MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2007

= Proposed Additions =

mesothelioma.pl
Multiple anon IP linkspamming of common mesothelioma targets. --Mdwyer 15:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mesothelioma&diff=prev&oldid=174838764
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mesothelioma&diff=prev&oldid=174586271
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mesothelioma&diff=prev&oldid=174495933


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asbestos&diff=prev&oldid=174511160


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lung_cancer&diff=prev&oldid=174587106
 * Thanks, warnings have been issued and it appears to have stopped. I'd block next, cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 09:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It escalated! Now done on Meta -- Herby talk thyme 09:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

thenettimes.com
Links added from multiple IPs and single- or low-edit accounts.
 * at Eva Mendes
 * at Halle Berry
 * at Lightspeed Media corporation
 * at Joss Stone
 * at Jessica Biel
 * at Giada De Laurentiis

and many more. Gimmetrow 21:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this one is an issue. Was it all on the 21st?  I'm inclined to see if they try again, in which case I'd list it straight away I think but it is possible that they have got the message?  Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 12:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Given no further info/spamming I'll close this as ❌, we can always return to it -- Herby talk thyme 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

silanis.com
Please see Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to see why I propose the blacklisting of silanis.com. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See also - Conflict of interest/Noticeboard case
 * See also - WikiProject Spam case

Agreed & ✅. Make sure to remove the http:// portion on talk pages where the urls are located, do this for both www.esignrecords.org and www.silanis.com. Archiving bots won't be able to properly archive if it remains hyperlinked. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

sikhzone.net dhangurunanak.com cyarena.com


Persistent dynamic IP spam (latest two incidents: ). Continuing to spam despite warnings. See also WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 12:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ thanks -- Herby talk thyme 12:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

itsleaked.blogspot.com/
This persistant spammer seems to go around claiming to have false album/video game links as an attempt to scam people. Previous incarnations of the page included instructions to dload a google program and click the ad banners on his site. Zopwx2 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist below. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah - good catch & ✅, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

playturks.com/
Repeatedly spammed on Age of Empires related articles by Special:Contributions/Playturks. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ SQL Query me!  07:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

maxmytest.com
Persistent spamming to Graduate Record Examination and similar subjects from multiple IPs.
 * ,, ,, OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, ✅ & thanks -- Herby talk thyme 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They're at it again, this time using a free webhost: maxtest.webng.com OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

& ✅ - thanks a lot - sure sign of a spammer when they play like that! Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 19:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indian poetry spam

 * Spam pages
 * (salted)
 * (salted)
 * (salted)
 * (salted)

Multiply reposted vanispamcruftisement. See WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 06:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sites spammed

✅--Hu12 (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

videopopcorn.com


Returning spammer. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1 and WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 08:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

✅--Hu12 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

dutarmuzik.com.tr
Dutarmuzik.com.tr: Sales website with no English content is continuously being added in disruptive fashion (e.g., ) by anonymous user(s) on the 85.106.x.x domain.


 * Articles affected include :
 * (e.g.,, )
 * (e.g.,, )
 * (e.g., )
 * Saz, Dutar and Bağlama are items that the website apparently sells.


 * , either pasted over an unrelated source or added in its own section.

The various IP addresses have been warned and/or blocked: -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous actions :


 * Agreed, not relevant and the multiple IPs used make this one a good one for listing, ✅ thanks -- Herby talk thyme 11:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

megadry.com, excessivesweating-treatment.com
Added to many articles by User:Whynotthestars, and continued to this day by various anons.

Diffs (most recent edits, in most cases): —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyagerfan5761 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 Nov 2007
 * Whynotthestars
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diaphoresis&diff=prev&oldid=174569099
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ionotophoresis&diff=prev&oldid=174569353
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Perspiration&diff=prev&oldid=174569236
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Endoscopic_thoracic_sympathectomy&diff=prev&oldid=174569530
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sleep_hyperhidrosis&diff=prev&oldid=174569608
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deodorant&diff=prev&oldid=174569830
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compensatory_hyperhidrosis&diff=next&oldid=174407499
 * Anons
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyperhidrosis&diff=174573353&oldid=174522114
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyperhidrosis&diff=174652191&oldid=174629140
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyperhidrosis&diff=174839223&oldid=174828998
 * I think we should watch this one. The anons and the user have had final spam warnings and seemed to have stopped.  I'd probably try a block next - thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 09:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

