MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2009

=Proposed additions=

closingcostfax.com
This user repeatedly spam the "closing cost" article after warnings. The site offers wikipedia users nothing but links to use their services at a cost. They are a business (and a shady one at that), and are not considered a helpful link in anyway to the user. They come back repeatedly to edit good external links in lieu of their spam links.

Spam account and domain

Jimwalez (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Jimwalez
 * Note: see this blacklisting entry for Jimwalez' own domains:


 * Additional IP:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also:


 * Deleted material:
 * Closingcostfax.com - deleted twice
 * Closingcostfax


 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A competing site that also spams Wikipedia: closingcost.info

 * Spam domains:
 * Google Adsense ID: 0837727812886198
 * Google Adsense ID: 0837727812886198


 * Note link-jacking:
 * Note link-jacking:
 * Note link-jacking:


 * Note link-jacking:
 * Note link-jacking:




 * Related domains:


 * Accounts:
 * Note this request to have his competitor's site blacklisted:
 * Note this request to have his competitor's site blacklisted:
 * Note this request to have his competitor's site blacklisted:


 * Toronto area IPs
 * Some seem to trace within the vicinity of the Scarborough GO Station
 * Some seem to trace within the vicinity of the Scarborough GO Station


 * Dartmouth College IP addresses

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

clickwrestle.com
This site was mass added today even after warnings. The site promises video clips of particular professional wrestlers. However the links lead to a subscription site which requires payment and membership to view the videos. I think most all of the links have been removed but they do seem to come back.



Thank you for your time. JodyBtalk 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I did some checking. Black Pants Productions also owns these domains:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- clickwrestling.com domain only. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

visataxes.com

 * Spam domain:


 * Spam accounts:

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Spam-only user page:
 * User talk:International tax expert
 * Continued after final warning. No additions since.--Hu12 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Still spamming.


 * Related domain:


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

amazonkindlecheap.com
Periodically appears on Amazon Kindle, although when I looked at it just now, it was a deadlink. Still, no reason for such an obvious (to me) spammy link.

Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's taken awhile to sort this out.
 * Domains:


 * Related domains


 * Possibly related domain:


 * amazon.com referral IDs: ultimrevie-20, cheapzune-20, cheaproomba-20


 * Google Adsense ID: 4979731710775578


 * Accounts:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs)


 * (except the "possibly related" domain.) -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org (original thread)
Long-term spamming and use to push fringe views in, see also Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. Links actively being promoted by the site owner (e.g. ) in continued furtherance of a real-world dispute which has spilled over onto Wikipedia. Inappropriate as a source due to polemic and fringe advocacy, includes material hosted in violation of original publisher's copyright. Adding now, and listing here for transparency. Also newenergytimes.com seems to be apart of the same problem. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This was added, as noted; this addition by JzG appears to have supported his preferred content, making reversion of some edits of his, the same day, impossible. I have requested removal below.


 * The site is a library of articles on the topic of cold fusion. I have not checked it for balance, but even if it is only a library of articles selected with a bias, it could still be usable under some conditions. I'm concerned that a private decision that some individual is linkspamming -- he presents no evidence of this, the post diff'd above doesn't show it, but is a legitimate, on the face, Talk page reference to the site, signed by the librarian -- is resulting in the loss of a highly useful resource for copies of articles; the site's own content would be, most likely, unusable, depending on details I don't know; but what JzG broke was citations of articles with links to copies of the articles on the site. Thus what could be easy verification by any reader becomes difficult; the reader will have to go to a library that has a copy of the journal involved. As to the claim of copyright violation, the site claims that permission has been obtained for its content. As I understand the matter, we are not responsible for copyright violation by a site we do not control, and absent clear evidence that a site is massively in violation, which raises other issues, this should not be a reason to prohibit links to the site. In any case, the arguments JzG presents, above, are *content* issues and should be resolved by ordinary editorial consensus, not by administrative fiat, unless some clear and serious policy violation is involved, which has not even been alleged. I do not get, as an editor, to decide unilaterally that some source is inappropriate, and neither should any admin be able to decide that and enforce it with his tools. --Abd (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

See discussion below, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist --Abd (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Link fixed due to subject name change below.--Abd (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hott Media, UK (www.hottmedia.net)
User:195.160.253.4 has used this IP since 11 March 2007 to insert promotional links to blogs and entertainment/music artist websites such as micro-softmusic.com and terencemas.com. Editor recently used IP to request an article created on "www.hottmedia.net," which editor described as "A private media company that facilitates the needs of many commercial record labels and unsigned artists." -  Ro   Bo   Tam   ice 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several clusters of spam which may stem from different spammers using the same IP at different times or it may all be due to the same person. In any event, it's all undesirable and there have been plenty of requests and warnings to stop:


 * Cluster 1:
 * Google Adsense ID: 7144454365350608
 * es:Especial:Contribuciones/195.160.253.4
 * Related domains:
 * es:Especial:Contribuciones/195.160.253.4
 * Related domains:
 * Related domains:
 * Related domains:
 * Related domains:
 * Related domains:
 * Related domains:
 * Related domains:
 * Related domains:
 * Related domains:


 * Cluster 2:
 * Google Adsense ID: 1821246392783059
 * Already blacklisted on meta as a URL redirection site: meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-02
 * Already blacklisted on meta as a URL redirection site: meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-02


 * Cluster 3:
 * Music-related
 * ]|undefined
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ]|undefined
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * except taimahmud.com; I'm not absolutely certain it was associated with cluster 3 or added as spam; also did not include vilasta.com since it's blacklisted on meta. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

