , and.
 * This account (created on 24 July) added the same link to, , and.
 * This account (created on 24 July) added the same link to, , and.


 * Now he's moved to an anon IP, but still spamming the same domain. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple accounts, one gets blocked they create another. Clearly fails our External Links policy and is soley being added for the primary purpose of promoting their product in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines.✅. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple accounts, one gets blocked they create another. Clearly fails our External Links policy and is soley being added for the primary purpose of promoting their product in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines.✅. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

wikia.com

 * It seems that the site has allowed itself to become a host of highly aggressive, deceptive advertising tactics that cannot possibly be interpreted as "helpful" to the largest classes of Wikipedia editors and readers. It is probably time to bring to an end this long nightmare of slavish support of the Co-Founder's privately-held profit machine. -- Thekohser 02:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that the site has allowed itself to become a host of highly aggressive, deceptive advertising tactics that cannot possibly be interpreted as "helpful" to the largest classes of Wikipedia editors and readers. It is probably time to bring to an end this long nightmare of slavish support of the Co-Founder's privately-held profit machine. -- Thekohser 02:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you however adding this might cause an inordinate amount of disruption. (links to open wikis are discouraged per WP:ELNO and Wikia hardly passes this guideline. It is also fails RS) Triplestop x3  02:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know Greg. I agree with Triplestop that Wikia will fail WP:EL in the vast majority of cases, but that's not a reason to include it on the spamlist. The report you link to is from Wikipedia Review, where things are misreported or blown out of proportion on a regular basis. Assuming that the screen shots are genuine, it seems more likely to me that they represent a bug that simply hasn't been addressed yet. Keep in mind that many of the biggest web sites in existence, high-quality EL's, U.S. gov't sites, etc. have been victims of scams, hacking, and malware from time to time. Basing a decision on this one report would be highly irresponsible. (Though it would certainly be in keeping with MOARDRAMA!) -Pete (talk) 03:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I will investigate the matter further. Triplestop x3  03:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would expect that most links to Wikia are interwiki links done via the Interwiki map. Aren't these out of the control of the blacklist? Kusma (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, if there are doubts about Wikia's advertising tactics, we should consider adding NOFOLLOW to links to there instead of treating Wikia better than other external sites. (Changing the interwiki links at Template:Wikia to external links would probably do that, and I've made a proposal at Template talk:Wikia). Kusma (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would need some amazing, thunderingly overwhelming evidence that claims made on WR with respect to wikia are true before lending them any credence. I will support adding NOFOLLOW to wikia links, though. Protonk (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that the evidence was presented by Wikipedia User:Krimpet (her track record), I would say that Peteforsyth ("things are misreported", "assuming that the screen shots are genuine") and Protonk ("need some amazing, thunderingly overwhelming evidence that claims made on WR with respect to wikia are true") owe Krimpet an apology. -- Thekohser
 * I owe no one an apology. How does my statement disparage Krimpet?  That site is still a cesspool of whiners, malcontents and histrionics even if some wonderful people comment there as well.  If someone I otherwise respect wrote an editorial for the Weekly Standard, I would still cast a cautious eye over the piece.  If some third party evidence surfaces that wikia is introducing malware on any scale above minuscule, we can talk about putting it on the blacklist.  And when we do discuss it, we can discuss the fact that blacklisting wikia would break thousands, if not tens of thousands, of links immediately. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not surprising you'd think you owe nobody an apology if you're going to sweepingly call the #1 site for thoughtful criticism of Wikipedia a "cesspool of whiners, malcontents and histrionics". Meanwhile, I find it ironic and hilarious that you see no problem with the self-described state of affairs, that Wikipedia is infested with "tens of thousands" of links to a privately-held website where more wikis than not are in a state of embryonic, dilapidated disrepair with few to no productive contributors.  But, for you, Wikipedia Review is the big problem, not Wikia.  I think I've got it now.  