www.cpu-galaxy.at
cpu-galaxy.at: User:Peter1912 and a whole bunch of his sockpuppet anonymous IP addresses based in Austria repeatedly add links to his personal hobby site to any and all articles about Intel processors. Peter1912 and associated IPs were warned, but warnings are ignored (possibly because the IPs are different each time, but Peter1912 has logged in a few times so must have certainly seen the warnings). Every few days the user comes back from a different IP and re-adds the link with identical descriptive text.

Evidence is compiled at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Peter1912. Clicking on any IP address in the top section of that page will show the contributions (the bottom section contains IPs that have received a sockpuppet tag plus a warning).

Observations:
 * Each contribution shows essentially identical spam (link plus description), indicating the same person is doing it each time. Peter1912 is the only named account in the group that has added this external link to articles.
 * Peter1912 and anonymous IP addresses appear to be spam-only accounts, used solely for the purpose of adding this link.
 * At no time has any explanation or edit summary been offered to justify the inclusion of this site.

Why other methods of control won't be effective:


 * Warnings are ignored or not noticed.
 * Blocking Peter1912 (which as occurred) and anonymous IP addresses seems pointless because the user never notices the block. The editor comes back with a different IP address each time, or the block expires before he returns.
 * The editor obviously notices reversions of his edits, but persists in re-adding the links, so having a bot perform the reversions seems pointless as well.

Admittedly the site might be marginally appropriate for the articles spammed; however, I'm not the only person deleting this link, other more "official" sites exist that serve the same purpose (pictures of Intel chips), and this hobby site is being added by a user with a clear conflict of interest in violation of WP:EL. -Amatulic (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree blacklisting is the best way to deal with this sort of external link placement. Thanks for the work & ✅ -- Herby  talk thyme 08:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

www.projectvisa.com
This link keeps turning up in Visa (document) despite settled consensus on the article talk page that it is inappropriate and spammy. I must have been removing this for a year now and I'm getting fed up. Please can someone add it to the list? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 12:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Some diffs to the spam   Spartaz Humbug! 12:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes - I would call it a major problem but teh fact that it admits it may not be "entirely accurate" seems to suggest it has no business being on en wp. ✅ & thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 12:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

ravehaven.com
This link has been repeatedly added to the Rave article by many different IPs and users. Its history goes back as far as the beginning of November, when I first became involved in the article. All diffs are taken from the first two 50-change pages of the history. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 04:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Diffs:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=178198195&oldid=178163849
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=178127457&oldid=178046237
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=178045818&oldid=177931760 (subsequently fixed)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=177922933&oldid=177906167
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=177701863&oldid=177615032
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=177093160&oldid=176845476
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=176843779&oldid=176834345
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=169450365&oldid=169443206
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=169407981&oldid=169315739
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=169259676&oldid=169042780
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

spine-health.com

 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks -- Herby talk thyme 08:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

p2pnet.net and loveshade.org
These sites keep being added to Death of Emily Sander and are tribute sites, but are completely unencyclopedic. Diffs:     --Strothra (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The best approach for this would be to seek semi protection of the page. If the linking is solely there blacklisting may be a bit heavy handed?  Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 11:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, however, that protection didn't do anything. It was protected for about a week, but once the article was unprotected the link was reinserted immediately.--Strothra (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do see what you mean. However this looks to me like a content dispute which really should be resolved by agreement between contributors.  I see registered users placing those links and - personally - I feel it would be inappropriate for me list these sites and so "take sides" as it were.  Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 14:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense actually, thanks. --Strothra (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