ED


I just tried to view the page history of a page on ED and my anti-spyware detector went off that the page was trying to edit my registry. Now every couple of minutes I get a random popup for. I think a page that is known to download malware to users computers would be a good addition for this list.  MBisanz  talk 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll want to add  Kylu (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's on the meta blacklist, only the main page can be linked (through whitelisting) and I would say that anyone who links that anywhere other than in the article on ED should be banninated. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never encountered malware on ED. Shame that other person withdrew their comment.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_5 . Main page already whitelisted for use ONLY in the ED article. --Hu12 (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

farecompare.com
I am in the process of blacklisting and purging the many hundreds of spam links to this price comparison site, added as spurious references to large numbers of articles. Herby spotted this one, kudos to him. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ive seen this spam before. needs blacklisted. Canis Lupus 14:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI: past discussions on the links (no objections to removal of the links):
 * February 2007 - WP:AIRPORTS talk archive
 * March 2007 - WT:WPSPAM talk archive
 * March 2008 - WT:WPSPAM talk archive
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Still over a hundred of these...--Hu12 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I took care of 60 of them last night ... I'm hoping to have time tonight tomorrow night to remove at least that many more. But, additional help is appreciated!  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did the last ones, luckily they're all rather stubby which makes life a lot easier. Nice find Herby. --fvw *  06:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is to say, I did en:, but I think that's the main one. --fvw *  06:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work, consider this one ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

undergroundcashsecret.com


Accounts:





MLM marketing scheme, user MO is to replace valid links with this URL. - MrOllie (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

f1portal.net

 * Per m:User:COIBot/XWiki/f1portal.net. Thank you Dferg T ES 12:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also per WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/f1portal.net, ✅ thanks--Hu12 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also per WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/f1portal.net, ✅ thanks--Hu12 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

indianservers.com
See COIBot report &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 03:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

optiontradingpedia.com
Garden variety financial web-site spamming. User account and IP sock blocked. COIBot shows a pattern of abuse going back months.

Accounts:



Ronnotel (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

✅ Ronnotel (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Dec_1
 * Adsense pub-2850904672063531
 * Other Accounts

(also logged this).--Hu12 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

cabbagesoupdiet7day.com
cabbagesoupdiet7day.com has been repeatedly added to Cabbage soup diet by many different IPs for nearly a year. (Examples:   )  Deli nk (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * More from Adsense pub-0540338099227977
 * Already done 
 * Already done 
 * Already done 
 * Already done 
 * Clear and persistant long term spamming. Additionaly it appears along with this domain, other related domains by the same Adsense owner (pub-0540338099227977) have been clearly spammed and has used wikipedia to promote his/her site under multiple anon accounts. All are ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Already done 
 * Clear and persistant long term spamming. Additionaly it appears along with this domain, other related domains by the same Adsense owner (pub-0540338099227977) have been clearly spammed and has used wikipedia to promote his/her site under multiple anon accounts. All are ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

immigrationlawyersecuador.com
Has been added 6 times to Ecuador by 190.154.199.67, whose only other contribution is a similar link. Edit summary requests ignored


 * Other domains spammed or on other projects:


 * Related domains:


 * Other accounts:
 * ru:Служебная:Contributions/190.154.199.67
 * ru:Обсуждение_участника:190.154.199.67 - blocked on ru.wikipedia
 * es:Especial:Contribuciones/Hc1ajq
 * ru:Служебная:Contributions/Hc1ajq
 * ru:Служебная:Contributions/Hc1ajq


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

pureinsideout.com
This link has been added to multiple articles by multiple IPs over several months. Deli nk (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Sample IPs:
 * Cross wiki IP
 * it:Special:Contributions/67.71.156.95
 * es:Special:Contributions/87.0.122.35
 * Persistant spamming, and in addition its a Link normally to be avoided. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cross wiki IP
 * it:Special:Contributions/67.71.156.95
 * es:Special:Contributions/87.0.122.35
 * Persistant spamming, and in addition its a Link normally to be avoided. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * es:Special:Contributions/87.0.122.35
 * Persistant spamming, and in addition its a Link normally to be avoided. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

recoverdatasoftware.com
Please add per m:User:COIBot/XWiki/recoverdatasoftware.com and Data recovery. This is the only wiki that's been targeted. --Erwin(85) 14:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * -- seth (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

atfindia.org






Domain has been added to external links pages repeatedly by multiple suspected sock accounts, promoting web-articles tenously related to the topic. user has been warned repeatedly. User A1 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More Alt Tech Foundation spam IP's      Clear cut Abuse ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

espadrilles.ca
has been added to Espadrilles a couple of times from different IPs, see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/espadrilles.ca for more information. --Erwin(85) 20:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Accounts:
 * es:Especial:Contribuciones/65.95.80.253
 * es:Especial:Contribuciones/65.95.80.253
 * es:Especial:Contribuciones/65.95.80.253


 * Related domain:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * for now -- spammer has not received any warnings. I've just given him one -- if he persists, we'll blacklist on meta. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

hollywood-stars-photos.blogspot.com
has been added to a number of articles from a handful of different IPs, e.g.