Thanks, Protonk. -- Thekohser 20:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If as you both assert, there are tens of thousands of links to Wikia on Wikipedia, that strikes me as cause for concern. But the issue should be evaluated for itself, before radical solutions like spam blacklisting are discussed. I think it would be worthwhile, for instance, to start an RfC about Wikia links, supported with some research into the number and nature of the links, whether they are NOFOLLOWed like other external links, etc. -Pete (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, seeing as the MAXDRAMA party is apparently over, I'm going to pass on snacking on the "apology" bait. But entirely apart from the credibility of the source: we have an accusation, followed by a recommended action. What is missing in between, which would be needed regardless of the source of the accusation, is an evaluation of the accuracy of the accusation. In a court, this would be called a "trial." Here, a term like "responsible due diligence" might apply better. -Pete (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WR isn't the 'big problem'. It's a non-issue.  Any site that is, in 2009, still bent out of shape about Daniel Brandt is not a problem, it's an anachronism. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk, can we also add the names "Siegenthaler" and "Essjay" as indicators of anachronism in 2009? -- >David  Shankbone  17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any malicious ads on there because I have many protections enabled. Maybe everyone could go over and check it out? Triplestop x3  15:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Barring solid evidence of ongoing issues with malicious adverts, I'd say put it on XLinkBot's revert list - but that would be redundant, since it's already there. It was added in Feb 2009. -- Versa  geek  21:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Several Wikia users have reported seeing these adverts here and the staff say that they are aware of the problem. SUL (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that this isn't deliberate and that Wikia is aware of and attempting to deal with this problem, this seems massively overblown. no need to add to the blacklist. Now, can we get back to actual editing please? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. -Pete (talk)
 * I'm sorry, Joshua, Pete, I have to disagree. If Wikia is still serving virus infected ads (the latest report is TODAY ie, the 28th), it's a bad idea not to at least temporarily block out Wikia until they can get their house in order. It doesn't feel right to send folks to a site that is (unknowingly, agreed) facilitating people getting their computers hijacked. SirFozzie (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate where you're coming from, SirFozzie. But I'm not sure I see a practical solution for what you're describing. Adding Wikia to the spam blacklist, if I understand correctly, would not do anything to current links...it would simply prevent NEW links from being added. Mass-removing Wikia links would be a pretty major project, and would not be reversible (again, somebody correct me if I'm wrong) -- so it's hard to imagine how it could be done in a termporary way as you suggest.
 * Also, I'm not sure it's our responsibility to take care of people beyond the confines of Wikipedia. If they are running unprotected Windows machines that can't detect this sort of malware, that's unfortunate, but it's really beyond our ability to prevent that sort of problem. Also, again -- top web sites on the level of NYtimes.com and cnn.com have had this sort of issue in the past...should we really be taking on responsibility for removing links to any site that might be temporarily infected with a virus? -Pete (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Wikia is part of the extended "Family", so to speak. In the eyes of the public, they're (Wiki/Wikia) pretty much the same thing, and I really do not want to see "Wikipedia knowingly serves virus infected pages" in the press. We get enough bad press as is. SirFozzie (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, and I can't disagree. I'm open to exploring ideas about what to do about this. But for the reasons I mentioned above, I'm pretty sure the spam blacklist is the wrong tool for the job. Not sure what the right one would be. Perhaps it would be worth getting in touch directly with the Foundation? I'd imagine Jay Walsh (Communications Director) would be interested to hear. Also, it's possible that a request from the Foundation might nudge Wikia toward pursuing a solution more aggressively... -Pete (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there doesn't seem to be much action being taken on the Wikia side, and the longer this issue goes, the more damage can be done... I was thinking about posting something on Jimbo's talk page, but was worried that it would be seen as a reason to continue the drama. Any other folks we can try? SirFozzie (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Protocol would normally dictate we block immediately in cases of virus' ect. (Temporarily until resolved/or its safe). I see no indication that this is fixed and evidence there is a issue. There are currently 16,615 Wikia links on en.Wikipedia, with potentialy the equal amount of links on our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (we could be looking at over 10 million links +). This is no doubt also affecting the 3000+ Wikia wikis. This is beyond the scope of controllability by us on the English or meta Wikipedia. Foundation needs to be notified. What a pickle...--Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be that Wikia has sold their unwanted ad space to some of the bottom-feeder ad networks. "pointroll.com" seems to be one of the offenders. There may be others.  (Search for "pointroll.com" and "spyware" for background.) --John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