insomnia.ac
This site is regularly spammed across multiple wikis, often removing links to other sites, as seen in these edits, and here, for two examples. Recent examples of users spamming links to this site are, and  from today (possibly among others), and  as one example from the past (probably among others). ReyBrujo has dealt with a lot of this spam in the past as well. As this spam comes from what looks like a dynamic IP, blocking is not practical. Dreaded Walrus t c 14:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed & ✅ thanks. If it is cross wiki maybe it should be listed at Meta?  Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 14:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked cross-wiki yet. Will do so in a moment. --Dreaded Walrus t c 14:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah... Total for all wikis: 122. Jump to: en (15), de (6), fr (15), ja (63), it (5), pt (4), sv (5), es (5), ru (1), ca (1), hu (1), br (1).
 * I haven't checked any of the other links to see if they're legit, and unfortunately I'm tied up for the rest of the afternoon. I don't know if anyone else wants to take care of this? --Dreaded Walrus t c 14:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

floridabeachrealestateblog.com
Spamming English Wikipedia by registering under various user names and creating real estate ads as user pages. Examples include User:Beach49home, User:George92island, and many other now-deleted examples. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Given there are only two example it is hard to gauge the extent of this. However such spam is insidious to me and not easily spotted.  Equally I see nothing about the domain that makes me feel it is appropriate to en wp so this ones is ✅ thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 10:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. You appear to have overlooked "many other now-deleted examples." Deletion of the previous pages didn't stop the spammer from creating new examples, but since you insist on a bureaucratic approach:


 * User:Floridabeach2 -
 * User:Florida5beach -
 * User:Beach11house -
 * User:Beach1property -
 * User:CapeSanBlasBeach -
 * User:Vacation2rental -
 * User:Georgebeachhouse -
 * User:Vacation2rental -


 * --221.114.141.220 (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly I have no idea what you are on about. I have blacklisted the domain already - what else are you after? -- Herby  talk thyme 12:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread your message, which I took to mean that you hadn't added the domain to the blacklist. --221.114.141.220 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes its been added. Your second post was a bit snippy, however next time you request please include all the info you have, this should avoid any confusion. Thanks for adding the list of names--Hu12 (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

sikhzone.net Unlist Request
The link sikhzone.net/guru_nanak.php that i added to external links section of Guru Nanak Dev provides detailed information about Guru Nanak Dev, and it was added so that users can get more detailed information about Guru Nanak Dev..but it was removed. Also my domain sikhzone.net has been added to spam list...The link i added was really useful for detailed information about Guru Nanak Dev. I kindly request you to remove my domain sikhzone.net from spam list and allow to add the specified link. --Sikh zone 12:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: the original WikiProject Spam entry has been updated with new information since this domain was blacklisted. See:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (permanent link)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

❌ this does not seem an essential site and the spamming was quite prolific using multiple IPs -- Herby talk thyme 08:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

www.cais-soas.com - is this a bug?
The site "Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies" looks like a typical academic site. I was looking for an article describing possible concepts shared between Zoroastrianism and ancient Judaism for a background sentence in a Zoroastrian section I just added to Religion and homosexuality, and the content generally matched my impression of at least one POV about what is generally believed (though I'm out of my field here). In short I see nothing even slightly spammy about the site. The local blacklist contains no string "cais" at all; the global blacklist includes only a site www.bcais-soas.com - I have no idea why my link is tripping the blacklist at all, actually, but perhaps there's some bug in the code that ignores an extra prefix character??? The message was "The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http:*/www.cais-soas.com" (no "b"). 70.15.116.59 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. This site is currently linked to from Godzareh depression and Gore Ouseley. 70.15.116.59 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * found these;


 * 
 * 
 * --Hu12 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'm surprised those didn't turn up in my MediaWiki search. I see why there was concern about one user, but I still doubt the site should be blacklisted - I didn't see any indication that the user was evading blocks and continuing to "spam" Wikipedia; he sounds more like an overzealous (and perhaps legally incautious) editor than a spammer.  And where copyright is concerned, I don't think the spam blacklist should be trying to act as a nanny filter for every potential copyright violation on the Web based on hearsay accusations.  That's not its stated purpose and it's not a "necessary evil" for legal reasons either.  We cannot possibly know where permission is given and where it isn't, and if the site actually is committing some kind of copyright violation the holder has quick recourse available to him that targets the site directly.  I think Wikipedia probably would face a more serious risk of getting hit with libel accusations if we go around blocking people's websites based on accusations that they are copyright violators and plagiarists (especially from countries like England and Australia with ridiculously oversensitive laws) than copyright violation charges when we're supposedly protected by the DMCA.  The most relevant argument detracting from the site is that it is no longer actually associated with the SOAS and therefore is a low-grade source - I suppose small groups of like-minded academics from a particular field straddle the boundary between what we count as a "self-published" source vs. a "primary" source.  Bearing this in mind I won't say that substituting a better source is a bad idea, but I don't see reason to retract my request for removal from the blacklist either.  And, I still don't understand why the blacklist even affects the link when the blacklist item has an extra "b" at the beginning. 70.15.116.59 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been appealed a number of times. No good reasons to remove have been given and established editors have understood the problem - ❌ -- Herby talk thyme 08:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