More information can be found at m:User:COIBot/XWiki/hollywood-stars-photos.blogspot.com. --Erwin(85) 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Google Adsense IDs: 6214313623737971, 1100361148675592


 * Additional IPs:
 * tr:Özel:Katkılar/88.243.13.85
 * tr:Özel:Katkılar/88.244.19.87
 * tr:Özel:Katkılar/88.249.162.4
 * de:Spezial:Beiträge/88.249.162.4
 * tr:Özel:Katkılar/88.249.161.216
 * tr:Özel:Katkılar/88.243.11.22
 * tr:Kullanıcı mesaj:88.243.11.22 (warning)
 * tr:Özel:Katkılar/88.244.155.248
 * tr:Özel:Katkılar/88.244.19.126
 * tr:Özel:Katkılar/78.176.136.232
 * tr:Kullanıcı mesaj:88.243.11.22 (warning)
 * tr:Özel:Katkılar/88.244.155.248
 * tr:Özel:Katkılar/88.244.19.126
 * tr:Özel:Katkılar/78.176.136.232


 * Additional domains spammed


 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

nitroroms.com
These accounts, JuJuBee2:, Puzznic, AltKaiba and ShaolinMonk20 have all added links to nitroroms.com, usually where the title of the article first occurs. This is an inappropriate use of external links, and they appear to be the same user (this may be related to the accounts that added the 4shared links). — Snigbrook 00:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More sock accounts created for spamming

✅. Thanks for reporting--Hu12 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Associated content.com

 * Note the spaces. Associatedcontent.com is already blacklisted, but it was bypassed with spaces. Hope this is the right place finally. -kotra (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly it wasn't hyperlinked (which this blacklist can prevent). This kind of addition should be treated as promotion or simple vandalism, then reverted (as was done in this case). Good catch, however this is --Hu12 (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

indian-recipe.net and joke-master.com spam
Domains: Google Adsense ID: 4819470624909212

Related domains:

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

inodetechnologies.com

 * Spam domain:


 * Accounts:

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted material:
 * Inode technologies - deleted twice



SWR Group (U.K.) spam

 * Spam domains:

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts:


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

goldenteahouse.com spam

 * Spamming Wikipedia persistently since 2005:
 * Requests for investigation/Archives/2005/09


 * Spam domains:


 * Related domains

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Spam accounts:


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

soundproofmagazine.com

 * Link


 * Accounts

This link was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2009 Archive Jan 1. There is also a link report available at WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/soundproofmagazine.com.
 * Comments

On-going issue with spam and COI. These had stopped breifly after the prior report at WT:WPSPAM, but the postings resumed again today. Note:, who claims to be a co-owner of the site, has acknowledged a COI in adding the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅. --Hu12 (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

drakecircus.net
moved here from my talk page. -- seth (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[...] Users are adding www.drakecircus.net instead of .com, so you might want to add it to the blacklist.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * [...] Blacklisting will be done in a few minutes. -- seth (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to be working, as one of the latest sockpuppets is resorting to redirecting pages there.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  17:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Revert, indef block, protect user talk page, later, rinse, repeat. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Jeremy-parkurst-junior another. DMacks (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

webs.com
This main home for this domain bills itself as a place to "create your own website for free". The problem is that many of the websites created are not written by authorities on the subjects. While there may be some legitimate pages on the site, the ones I have reviewed thus far are comprised of fansites, soapboxing, advertisements, and original research into various subjects.

Unfortunately, there are over 600 uses of this domain in multiple articles on Wikipedia, so reviewing is going to be time consuming to determine which (if any) of the uses should be viewed as legitimate and potentially allow white-listing for any legitimate sites that may be found.

Note: this was initially reported a few days ago at Wikipedia talk:WPSPAM. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: After searching further, it appears that webs.com was originally named freewebs.com. For both that site and for webs.com, it appears that blacklisting has been done in the past based on subdomains.  Looking at this closer, I suspect that's the better way to address this: blacklisting subdomains only if they become problematic - not doing the whole webs.com domain due to several inappropriate uses of it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

www.stonexsurveying.com
The site www.stonexsurveying.com has been added repeatedly over the last few days by different IPs to Surveying and Geodesy. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ive found one other IP adding these related urls;
 * Adsense pub-1857240664011390
 * Have there beem more?--Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have there beem more?--Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have there beem more?--Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Have there beem more?--Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all that I can find. I didn't count the pdesigner.net additions, because it seemed to me more a notability question than a spam issue. These are the diffs I've found: Additions of links to stonexsurveying.com

By 213.156.61.155:

21:31, 28 January 2009

21:35, 28 January 2009

By 81.21.81.117:

22:23, 26 January 2009

Addition of links to totalstationshop.com (appears to be the same company).

09:14, 21 November 2008

12:05, 23 August 2007

--Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Found more and added them above. Appears to be a long term problem over multiple IP's (and projects), Consider Both related URLS ✅. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's still more out there. I'll post a list in a little while. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Domains spammed on this or other projects and likely owned by the spammer (I recommend blacklisting on meta):
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Domains spammed on this or other projects and probably owned by the spammer's clients (I recommend blacklisting on meta):
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional accounts:


 * Cross-wiki contributions:
 * az:Xüsusi:Contributions/81.21.81.117
 * el:Ειδικό:Συνεισφορές/217.25.31.2
 * ru:Служебная:Contributions/217.25.31.2
 * ru:Служебная:Contributions/81.17.94.119
 * it:Speciale:Contributi/213.156.61.155
 * it:Discussioni utente:213.156.61.155
 * da:Speciel:Bidrag/217.64.20.168
 * bs:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * cs:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * cy:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * de:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * eo:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * eu:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * fi:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * id:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * io:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * it:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * lt:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * na:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * nl:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * nn:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * no:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * pl:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * pt:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * scn:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * simple:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * sk:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * sv:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * tl:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * vi:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168
 * zh-min-nan:Special:Contributions/217.64.20.168