< (just reading up on this having missed it) this seems to be the latest news. Privatemusings (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whew! Good for Wikia!  Now, their 16,000+ external links from Wikipedia are safe and sound.  I am so relieved for Jimbo and his financial backers! -- Thekohser 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That says that Wikia found one unidentified bad advertiser and claims this means all of them have been eliminated. I'd suggest continuing to look for trouble for a week or so to verify that. --John Nagle (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it should be added. Wikia is probably the largest wiki farm on the web. About WP:ELNO, guideline # 12, it may be an open wiki, but it has a community almost as big as Wikipedia. How could a wiki host be spam? Plus, there are some external links to Wikia. If we have an article about it, it doesn't make much sense to add it as spam. There may be ads on Wikia, but I'm sure a whole bunch of other non-spam external links have ads. Alxeedo TALK

deepcreekvacay.com



 * There have been several new users who've added this and other vacation related websites to Deep Creek Lake State Park over several months. The registered accounts got tired of me threatening them with spamblocks, and the ip seems to jump around (sometimes registered to Long and Foster, sometimes just as a bare commercial ISP on Whois).  I'm torn between just semi protecting the article and requesting the blacklist, but since I don't see that the link would ever be to a site that meets WP:EL I think this is probably the best course. Syrthiss (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * deepcreekvacations.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * DeepCreekHotProperties.com
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Quite a bit of disruption on that page, I've added to this request the other serial offenders. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

worldnews.com.ar
Frequently spammed on World & Online Journalism and has been since last year by IPs ( all 190.xxx.xxx.xxx). The user is now reverting XLinkbot to try to make the spam stick. With this edit, the spam remained from July 21 until August until I caught it again. ..and again last night,.

Spam interlink|worldnews.com.ar - These are just the spam attempts since being listed on XLinkbot.

This game of whack-a-mole has gotten very old...please help. Cheers ⋙–Ber<b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 10:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If they resort to reverting XLinkBot in this way .. . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You just made my Christmas list...very appreciated. 8^D <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 11:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Software test certification spam: testinside.com, more


Spam for Cisco Career Certifications test certification.. but it's being spammed to any article with "cisco" in the title, such as Cisco, Texas, Cisco Adler, or The Cisco Kid. I've blocked the IP, but they'll be back, and the links add no value. I'd add to the blacklist but I don't want to break it :-) tedder (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More
 * See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Jul_1
 * Accounts
 * See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Jul_1
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Obvious and persistant spamming. Also Moving ones own link"UP" is never a sign of good faith. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Beer Judge Certification Program


Abusive sockpupptry. MER-C 04:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Accounts
 * Sockpuppet investigations/BJCP
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Jojojohnson2/Archive

✅ --Hu12 (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On hold for now, being monitored @
 * Special:Abusefilter/232
 * edit filter log
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam --Hu12 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Loop spam
Recently added by new account. Redirects to blacklisted getinloop.com (there are already two blacklisted redirects to this site). Placed in the same article as always (Larchmont,_New_York). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, the other is larchmontloop.com. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Futureyears
A user eventually got blocked for adding this site repeatedly, then shifted to adding it from various different IPs. User talk:Babyboomer57 and User talk:122.160.140.240 have the most relevant material, but the following is the full list of users and IP's that have added the site so far.

I added the regex \bfutureyears\.com\b to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. It's the right regex, but that doesn't seem to have been enough. There doesn't appear to be any redeemable material at the site that isn't from somewhere else. - Taxman Talk 17:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * by Beetstra - Taxman Talk 17:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

mynikeairmax.com
Also alltopshoes.com, hothotshoes.com and nikesoso.com

Multiple Nike-related articles have been the target of incessant spamming from multiple IP's. Mostly Nike Air Max and Air Jordan articles. I've lost count of how many times I've reverted and warned, they just keep showing up under different IP's. XLinkBot worked at first but then they just keep on changing URLs.