freelancer
I'd like freelancer.com.ar to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.47.3 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing more heard so closed as ❌ -- Herby talk thyme 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

www.statisticum.org
Hello. This (non comercial) website allow users to create on-line maps and graphics. And I think it's important to wikipedia users see it on external links of a few articles related to that subjects. Can it be removed from the blacklist, please? It is not spam nor promotion of any service or products. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.63.65.214 (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The request for blacklisting is here. It seems that the links were added by multiple IPs which will be looked on as "spamming" behaviour.  Others will comment I'm sure. -- Herby  talk thyme 09:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears this request comes from the same IP range as the offending IP's.--Hu12 (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Meta Blacklisting should be implimeted due to cross wiki spam pattern;
 * Accounts

fr.wikipedia.org pt.wikipedia.org en.wiktionary.org, de.wikipedia.org requested unblock en, meta.wikimedia.org fr.wikipedia.org, pt.wikipedia.org, es.wikipedia.org ja.wikipedia.org, it.wikipedia.org, pt.wikipedia.org, nl.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org, es.wikipedia.org, de.wikipedia.org --Hu12 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * requesting Global BL. all links have been cleaned. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

www.kreuz.net unlist request
I can't see why this site was blacklisted in the first place, it would be useful to have some explanation. Anyway it is the only site that has pictures relevant to a story on Pius Ncube and Google images don't blacklist the site.Dbdb (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is blacklisted at Meta (the log is here. I'll look around for more info.  -- Herby  talk thyme 14:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't agree with the site but can't see why it has been blacklisted.  I found some illuminating discussion of the site here 'who is kreuz'.  The current Wikipedia blacklisting procedure seems to be a licence for admins to just ban sites and give no reason. Or make the reason very hard to find.  Where can I take that issue up? Such sites can be easily found with Google, they don't ban them Dbdb (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that a site can be found on google I personally see as completely irrelevant - effectively any site can be.
 * The questions are
 * Have links been placed that were not deemed relevant to Wikipedia
 * Except with the use of dynamic IPs have warnings been ignored
 * That really is most of what should be taken into account. Requests are usually made here with evidence supplied (I would never list anything without evidence I assure you).  Equally all entries should be logged.  If you find anything like the abuse you are suggesting by admins I would be very interested to see evidence of it.  Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 14:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I quote Google because I found the information by them. If Wikipedia start censoring sites then peole will start using information linkers like Google who don't.  That will be a sad day for Wikipedia which is already generating a reputation for being run by and for admins. I am glad you personally do not blacklist without listing evidence, however to me this is completely irrelevant - what I am trying to find are the reasons why kreuz.net has been blacklisted.  The fact that you and I both cannot find those reasons is a bit of a disgrace.  How can I give reasons for a site to be un-blacklisted if no one knows why it was blacklisted in the first place? And I can't find evidence of the abuse that I think may be going on because the evidence for the blacklisting has not been given by the blacklister and I can't find out who the blacklister is! Kafkapedia! Dbdb (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll merely say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not somewhere to find websites. Google is a search engine and it there to allow people to find websites.  The comparison in completely invalid.  I'll step back now as the tone of your postings bothers me, thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the tone, no offence meant, must be due to my irriation at seeing Wikipedia blacklisting links. My point is that Encyclopedia Brittanica is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is more than that, with 2 major differences being the mass editing and the ability to link to other information. If Google don't ban links to sites why is Wikipedia banning those same sites?Dbdb (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To your last point, The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that the link in question should also exist. To the first point, links to this site were apperently added for weeks by several IPs and new user accounts to different articles coss wiki. kreuz.net is apparently a fanzine of a fundamentalist sect. Doesn't seem to any reason or consensus to remove it at this point.