 * Related domains registered to the spammer (I recommend blacklisting on meta):
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Related domains associated with the surveyor spam (I recommend blacklisting on meta):
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- now blacklisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional web design clients (I recommend monitoring with XLinkBot):[http ://www.pdesigner.net/testimonials.html][http:// www.pdesigner.net/portfolio.html]
 * Previously flagged as spam: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2.5 however I'm not sure it fits the same pattern as our spammer.
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * Previously flagged as spam: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2.5 however I'm not sure it fits the same pattern as our spammer.
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * Previously flagged as spam: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2.5 however I'm not sure it fits the same pattern as our spammer.
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * Previously flagged as spam: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2.5 however I'm not sure it fits the same pattern as our spammer.
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * Previously flagged as spam: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2.5 however I'm not sure it fits the same pattern as our spammer.
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article
 * official web site of the Azeri football club, which has an article


 * -- now monitored by XLinkBot as well as x-wiki -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly related domains (May or may not be clients -- I don't have time to check right now):
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

4shared.com
Several accounts have been adding links to file sharing site where songs are mentioned in articles, sometimes replacing wiki links; this appears to have started in October 2008 (although links to similar sites had been added to some of the articles before), and many, and maybe all of the accounts, appear to be the same user. The articles most frequently targeted appear to be related to Elton John, Prince and Silverchair.

When I first noticed this I made a checkuser request, and as a result almost 200 accounts were found, and a few IP addresses were blocked. I looked again a few weeks later and found four new accounts that had re-added some of the links; the checkuser request for these, at Sockpuppet investigations/Wallflowers98, found another two accounts. The additions of links are continuing, with more accounts, some are recently created but others are older, and were created before the first checkuser request (I have found a few more accounts created in October/November). The accounts used recently are:
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)
 * (although this account may be unrelated to the others)

The site has several existing links to it from various namespaces, and I'm not sure if the links are valid (some, at least on talk pages, may be), but I think links to the site should be added to the spam blacklist as they are unlikely to be reliable sources and are more likely to be copyright violations, with the existing links either removed, disabled or added to the whitelist. — Snigbrook 20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Kanonkas : Talk  00:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also added 4sh@red.com, which I've seen dozens of accounts in the sockfarm also add to articles. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are still a number of these links to be cleaned up from articles.


 * There are also a ton of links on other projects -- should this be blacklisted on meta? -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up a bit. Many links remains, but they're in user talk archives. I'd prefer not to remove them myself. -- Kanonkas : Talk  13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have 1201 link additions of this in the db. As this is too much for COIBot to munch (above its limits), I have dumped the contents of the db in XML form onto m:User talk:COIBot/LinkReports/4shared.com.  I did not see much appropriate use when I clicked some diff-links, though there seems to be some good faith 'use' (creating a list of these sites, on fr.wikipedia IIRC).  Also, it looks more that there is abuse on several wikis (Top 10 wikis where 4shared.com has been added: w:en (789), w:fa (104), w:tr (67), w:pt (62), w:es (38), w:ar (37), w:fr (29), q:en (17), w:id (15), w:it (6)), but until now I did not see many accounts who were active on more wikis (one I did find is IP 189.41.204.210, on pt and en).  Maybe the logs will help with tracking this down further.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Vjlenin spam
Google Adsense ID: 5121125668497952
 * Spam domains:


 * Related domains:

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts:

Gri Limanlar spam
Google Adsense ID: 7081921451766750
 * Spam domains

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC) -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Spam account:

Pro-Sales Solutions (telemarketing company) spam

 * Spam summary:


 * Spam accounts:

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted spam page:
 * Choosing a Telemarketing Company -- deleted 3 times

Tonyzambino spam
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Www.easyfleamarketauction.com deleted 3 times
 * Not exactly Mr. Congeniality
 * Www.easyfleamarketauction.com deleted 3 times
 * Not exactly Mr. Congeniality


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dancraparotta spam



 * 21 warnings (mostly bots) followed by a block
 * 21 warnings (mostly bots) followed by a block
 * 21 warnings (mostly bots) followed by a block

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

jkanji.com spam
Domains: Google Adsense ID: 8162150331069387

Accounts: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

parkerpens.ru
This link has been repeated added to several articles by a couple of IPs and one user. Deli nk (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)




 * Same users are also active on ru, I have commanded creation of m:User:COIBot/XWiki/parkerpens.ru. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

=Proposed removals=

scififantasyfiction. suite101. com
I want to use this article [scififantasyfiction. suite101. com/ article.cfm/ nicola_griffith] as a reference is an article about Homosexuality in SF. It looks like a reliable source, and the interviewee is notable. I assume it was blacklisted for a spamming reason, but it remains a useful reliable source (this interview is not hosted elsewhere).Yobmod (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, i see this site has much spamming, therefore i requested white-listing of just that page instead.Yobmod (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Closing as deffered to whitelist (some time ago). --Hu12 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

www.historyhouse.co.uk/essexg05a.html
I tried to add this link to the history section of the Grays article. It contains interesting information about the history of the town from an 1848 publication. I was therefore surprised to see that it's regarded as spam and blocked. I can only presume that there have been problems with it in the past. I have no connection with anyone running the site, I found it when looking for online sources about the town's history, a subject which is only very briefly touched on by the Wikipedia article. Since the site also contains further interesting sections from White's Directory of Essex (1848) in relation to other small towns in Essex, I might further wish to refer to it when developing similar articles. Would it please be possible to remove either the site or the page mentioned above from the list? Obviously if this is a problem I'll look for other sources, however this site seems to have several worth referring to in one convenient location. IrishPete (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you want the whitelist, since it's only a single link. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