Plus likely many more, I just don't have the patience to dig through the history without it affecting my nerves when I see shit like. grrr. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Hu12 (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

babynology.com
contains information about origins of names given to babies.

I was editing a pre-existing article that included a list of individuals. One person had two "a.k.a."s, one of which seemed to me as unlikely. A google search brought me to babynology.com and I learned that the TWO meanings in one language (which I don't know) were similar to the two meanings in another (which I know beyond simple basic-tourist level). One meaning helped explained something that prior editors of the article had overlooked.

Babynology was truly helpful, in that I had jumped to ONE of the pair(s) of meanings, while overlooking the other.

I made the edit but, to support it, had to use a "satisfice" -- i.e. not the best source. To avoid possibly copying copyright information, I wrote my own blended summary, but I think that the wikipedia English user community loses on this matter; a link to babynology would for some people be educational on this matter.

It doesn't seem too likely that a site such as THIS (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22babynology.com%22 - see self-description), which is ranked by Alexa and Quantcast would risk what it has.

Interestingly I think this was the site I was unsuccessful at linking to back in 2008, but in that case I found what I considered a good source and let it go. (The name of THAT site had BABY &/or NAME in its URL).

If there's an ADMIN willing to review this during spare CPU cycles, it would be a service. Dad7 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_2
 * See also - MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2008
 * Based on the abuse, I'm reluctant to remove the entire domain. If a specific link is needed as a citation, you can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source (in an appropriate context). Thanks --Hu12 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding . I looked, and what I see is this (#1) there is a Google Ad Sense Ad#. Since this web site is about baby names, depending on the baby name being researched, different Google ads might be supplied. To quote from above in this list re "Army-Guide" :
 * Quote: It [i.e. Army Guide] was posted frequently in external links, but this appears to have been done by one or two "enthusiastic" users with "good intentions" (providing additional sources on the topic), which perhaps triggered the initial fear that this was a spam link. If you look at the links posted, they were all relevant to the page that they were posted in. If you look at the contributions of the people who posted them, they're on a wide variety of topics, not just associated with the site in question... so it doesn't appear to be for the sake of advertising or a bot ... Finally, yes, this site was posted frequently, but it's an extensive site, so it can be realistically associated with many articles here at Wikipedia.
 * If there are many aspects to the Army (including families who move along), why not consider that as the explanation. More people have a name than are members of the army. If a mere 17% of editors writing about someone with a name linked to Babynology.com, then ... Something Pretty Amazing, Methinks ...  As for 17%, it's just a number
 * (#2) I looked at the Google list per your suggestion. It seems that people around the world use it. Here's one from the other side of "The Pond" -- http://www.circumcisionlondon.co.uk/Naming_the_Baby.html
 * (#3) I seem to recall hearing that, just as traveling one way without luggage may seem suspicious to the powers that be, registering a site for just one year ditto. Babynology was created 2003, expires 2012-12-09, over 3 years from now, per http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=babynology.com&prog_id=godaddy


 * While this is not urgent, as I said before re Satisfice, but could you (please) at least tell me what about this site was "spammy" (much of the data in the archive has been deleted, so I was limited in what I could read of what you referred me to) Dad7 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site, as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. This is a case of a company spamming at least 5 of their domains (including babynology.com) under multiple accounts, over multiple pages, despite community disapproval and in violation of multiple policies. The big picture showed someone who abused Wikipedia to promote their own interests. For the same reason the other administrators added this site, I see no indication the spamming will not resume if unblocked. Additionaly, there also seems to be plenty of reasonable alternatives to this site. . As suggested above, If a specific link is needed as a citation, feel free to request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