--Hu12 (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm happy with your change to the Pius Ncube article but I'm afraid it makes as much sense to me as your first 3 sentences above do. Now the link to a blacklisted site is shown so people can get to the photos (by keyboard) but they can't get there by mouse.Dbdb (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was being spammed in the German Wikipedia by multiple IPs and single-purpose user accounts in 2006. The archive of the blacklisting request is here. The link provided above said which admin blacklisted the link (User:Pathoschild) and all blacklist requests are archived. As a side note, Google will only stop linking to things that are pretty obviously illegal like internet scams and child pornography. What Wikipedia blacklists is always a result of something involving that link on Wikipedia - links are rarely, if ever, blacklisted due to their content alone (thought that can be a contributing factor) but rather because they are being aggressively added to multiple pages against consensus. Mr.  Z- man  03:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. 2 points: Firstly can't the archive of the blacklisting not be provided each time the message pops up telling me the site is blacklisted and I can't add it?  Secondly it seems to me that if I don't like a site I can get it blacklisted in Wikipedia simply by repeatedly adding it to pages.  This can't be right and stems from the fact that the site is being punished and not the person who puts the link in inappropriately.  The result is I have found an article that genuinely needs the link and yet I can't put it in. Wikipedia is starting to go wrong. Dbdb (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What you are describing is a Joe job. That technique has been applied in the past, but we are aware of that possibility, and will do anything to prevent that.  Sites can be unlisted if a site is blacklisted because of that action, though that will generally need the input of several established editors (as otherwise the opposite of the Joe job is also possible).  If you think the link is worthy of being used, and you need some help, I suggest you contact an appropriate wikiproject for their input (a list can be found here: WikiProject).  Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad it has a name at least. My blacklisting problem has now been resolved by the technique of adding the balcklisted site link but as plain text rather than as a hyperlink.  Now users can get to the pictures I wanted to link to but they have to use a keyboard and type, rather than a mouse and just click the link.  I assume this is acceptable or does Wikipedia blacklisting extend to forbidding mention of the site that is blacklisted (if so this page has a problem)?  All seems a bit farcical to me but then this seems to be the way Wikipedia is going. Dbdb (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dirk Beetstra is correct, that would be called a Joe job. Those are usualy easy to spot by experienced users, and won't be blacklisted by experienced admins, or reversed if evidence of it is provided. But thats off point. I removed the false URL kreuzz.net, and comment, "link fails as currently being censored by Wikipedia". Although this still provides access to the referenced piece, its just not hyperlinked. This discussion seems to headed down the wrong path based on your tone. Please take the above advice. Closing this as . thank you for your time--Hu12 (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

please remove allhostinginfo.com from blacklist
Please remove allhostinginfo.com from blacklist. This site contains useful information about web hosting, interesting web hosting polls, articles and more. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.112.168.226 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Relevant background:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1


 * I note that this additional domain should be added to the meta blacklist; it was spammed today by the requester above:


 * fr:Special:Contributions/92.112.168.226
 * fr:Special:Contributions/92.112.168.226


 * As for this removal request:
 * 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 links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.


 * This blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of these non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.


 * Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.


 * Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting here, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. We do not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative. -- A. B. (talk)


 * ❌ per A. B. -- Herby talk thyme 14:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just cross wiki searched, and after this report there seems to be uptick in it being spammed on the other wikis recomend meta BL.--Hu12 (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Requested meta --Hu12 (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

brighthub.com
I'm placing this here so that there is some form of on wiki record for the removal of this website from the blacklist. User:Mercury removed the site with this edit citing OTRS ticket number 2007120510014806. It appear that the community will have to make do with that. I imagine that there is some promise not to place future links or removing the listing would be very odd - I would suggest that we watch for any new links carefully. I will use this section as the edit summary for removing the item from the log so it can be seen for future reference & will inform Mercury of this.