IrishPete (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is the first time I've encountered this problem, so I wasn't quite sure how to go about it.
 * Stifle (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

www.drakecircus.com
There has been a continual and ongoing disruption of the Drake Circus Shopping Centre article by several disruptive editors. Their preferred method is to removed the official website address of the article's subject. This address has not been spammed and so far as I know only appears on the article itself which is quite within the rules of WP. After the protection has been removed from the article one of the disruptive IPs has removed the link once again. We have not been able to revert the edit due to this address having appeared somehow on the spam filter (no doubt requested by one of these disruptive editors. I'd be grateful if this entry could be removed from the filter as it should never have been there in the first place. Thanks. -- Web H amster  00:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A user with a dynamic IP had been adding the link, and promotional content about the shopping centre, to random articles, but this was probably the same user who was removing the link from the Drake Circus Shopping Centre article in an attempt to have it added to the blacklist.  It was added to the blacklist on 14 November by User:Herbythyme (who is currently on a wikibreak and not an administrator). — Snigbrook  20:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It was being spammed across a number of pages (including user ones) at the time. That was disruptive & that is what the list is for.  I am no longer an admin & only watch limited areas of the project due to time issues.
 * Whatever else it was correct to list it given the disruption being caused by people placing the link. -- Herby talk thyme 12:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

editprotected The link has been removed from the Drake Circus Shopping Centre article by an IP, and I tried to revert but I am currently unable to because of the blacklist (the blacklist would also prevent other users from editing the article without removing the link ). See comments above for an explanation of why it was added to the blacklist – a more appropriate solution, if the link continues to be used for vandalism, would be to add it to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Snigbrook 20:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Webhamster's summary at the top of this section is right in places but wrong where pointed out by Snigbrook and Herbythyme. The URL was indeed spammed in unlikely places either by IPs or by throwaway accounts (I now forget which) who were unconvincingly posing as tenants of this shopping mall. (Here's just one crass example.) At the same time the presence of the URL within the article on this shopping mall was repeatedly (and tiresomely) opposed by IPs as worthless and spam. I can agree with the latter IPs that the website is uninformative and uninteresting. (It's the site of a shopping mall, so one can hardly expect more.) Because it's uninformative and uninteresting, I find it very hard to imagine any legitimate reason ever to link to it from anywhere other than this one article. And because IPs are tireless in expressing their loathing of this shopping mall, the joe-job spamlinks elsewhere are likely to reappear. If User:XLinkBot/RevertList does what its name suggests, it will allow some irritating person with an endless supply of IP numbers to waste WP resources. I think the domain should instead stay blacklisted. (My own inclination after hours and hours wasted over this uninteresting article: Unblacklist the domain to let it be added to this article, edit the article, protect the article indefinitely, and reblacklist. But no doubt this would violate various policies.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hoary's final piece in brackets seems perfect to me :). The only difference to me is (fortunately) I've not wasted hours on the (remarkably) uninteresting article. -- Herby  talk thyme 15:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest I don't really care what happens either to the article or to the link, what does piss me off though is when wankers 'win' by gaming the system. In my eyes it just sets dangerous precedents. By adding the address to the blacklist you have given these prats exactly what they want. When it comes down to it though is that this is giving in purely because of convenience. What happens when someone tries the very same thing with www.micro$haft.com? The fact of the matter is that this link is being used correctly on the article and therefore should be allowed to be added to the article. It's a shame that the blacklist can't be versatile enough to filter the address if it's not used on that article or if it's used more than once. I still think it's a bad day when convenience wins over correct procedure.