endritualabuse.org, etal
I am a California licensed psychologist and have just noticed that my website, endritualabuse.org, has been blacklisted, as well as the websites, extreme-abuse-survey.net and ritualabuse.us, all of which provide information about ritual abuse. These three resources have been of tremendous value to victims of ritual abuse and to therapists and clergy helping victims. I cannot fathom any legitimate basis for wikipedia prohibiting access to these websites. There is absolutely no basis to suspect any wrongdoing or criminal activity on any of these three websites. These websites are dedicated to helping victims of violent crime. There is no basis to deny that such crimes occur. Criminal convictions of crimes involving ritual elements are well-documented, such as the May 2006 conviction of Father Gerald Robinson for the 1980 murder of Sister Margaret Ann Pahl. I personally correspond with a few hundred legitimate psychotherapists, internationally, who treat these victims. I urge wikipedia to quickly reverse the blacklisting of these websites. Ellen P. Lacter, Ph.D. tl|Done/archives/July/2009/Proposed removals|archived Ellenlacter (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Background including " mass spamming" and sockpuppetry:
 * See also - Sockpuppet_investigations/ResearchEditor/Archive
 * See also - Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor
 * See also - Articles_for_deletion/Extreme_Abuse_Survey
 * See also - Administrators' noticeboard case
 * See also - off-wiki canvassing
 * Spam Articles
 * Extreme Abuse Surveys
 * Ex-treme Abuse Survey
 * Extreme Abuse Survey
 * Extreme abuse surveys
 * Extreme abuse survey
 * Accounts
 * Wikipedia violations include, but not limited to:
 * SPAM
 * External link spamming
 * Source soliciting
 * Article Spamming
 * External links policy
 * Links normally to be avoided
 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * Conflict of interest
 * Editors who have a conflict of interest
 * Accounts used for promotion
 * Law Of Unintended Consequences
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox
 * Wikipedia is not your web host
 * Wikipedia is not a directory
 * Wikipedia is not a repository for links
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
 * SOCK
 * Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
 * 'Role' accounts
 * BLOCK
 * Persistent spamming
 * Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your blacklisted links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered. Equally Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor is it a place to to promote your sites.--Hu12 (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BLOCK
 * Persistent spamming
 * Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your blacklisted links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered. Equally Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor is it a place to to promote your sites.--Hu12 (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

pokerverdict.com
Please remove this useful website from the blacklist. I had the following conversation with the person who originally suggested that the website be blacklisted:

Gary King ( talk ) 04:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The request does not address the reasons for blacklisting, and there is no evidence of reliability, peer-review, editorial policy etc. Do you have an example of an article where it provides a provably reliable source? Guy (Help!) 16:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least, can't this site be used as an External link for poker player profiles, etc.? Gary King  ( talk ) 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gary, I suggest that you request the admin, Stifle, who denied the request, that it be reconsidered, particularly given that the only reason given for denying it was lack of response. ArbComm is in the process of clarifying blacklisting principles, and "not reliable" isn't a legitimate reason for blacklisting; you may or may not have come up with a possible legitimate usage, but that's a matter for those involved with articles to determine. When the clarification passes (it has six votes in favor, none opposed, with four net votes required to pass; it seems unlikely that the rest of the arbitrators are going to jump in and shoot it down), any admin can reverse this as no longer complying with guidelines, and maybe even before that. But it's a courtesy to the admin who declined to ask him. The relevant phrase from the ruling: Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions. Source reliability is a content decision. --Abd (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we first look into the spamming that happened with this link .. 21 September 2007 - 14 February 2008 27 Augustus 2008 .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looked a bit better. See also 2005's concern "It was just a large pain at the time, because these guys are shameless, and like I said, some of their other sites are blacklisted.", I'll look into better later.  Abd, why do you pull "..and "not reliable" isn't a legitimate reason for blacklisting" into here?  Who said that it was blacklisted because of that?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)