✅ by Mercury -- Herby talk thyme 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it. :) Thanks for your hard work Herby. Regards, M ercury  03:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

www.tvrage.com
It appears that this site was never blocked because of spamming, but apparently for the reason that it's "not as useful" as TV.com. That's not a good enough reason, and it's not even true! I'm trying to cite tvrage in this article because TV.com doesn't have an article on that show while tvrage does. Yes, the owner of tvrage.com was incivil here but that's no reason to prevent all Wikipedia editors from referencing his web site. Waggers (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion is mostly on Meta though with links to here and is here. The link placement here does look quite excessive -- Herby  talk thyme 13:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The link above is broken - here is the correct one. Also, to clarify, the site was previously on the global blacklist but is now on the local blacklist, making this the right place for the discussion (before anyone tells me to take the discussion to meta!) Waggers (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this has been here for 5 days and no objections have been forthcoming, ✅. Waggers (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Waggers, please reconsider. First Herby did object above. Second, this site has an extensive history and I doubt that you would find much consensus among other Wikipedia admins to remove this from the blacklist. Third, I'll also go (belatedly) on the record as another person objecting.


 * Here's some of the background that I'm working from in writing these comments:
 * Meatpuppeting TVRage.com staff (based on this deleted edit) making inappropriate edits on Wikipedia:
 * User:JohnQ.Public -- note Wikipedia philosophy
 * User talk:JohnQ.Public -- long history on talk page culminating in a block
 * Talk:Heroes (TV series)/Archive 5:
 * "It's not spam you jackass. If you're going to act like a little God-King and delete it because you don't like it, I'll request Admin intervention."
 * "It's not spam you jackass. If you're going to act like a little God-King and delete it because you don't like it, I'll request Admin intervention."


 * Other special purpose editors or disruptive tvrage.com partisans:
 * cs:Speciální:Contributions/CZ.Fox
 * also possibly uses this account:
 * may be the staffer "andrew" on tvrage.com
 * user page with nothing but a plug for TVrage.com. User has no edits
 * User talk:84.91.31.192
 * User talk:67.166.122.233
 * User talk:Jacoplane/archive2 -- marginally civil complaint from 67.166.122.233
 * User talk:84.91.31.192
 * User talk:67.166.122.233
 * User talk:Jacoplane/archive2 -- marginally civil complaint from 67.166.122.233
 * User talk:67.166.122.233
 * User talk:Jacoplane/archive2 -- marginally civil complaint from 67.166.122.233


 * Discussions on Meta (no consensus in favor of these links):
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/10
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/11
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/02/Removals: Not Done
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/03
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Removals: Not Done
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Removals: Not Done
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/11


 * Templates:
 * Template:TVRage
 * Template:Tvrage
 * cs:Šablona:Tvrage


 * Alternate domains:
 * Google Adsense ID: 8918234119630968
 * Google Adsense ID: 8918234119630968
 * Google Adsense ID: 8918234119630968
 * Google Adsense ID: 8918234119630968


 * Definitely related domain:


 * Probably related domains:
 * Google Adsense ID: 1198368960847921
 * Google Adsense ID: 1198368960847921
 * Google Adsense ID: 1198368960847921


 * Articles deleted multiple times:
 * Tvrage
 * TVRage.com
 * de:TVRage


 * Deletion discussions:
 * Articles for deletion/TVrage.com
 * Note the massive sock/meatpuppetry:
 * Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination)
 * More sock/meatpuppetry
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination)
 * User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/5
 * Complaints to AfD-closing admin and accusations of conspiracies among Wikipedia admins


 * Spam and AfD canvassing on tvrage.com:
 * www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=5&fid=6635
 * www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=382
 * www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=476
 * www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=477


 * Other discussions on en.wikipedia:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/02
 * Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 9
 * User talk:67.161.252.235
 * Talk:W.I.T.C.H. (TV series)
 * User talk:Jacoplane/archive2
 * Articles for deletion/TV.com
 * speedy kept as a bad faith nomination in revenge for the TVRage deletion
 * Talk:X-Play
 * User talk:Amaas120/Archive 1 uncivil editing
 * Talk:The Office (US TV series)/Archive 3
 * Talk:Cowboy Bebop/Archive 1
 * Talk:The Kids in the Hall
 * User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/5
 * User talk:JohnQ.Public
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2006/11
 * User talk:Ambidexter
 * User talk:67.166.122.233
 * User talk:Renata3/archive4
 * User talk:Renata3/archive6
 * User talk:Jtrost/Archive1 -- rant from anon IP who was introducing negative POV material against TV.com
 * User talk:67.161.252.235
 * Canvassing from a tvrage.com person:
 * User talk:Eatcacti
 * User talk:Marcus2