 * Oh, and yes I totally agree that this is a thoroughly uninteresting article and doesn't warrant the time that's been spent on it... not to mention all the other faecal fallout associated with it that Hoary and I have had to deal with! -- Web H amster  15:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be appropriate to remove it from the blacklist. The next time the certain disruptive user removes the link, I (and other users) will not be able to revert the edit and will have to seek admin help. This is a ridiculous waste of time. The link was probably spammed around in the first place just so that the certain disruptive user could increase the time it would take for one of us to revert the edit.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What about a semi-protection of this article for at least 6 months? If a link is on the blacklist it doesn't mean, that the link is evil, but it's just a possibility for us to protect the wikipedia against spamming. If we let the link on the SBL but additionally semi-protect the article that solution won't waste much time. This could be a work-around until the we are possible to restrict SBL entries to certain articles. -- seth (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Protecting the article makes no difference. If the IP fuckwits don't want the web link to appear all they have to do is spam it over the project like they did last time so that a pissed off admin like Herby once again adds it to the SBL. Once it's on the blacklist the article can't be edited without removing the link. So they get it removed by proxy so's to speak. As I said, they are gaming the system and this needs to be sorted because it's a loophole other vandals can use. Either way they win and disrupt the project in the process (albeit marginally) -- Web H amster  19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But there should be a link to the website on the article. It is not possible to do so whilst it is on the blacklist. I do not wish to compromise an article's quality to prevent SPAM elsewhere.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  19:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree, which is why I commented above that the convenience of admins does not outweigh the fact that it's appropriate to include the link. This is the short end of a wedge that sooner or later could be jammed up a lazy admin's rear-end. -- Web H amster  20:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Normaly when Wikipedia encounters this sort of disruption from a user, blocks are enforced. I have never seen one of the IP addresses blocked. I think that if this user becomes active again, we should try to enforce a range block. We have plenty of evidence.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  20:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is the insidiousness of the spamming...not only on related pages and not "many pages at once", so hard to catch by watchlisting. I concur that there appears to have been (and again is, now that protection expired) a ton of gaming and throwaway/sock/rotating account usage here, bad enough that it can't even be discerned which socks are on which side of the aisle (or posing to be). But it doesn't matter...the URL is a spam problem. Blacklisting it solves it in a way that xlinkbot can't: I don't see any legitimate use of it anywhere by anyone except on this page, but we do have evidence of users attempting to do so and vandal-trackers having an annoying time tracking them. I'm with Hoary and seth here...the link seems appropriate IMO. Too much time has already been spent on such an unimportant article...fix the vandalism, protect so it doesn't happen again, move on. DMacks (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On comment "Once it's on the blacklist the article can't be edited without removing the link.":
 * That's not true. Since May 2008 an article is not blocked, if there's link on it which has been placed there before the link was blacklisted. That's why I said, that a combination of a sbl addition and and a semi-protection would solve the problem. -- seth (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support semi-protecting the article. At least six months, as the user has shown no sign of stopping. We need to remove it from the blacklist, add the URL back to the article and then re-add the URL to the blacklist and then semi-protect the article, so IPs cannot remove it.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the editprotected template, as this discussion seems to be moving away from that option.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As there are no objections to the proposal we repeated a few times up there...
 * Could any admin reading this semi-protect Drake Circus Shopping Centre for about 6 months? I guess my half adminship does not allow me to do that. The rest, i.e., temp unblocking I can do by myself. -- seth (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I certainly could. Indeed, I've just tried to do this -- of course after readding the link. But I was told The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. Seth, you're right, your silly half adminship doesn't permit you to do this kind of thing. If I'd been aware of your candidacy I'd have voted to make you a full admin with none of the silliness. So, plan A, in the spirit of "IAR" and more importantly of "let's stop dicking around", I, rouge administrator extraordinaire, authorize you to deblacklist, edit the page, save it, sprotect it for six months, and reblacklist. If people are unhappy with that they can desysop both of us, ha ha. Alternatively, plan B, I'll do the whole thing myself: I'm unfamiliar with de/reblacklisting and may screw something up, but then you're unfamiliar with protection and may screw something up there. Plan B would be less controversial than plan A, and wouldn't jeopardize your career (if career is the right word). So which is it to be, A, B, or something else? -- Hoary (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * plan C (which actually was my original plan, sorry that I was not clear enough):
 * 1. semi-protection only (you part)
 * 2. all the rest (my part)
 * Ok? :-) -- seth (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * c1 done; over to you, Seth. -- Hoary (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * c2 done. ✅ -- seth (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It would have been easier to revert the original edit, which removed it from the infobox. I guess we'll have to do without the link there, as it's already been blacklisted.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's no problem. If a blacklisted link is on a page once, you may place more occurences of it. So I undid that edit, but hat to remove the final "/". -- seth (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  17:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * yes thank you - is there any way to permanently protect this article as no doubt the next intake of first years at Plymouth University will want to vandalise it again with their boring crap about bomb shelters, that damn levinsky building and those silly little shops in the drake circus area. We really do not need the hassle and if it was permanently protected we could all get on and contribute in other areasJeremy-parkurst-junior (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeremy-parkurst-junior indef-blocked as another clone involved in the spamming. DMacks (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org