I see enough reason to blacklist this site, these three editors (top three users) make up ~75% (51 of 65) of the linkadditions I have in the database (the IP mainly adding it indifferently to many pages). However, we are half a year further, and as it seems a reliable source (I'll go with 2005's suggestion here), we could add this to User:XLinkBot and remove it here, but keeping in mind that if new (or the same) SPA's appear, that this may be a better place, using specific whitelisting instead. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With only three accounts spamming the URL, it seems like simply warning those accounts and/or blocking might be a better option. Gary King  ( talk ) 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Beetstra on transferring this to XLinkBot. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what's the status on this? Gary King  ( talk ) 15:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bump? Gary King  ( talk ) 18:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The status is that someone who knows how to transfer the site to XLinkBot will do so, as soon as they see this listing. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --> Moved to to XLinkBot, ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

pokerplayermagazine.co.uk
This is the website of a legitimate poker magazine, the British Poker Player Magazine, published by Dennis Publishing, one of the world's leading independent publishers. They publish other reputable British magazines, including MacUser, Computer Shopper, and Custom PC. Gary King ( talk ) 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gary asked about this at the Poker Project before coming here. He forgot to mention that Dennis Publishing also publishes Maxim magazine.  We are not dealing with a publisher who is known for producing "National Enquirer" but rather a legit publisher... and Poker Player Magazine is a legit publication.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All Dennis Publishing magazines were blocked because of spamming from COI and sockpuppet accounts. I'm not familiar with the whole history, but the above link is one place it is talked about.  All their magazines are of equal quality so this particular one should not be unblocked unless the COI block of them all is reversed. 2005 (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that... I guess. If it is worth publishing, then it can probably be found elsewhere.  While PPM is a reputable magazine, I would not rank it among the top 3 or 4 (Bluff, Cardplayer, and Allin are all, IMO, better.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See also → Dennis Publishing COI Spam (may)
 * See also →  Magazine spam (Oct)
 * Accounts
 * "Public network for Dennis Publishing "
 * "Public network for Dennis Publishing "


 * IP's 212.117.228.133 (registered to Dennis Publishing) and 82.45.132.196 are still actively promoting Dennis Publishing material in clear violation of our Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. The scope of breadth of abuse by Dennis Publishing is such that it will most certainly continue if removed. . If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source. --Hu12 (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

oldunreal.com
I noticed that the patch information in the Unreal article's infobar was unsourced, so I wanted to add citations for the 226f and the 227f unofficial patches. I attempted to add the reference tags only to meet with the message that my edit had been blocked because of a spam filter. Not really sure why this is on the spam list...oldunreal.com is a community site supporting the classic game Unreal, and is the source of the 227f patch mentioned in the infobar. They are not selling services or promoting anything...as far as I know? They are just a bunch of people trying to maintain a classic game. I may be wrong but I think they are the last major fan site still standing, so anyone wanting up-to-date citations is going to have a difficult time finding them elsewhere; the forums, wiki, and other information on the site are useful sources that I'm sure would be of further help to someone with an interest in maintaining this article... at any rate, I needed to cite them as a source and was not able to, hence I am requesting that this site be removed from the blacklist. For reference, here's the line I tried to edit in the article:


 * version     = 226f, 227f (unofficial)

Also for reference, the current entry in the local blacklist:  \boldunreal\.com\b