 * Recent indication indicating this site may be declining:
 * www.tvrage.com/profiles/JohnQ.Public/blogs/view/?vid=10089


 * I am concerned that we will lose control of the placement of these links, given my reading of the domain's history and the extent to which multiple meatpuppets, not just one, have spammed Wikipedia whenever they had a chance.


 * I'd like to respectfully request that you re-blacklist this domain. Thanks, -- A. B. (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with what A. B. has said. I would also add that I think it would be preferable (extremely desirable?) to avoid listing something and being the admin that removes the item.  Such action would be open to being misunderstood I think.  In passing I would add that there is not and never has been a specified time that a request should be open for.  Please reconsider this action -- Herby  talk thyme 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll ask this be reconsidered also, and support relisting per AB and Herbythyme.--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple more comments:
 * Some prior discussions mentioned tvrage'snon- notability and there were comments that it would become notable someday. Update: checking Google News comes up with neither relevant archived media articles nor current press reports
 * The only reason I recommended removing this site from the Meta blacklist was to allow the site-owners to add their links to several thousand non-Wikimedia wikis use MediaWiki software and have adopted our meta blacklist in their own filtering. This removal was done on the basis that the domain would continue to be blacklisted on this one Wikimedia project (en.wikipedia).
 * -- A. B. (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(remove indent)It's extremely frustrating that this discussion is only beginning now I've removed the item from the blacklist. I'll relist it for the time being based on the arguments above, but I must admit I fail to understand many of the arguments. It's clear that there's some history here, but very little of it seems relevant to why upstanding Wikipedians can't reference this site. Rather than linking to previous discussions (most of which end in "we'll do nothing for now and see what happens later" type responses), and lists of abusive users who may or may not be something to do with the site itself, it would be helpful to have a simple list of reasons why the site should be on the blacklist. As for the recent assertion about notability - since when did notability have to apply to external websites? WP:N is about the subject of articles, and I have no intention of starting an article on tvrage.com - I just want to reference it in The General (TV series) without the template being mucked up because of an apparently ill-reasoned blacklisting. Waggers (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yikes, Waggers!
 * Timeliness: . I'm sorry I did not respond within 5 days as you expected. I've been busy with lots of stuff.
 * Others inputs: I thought Herby already told you some of the problems. I thought he was part of your discussion. I thought he was one admin saying it was a poor idea.
 * Likely consequences: The potential problem here is that when the entire domain is removed from the blacklist, then not only will "upstanding Wikipedians" add links here and there, but also a mob of TVRagers. I spent 4 hours putting together this stuff for you and others for this discussion. I looked at all those links. I read the TVRage message boards -- they had members still moaning about the blacklisting and wanting to add links as of just a month or two ago. They're pretty obsessed with exposure on Wikipedia; take a look at this Google search:
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atvrage.com+Wikipedia&btnG=Search
 * "May or may not": I'm not sure why you characterized my edit as "lists of abusive users who may or may not be something to do with the site itself". I don't see the "may or may not" part: I've provided edit histories and links to establish that they were abusive here and that they are listed as "staff" there. (Their "staff" are unpaid sysops).
 * Notability: I mentioned notability because, when you step through all the discussions I've linked for you, you'll find that one reason TVRage partisans said they should have links was that they either were notable or about to be notable. That's their reasoning, not mine.
 * The usual approach: Have you considered the alternative just whitelisting the specific deep link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist? Nobody has said upstanding editors can't add TVRage links; that's why we have the whitelist -- so we can facilitate linking to specific pages by editors such as yourself. That's the way the community normally deals with things like your The General (TV series) link.
 * Site quality as seen by other Wikipedia editors: Read the assessments of link quality by other Wikipedia editors in the various article and user talk page discussions linked to above. About 15% of our regular editors thought the links might have value. Most did not.
 * Another view of site quality: A tvrage.com link I provided you above specifically addresses the issue of site quality you questioned above:
 * www.tvrage.com/profiles/JohnQ.Public/blogs/view/?vid=10089
 * A former staff member states:
 * "It's no secret that this entire site, and the foundation of its existence, is based on getting information from other websites and formatting it to our standards. Why bother to lie people, we all steal info."
 * Read the responses that follow on that page, some from other staff members. Not a pretty picture of TVrage.com.
 * My assessment of link quality based on what I've seen: The content is self-published with virtually no editorial oversight of content quality. It does not meet our Reliable Sources Guideline. Out of curiosity, what's the specific page you were interested in linking to? Perhaps it's an exception.
 * I hope this addresses your complaints about my earlier comment. -- A. B. (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again I concur with A. B.'s views. It really does not look a desirable site from a number of viewpoints and that was apparent before this discussion started.
 * Equally if there really is a need for a specific link that the community agree is necessary I have no problem adding it to the whitelist myself -- Herby talk thyme 08:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys, thanks very much for your time and patience in dealing with this, and sorry I've been a bit of an awkward customer. The spam blacklist/whitelist isn't an area I've really strayed into much before, so I do apologise for my ignorance.  Whitelisting the particular link in question is definitely the best way forward, in my opinion.  Do I need to raise a specific (separate) request to do that or will this discussion suffice?  Cheers, Waggers (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Recent activity;
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#TVRage.Com
 * Accounts identified as site administrator/owner of TVRage.Com. The Gadflyr account is attempting to forum shop in order to discredit/joejob IMDB, with the same resoning the TVRage.com white-listing was denied. A similar pattern which occured previously to TV.com, in this situation, when the TVRage.Com article was deleted.--Hu12 (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