This site is a library of articles on the topic of Cold fusion, which is highly controversial. Some articles that have been published in peer-reviewed journals, or that are written by a notable expert, and which may, under some circumstances, be usable as sources for Wikipedia, can be found here; the site claims that permission was obtained, and there may be no other available copies on the web. Administrator JzG appears to have been involved in disputes over the cold fusion articles; in any case, he removed some links from the article on Martin Fleischmann, breaking citations, without discussion, and, at the same time, blacklisted the library site. His "proposed" listing -- he had already listed it -- explained his rationale, but didn't show evidence of spamming, the single diff appears to be a legitimate mention of the site by the librarian, who identifies himself, on a Talk page, which is exactly where a COI editor should make suggestions. This appears to be an administrator making a content decision and enforcing it with his tools; it was impossible to undo his edits to the article because of the listing. He cites Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, but that arbitration didn't establish that lenr-canr was proper to blacklist. I've requested that he remove the listing, but he has refused. Please remove the listing. --Abd (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a "library" it is a fringe advocacy site. Problems which led to blacklisting include:
 * Spamming by the site owner - he calls himself a "librarian" but is actually the webmaster of the site. He is banned for multiple block evasion.  Some of his contributions:
 * See also his input in debates
 * Promotion of the site by the site owner in evasion of multiple blocks.
 * Copyright violations (which abd appears to acknowledge in the request above; those peer-reviewed papers are not copyright of lenr-car, the ones which do not violate copyright come from fringe journals, the ones from journals which are actually usable violate copyright, and in any case we sould cite the source journal not some fringe website which hosts copies of the articles with, in at least one documented case, editorial comment to skew the presentation).
 * Misrepresentation of sources (e.g. a heavily editorialsied summary of a USDoE review linked from lenr-canr instead of the report itself being linked from .gov).
 * Fringe advocacy - as a "library" it fails badly, since it includes primarily sources which are against the mainstream (and where the mainstream is represented, editorial comment and apologia may be added).
 * Abd apparently wants one link on one article. That might justify a whitelisting of that one link if it weren't for the fact that it is not a reliable source, and the article subject in question is a WP:BLP who incidentally has over 14,000 hits on Google Scholar, which rather indicates that better sources are probably available for any facts needing support - assuming the section in question does not fail WP:UNDUE, which it might well do.  Regardless, this domain has been abused for a long time and I have also been requested to take it to the meta blacklist, so removing it from the blacklist on the basis of wanting to restore a single link to a single article seems foolish given the long-term disruption the site owner has caused. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Misrepresentation of sources (e.g. a heavily editorialsied summary of a USDoE review linked from lenr-canr instead of the report itself being linked from .gov).
 * Fringe advocacy - as a "library" it fails badly, since it includes primarily sources which are against the mainstream (and where the mainstream is represented, editorial comment and apologia may be added).
 * Abd apparently wants one link on one article. That might justify a whitelisting of that one link if it weren't for the fact that it is not a reliable source, and the article subject in question is a WP:BLP who incidentally has over 14,000 hits on Google Scholar, which rather indicates that better sources are probably available for any facts needing support - assuming the section in question does not fail WP:UNDUE, which it might well do.  Regardless, this domain has been abused for a long time and I have also been requested to take it to the meta blacklist, so removing it from the blacklist on the basis of wanting to restore a single link to a single article seems foolish given the long-term disruption the site owner has caused. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, whitelisting individual citations is a possible solution, but it's not what I "want" right now. I want the blacklisting removed until and unless it is independently reviewed, with proper consideration and evidence. I consider that JzG, as an involved editor, improperly used his administrative tools to add the site. He should not do both: vigorously argue for blacklisting, as he does above, and then be the judge, jury, and executioner. I could take the time to dismantle what he's written above; on the face of it, it's inadequate. The request is made for removal here, because the addition was improper. I'd rather not waste time right now arguing against each point JzG has made, but it could be done. It should be moot. He shouldn't have added the site, period, and, as Petri Krohn notes below, I wish he would just remove it. How much harm would it do? I can say this, it could do some harm if it stays on the blacklist, it has already done harm. --Abd (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What, so you could address the policy reasons for blacklisting a site which was abused but you prefer to focus on the person instead, even though I posted it for review at the time? Riiiight. Apart from the single link on the Fleischmann article, which others do you intend to restore?  The copy of the DoE review which turned out to be heavily editorialised?  The ones where there is no evidence of copyright release?  The ones added by Pcarbonn, who is now banned from this topic?  The ones added and suggested by Jed Rothwell, the site owner?  Or are there others which are provably good content which does not advocate a fringe POV and/or violate copyright? Guy (Help!) 09:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish User:JzG would just undo his actions, so we would not need to go to all these accusations... - I think this is a serious case of misusing the spam filter to enforce POV. (See my original comment here: User talk:Jehochman#Misuse of spam filter to enforce POV.) I am also worried about User:JzG's multiple roles in this issue, see my comment on his talk page: User talk:JzG. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. - As to the copyright issue: Copyright on scientific publications (like all works) originates from the creator, not the publisher. Authors can and generally do retain rights to distribute the papers outside the printed journal. The lenr-canr.org site states: "...more than 500 original scientific papers reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers." I see no reason to doubt that they have the right to distribute the limited set of articles. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. I have had exactly that discussion with numerous academic publishers and authors in respect of a site where I am on the editorial board.  Even the creator is not usually allowed to put full text on the net, and they are certainly not allowed to "release" copies to another site - the copyright statement tells you that the material is (c) the publisher, not the authors.  Here we also have at least one case where the hosted "copy" was shown to have been falsified to better reflect the bias of the site owners.  There is no way we should be linking to that site, plus the main reason for blacklisting was abuse and promotion by the site owner anyway. This is not a case of "abusing the spam filter to enforce POV", it is a case of using the spam filter to control link abuse. As to POV, have you actually read the arbitration case on cold fusion? This addressed the precise issue of the abuse of Wikipedia to promote a POV, and it was not me who was doing it. But that is a sideshow. This site is (a) subject to spamming and promotion by its webmaster (WP:SPAM; (b) hosting copyright material without evidence of copyright release (WP:C); (c) not a reliable source, having been shown in at least one case to be hosting a falsified copy better reflecting a fringe POV (WP:RS); (d) a site which is biased and advocates a fringe POV and is therefore not a neutral source for content (WP:NPOV). It is not an appropriate source, and Wikipedia was abused by its owner and his friends to promote it. Perfectly routine blacklist. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues
I wrote to Jed Rothwell asking about the copyright issues.