Thank you,

Joren (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Origional case
 * Seems this has been a problematic for the article Unreal, with a disturbing history of abuse, including off-Wikipedia soliciting to spam the link. Wikipedia is not a Userguide for posting patch downloads. Currently I'm not convinced the problem will not continue if oldunreal.com was removed from the list. Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. --Hu12 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Was not aware of that.  Are you familiar with this history?  It seems kind of draconian to say "we are not allowed to cite site xyz" because of some past instance where people wanted to spam the link.  Not sure what to think about this... in any event, it nonetheless stands that the current patch information is unsourced.  It doesn't do for an article to say "current version is x.xx" without a reference.  Wikipedia may not be a manual, but it does need to have verifiable information.Joren (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, upon re-reading your comment I see I failed to notice the link you'd helpfully provided. After reading it... oh dear, I see you are right about the spam thing having been an issue.  "If not, I will have people spam the royal shit out of the unreal wiki article."  That's disturbing... kind of sad to see them shoot themselves in the foot like that (shakes head)... however...  I still believe oldunreal is a good and notable source of information, regardless of how idiotic some of their community may have been at one time.  There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that end up citing people that have been hostile to Wikipedia in the past... one of the web-comics I've read, Ugly Hill, had a similar issue if I recall; the article was nominated for deletion and the webcomic's author sent a bunch of fan-drones to Wikipedia to protest.  They voted to keep the article notwithstanding the author's ham-fisted attempts to influence Wikipedia, and I think it speaks well for us that we can be dispassionate about it and ignore the past emotional baggage from those incidents.  Heck, I'd be willing to go on their forums and explain things to them if it came to that... I just don't want to see people unable to use them as a source if that helps to improve an article.
 * So here's an alternative I'd propose: since the abusive editing appears to have been IP-based, and half a year ago, why not remove the website and if the problem occurs again, semi-protect the article.  This will allow registered users to use them as a citation source, but stem the tide of spam.  It has been half a year since this happened... perhaps it has died down by now?  And if it hasn't, we can reach for semi-protection since the abuse is only related to one article and anonymous IPs.  What do you think?  Joren (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your intentions, Blocks exist to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. There has been significant disruption, abuse and repeating inappropriate behavior along with major breaches of policy associated with oldunreal.com. Clearly evidenced Off wiki threats of disruption, and prior spam attacks is not sufficient evidence this will not continue if un-listed. To insure this problem won't occur again, this is . Additionaly, semi-protecting the page when there is no reason to do so would unecessarily lock out many good faith editors. --Hu12 (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I was not proposing semi-protection unless the abuse resumed :) My instinct is that things be free and open; there should be restrictions only if there is a problem.  I appreciate your concern about not locking out good faith editors, and I share it - I see myself as a good faith editor, and I feel I was unnecessarily locked out by this block.  This restriction has been in place for half a year... it seems harsh that because of edit-warring on one article, the site is banned from all of English Wikipedia, forever; no one anywhere can cite them as a source.  Would there be harm in unblocking it on a trial basis, and seeing if the abuse resumes?  It has been half a year, which is a pretty significant cool-down period, and I would be willing to monitor the article myself and report back if it resumed.  If you doubt my willingness, please check the history of the Wang Dan article, a similar case of an editorial news site being spammed that required semi-protection.  I repeat - I'd be willing to make things clear to them.  Back in the day, I used to be a pretty obsessed Unreal guy; I think I can speak their language ;)  Joren (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been a while, and I noticed my last reply did not get a response. While I respect the reasons stated for leaving it on the list, I still believe that:
 * The status quo is locking out good-faith edits (myself included), and therefore a lighter remedy should be pursued
 * I'm willing to monitor the article to see if the abuse resumes after removing the entry from the blacklist.
 * If the abuse DOES resume, semi-protection is a better remedy anyway since the abuse only involves anonymous IPs on a single article.
 * I am concerned that maintaining it on the wiki-wide list for this long (half a year!) could be seen as spiteful and may be creating unnecessary enemies, and hope that this proposed course of action would be more conducive to maintaining a better atmosphere for editing this article. I appreciate the consideration given so far by Hu12, and I'd also like to see some others weigh in on this. Thank you, Joren (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hyperbole or or repeatedly asking until you get an opinion you like, isn't grounds for delisting, nor can you assure against its return. I'm now becoming concerned as few people will continue to argue tendentiously in pursuit of a certain point, topics in which they have no connection. As stated above There has been significant disruption, abuse and repeating inappropriate behavior along with major breaches of policy associated with oldunreal.com.


 * I will have people spam the royal shit out of the unreal wiki article.