www.firefoxmyths.com
Everything on the site is factually correct, and it nicely counteracts the totally positive nature of the article on firefox. I suspect that many wikipedia admins are opensource fanboys, linux fanboys and/or firefox fanboys. And I think this is the only reason FFM has been blacklisted. FFM should be added to the firefox article. There is not one word of negative criticism in the FF article (c.f. internet explorer), I suspect the FF article is written by Fanboys. I'm not arguing with anyone about it, this is a simple test of wikipedia open-source neutrality, firefox needs this link or a criticism section. Good Day. 90.240.18.35 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Mr_FirefoxSucks


 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive97.


 * Reference: Google Adsense ID# 4949297748371281


 * Additional domain:
 * http:// mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/


 * 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 links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.


 * Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.


 * ❌ -- A. B. (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

Blacklisting email addresses
Does anyone know why this addition didn't work? E-mail address don't work? I added to the wrong place? I flubbed the regex somehow? None of the above? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist states it'll only work with links starting with . &mdash;Cryptic 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So it does. Unfortunate.  Do you know if the meta blacklist has the same restriction?  There are e-mail addresses in the list there so maybe they're using a different mechanism?  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are only two listed and I don't think that would work either way (unless possibly it was a "Clickable" mailto: type link -- Herby talk thyme 18:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh so you don't think those are working anyway. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to keep reverting (or try out one of the anti-spam bots - although I haven't great luck with those in the past).  Thanks.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

= Discussion =

mapsofworld dot com
Why is this blacklisted? It stops me from editing User:Lupin/alltalk, which is irritating. It appears to be a reasonably harmless reference website. Lupin|talk|popups 08:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion was here thanks -- Herby talk thyme 08:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

www.michaelmanalolazo.go.cc
I got a "spam warning" on this. I have no idea where it came from. How do I get rid of the warning? Or the alleged spyware? Trekphiler (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * go.cc has been blacklisted on meta. Apparently for being a redirect site (see request), which are normally blocked on sight.  Though the URL you supply does not appear to redirect.  If you need a particular link whitelisting for an article you can make a request to have it white listed.  If you determine the whole domain needs removing from the blacklist you should make that request on meta.
 * I'm not sure where your question about spyware comes from. I didn't see any reference to spyware when looking at this.
 * To help others looking at this:

-- SiobhanHansa 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)