 * Clearly evidenced Off wiki threats of disruption, prior spam attacks and heavily used Meatpuppets by the site owners is sufficient evidence this will continue if un-listed . Based on Unreal's history it would appear the disruption continues currently with repeated anon insertions of oldunreal.com's patch. In addition to the above, it's an unofficial fansite / fourum / wiki, which does not meet Wikipedias inclusion criteria of the External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Policies and guidelines are community standards that have widespread community support and exist to protect the project from harm, and reduce future problems. While you may not like those foregoing facts, it is not in Wikipedia's interests to invite such disruption. Equally Wikipedia is not a Userguide for posting links to patch downloads for games. To insure this disruption won't occur again, this is still . thank you for your time.--Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

www.travel 2 macedonia.com.mk
Dear Wikipedia admins,

We have already contact Mr. Dirk Beetstra (user:Beetstra).

as we are turning into a tourism agency, we need to straight things up here, about the spamblacklist. It was 2 years ago some kid we hired, managed somehow to place this very important Macedoninan domain into wikipedia's blacklist. We have spoken with him, since we have dismissed him and he has given your contact (Dirk Beetstra). Please can you explain in details about the spam removal procedure, since the travel2macedonia domain is of great value for Republic of Macedonia.

Thank you, Travel2Macedonia general manager contact[AT]travel 2 macedonia.com.mk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.10.119 (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have pointed this user to the blacklist on meta, where it is listed: m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Here .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

teamicogamers.blogspot.com
This is a legitimate blog focused around the video game developer Team ICO. I have seen no signs of spam and the folks here are all about keeping fans of the video games updated with the latest information. I'd like to create a link to this page for "The Last Guardian" Wiki page. --TheRedFall (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blogs are Links normally to be avoided, as are fan sites. Would also seem to fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines also. --Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * . Blogs are not reliable sources; in any case this request would need to be at the whitelist. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

free-game-downloads.mosw.com
On this website there is an article (base-url + /abandonware/pc/arcade_action/games_ch_cl/chromium_b_s_u_.html (cannot put a link because it is blocked)) that could be used as reference for the WP page Chromium B.S.U.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.168.190.147 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See also - free-game-downloads.mosw.com and accomplices
 * See also - free-game-downloads.mosw.com
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

alldatasheets.com
Datasheets are a useful source of information in electronic articles, especially for tables. This site is an extensive repository of component datasheets. It is also preferable to go to a datasheet rather than directly to a manufacturers site because datasheets, being aimed at engineers, are usually free of marketing drivel. I am not at all sure why it is on the blacklist, or even how to find out, but I am willing to bet that it is not the site who have been doing the spamming but some minor company who have been posting their datasheet and the site gets the blame. Can we have it unlisted please? If not please whitelist http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/96216/ETC/RG58CU.html which I need for an article. If you go the whitelist route I will probably be back regularly with requests.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  16:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's blacklisted at meta, but there's no reason given. If you want it removed from the blacklist you'll need m:Talk:Spam blacklist; whitelisting can be requested on a page by page basis at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

www.cais-soas.com
Please delist this site www.cais-soas.com it is an academic publication online, I don't understand why it is blocked it would be useful to a number of articles.--Gurdjieff (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is blacklisted at meta, you'll need to request removal at m:talk:Spam blacklist. The reason for blacklisting was carrying images and content in violation of copyrights, see here for more information. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

www.biblewalks.com
I tried to add this site as an external link while I was editing Hammat Tiberias Synagogue. Its entry on Hammat Tiberias includes excellent and relevant photos and maps. Why has it been blacklisted? I am not affiliated with the site at all, just curious. Thanks. --Ebakunin (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion explains why it was blacklisted. If you want it removed, you'll have to make a listing at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

The system tells me that moonos.co.cc is blacklisted, but I can't find it listed. Help! UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC) i found in the black list under ## sometime 2005 (Spam blacklist/Log) that .888 has been blacklisted so i cant make an external link for 888.com i cant say i understand why. because i see PokerStars do have an external link. whatever it was - im sure 888.com cleaned up their act since 2005. can it be white listed? --Michaelcoopr (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC) = Discussion =
 * Everything.co.cc is blacklisted because the TLD is a complete spampot. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)