 * {|cellpadding=10 border=1

>Could you elaborate on why you believe you have the right to host

>these publications.

As stated on the first page of LENR-CANR.org, this website: ". ..

features a library of more than 500 original scientific papers

reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers."

If I do not get permission, I do not upload the paper. I have ~1,200

scanned images of papers plus roughly 1,000 printed copies of papers

that I cannot get permission to upload, so I have not uploaded them.

They are listed in the bibliography.

Here is an example of document by the publisher gave me permission to

upload "selected pages." They let me decide which pages to upload:

http://lenr-canr..org/acrobat/McKubreMCHdevelopmen.pdf

Here is an example of a paper that the publisher told me I could not

upload. They did give me permission to upload the abstract:

http://lenr-canr..org/acrobat/SzpakSfurtherevi.pdf

Obviously, I have a copy of this paper. If I were to go around

ignoring publishers' demands, I would upload it. I would also incur

the enmity of publishers and authors alike, and they would stop

giving me papers -- which would be a disaster for LENR-CANR.org. So I

wouldn't do that!

- Jed
 * }

What further proof would be needed on his permission to host the documents on his server? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Petri. I asked admin User:DGG, who is a librarian professionally, to take a look at this. He wrote an opinion on JzG's talk that the site should not be blacklisted. --Abd (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He would need to prove copyright release from the copyright owner in every single case, the owner being the publisher of the source journal. In most cases (as in: in every single case I have come across with any journal of any significance whatsoever, so likely every single paper whichmerits inclusion per WP:UNDUE) this is not granted for any purpose to any site.  Jed Rothwell is employing a fairly typical fast-and-loose attitude to copyright - it's OK unless they tell me not to - but L.A. Times v. Free Republic makes it pretty plain that explicit consent is required in all cases.  Of course Rothwell is extremely keen that we link to his website, but his needs are not really our concern.  It is, after all, a site devoted to advocating a fringe view, so effectively useless as a source of original content, and that content which is not original should be cited to the original source ideally using a DOI - abstracts are almost always available from the original publsihers, certainly if the content is reputable enough to be cited.  DOIs work like ISBNs for academic papers; the dx.doi.org service redirects you to the appropriate source for the abstract.  This is a much better solution than linking to a site which has been abused in the past for falsification of references. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What part of this was difficult to understand?


 * As stated on the first page of LENR-CANR.org, this website: ". . . features a library of more than 500 original scientific papers reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers."


 * If I do not get permission, I do not upload the paper.


 * He states: "authors and publishers." He's either lying or all the material on the site, excepting possible errors, is legitimate. And our policy is clear that isolated violations don't justify excluding a site. He claims to have "explicit consent," so the case cited is irrelevant. Is there any evidence that any papers there are in violation. Yes, we can cite the papers, without using lenr-canr.org, but serving the readers indicates that linking is a convenience to them. Abstracts don't cut it. I've asked for evidence of "falsification of references," and it hasn't been provided; however, I think I know what JzG means. He means that, in his opinion, an editor inappropriately used a source. That does not impeach the source, it impeaches the editor who abused it. It was a technical error, in any case, to cite lenr-canr.org as the source; the source is the original publication, which is acceptable or not, depending. The legitimate use of lenr-canr.org is to show a legitimate copy of the paper. And, in spite of some substantial objection from editors, JzG is insisting on his right to use his tools to block this, to essentially abuse the blacklist in service of his position on content. Abuse of admin tools is a serious matter, it is more serious than the issue of this one source. --Abd (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * fyi: I removed lenr-canr.org from this blacklist for it is blacklisted at meta now. So from now on this thread should be treated as a whitelist request. Actually that makes just a technical but not a practical difference. -- seth (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As seth reported its now a meta issue. Closing this as --Hu12 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

note the related request below for newenergytimes.com
[talk:Spam-blacklist#newenergytimes.com] --Abd (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

moneyweek.com
Major UK financial magazine. Blacklisted here. Causing obvious problems on the editor, Merryn Somerset Webb's article. Please justify addition. If removing, please enable the commented out text and reference link in the article. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 10:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * . Agora Publishing were abusing Wikipedia on a fairly wholesale basis (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Oct 2, see also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2008 for a previously declined removal request).  You're welcome to request whitelisting of any links you think might be necessary as sources for that article. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whitelisting is useful in cases of meta blacklisting. But in this case the SBL entry is here at en-wiki and not at meta wiki. So IMHO it would be better to keep the stuff together. Some blacklist entry like  could do the job. -- seth (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Having seen the justification, I agree with blacklisting Agora group as a whole. The ban the group argument hits a nerve with me too - why should people who volounteer their time to edit Wikipedia spend significant time and effort to determine which elements of the group spam, and which do not. Agora had the same opportunity to learn and conform to Wikipedia rules as everyone else. They failed to do so. I say this as someone who has considerable respect for some of the Moneyweek journalists - after ~20 years of investing, and having read copious material on the subject, the number of peope who hold this respect can be counted on the fingers of both hands. Good work A. B.


 * If it hasn't already been done, I'd suggest removing links added by proven spammers.


 * I don't understand how the process works. Please allow -


 * Oh bugger, I can't list them as they're blacklist, of course :-( - see edit text comment.


 * Since Moneyweek is a large (the largest?) UK financial magazine, blacklisting will prevent editors less persistant than me (like many things on WP it seems complicated for experienced editors who are not normally involved in the particular aspect) from adding genuine information. You may need to review the existing URL references to Moneyweek in ~61 articles - as they may well be genuine and will prevent any further editing.
 * -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 12:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest removing the whole domain moneyweek.com from the blacklist, because it seems to be a useful domain: . Perhaps it should be added to a list of one of your bots? -- seth (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Extensive (and fairly recent) Spamming by Agora Publishing despite the 2 years of warnings. When there are more trusted, high-volume editors requesting the use of this domain because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages, only then should additional consideration be given to fully lifting the Blacklist. , however;
 * http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/imaginary-profits-dry-up-14251.aspx
 * http://www.moneyweek.com/file/229/merryn-somerset-webb-.html
 * http://www.moneyweek.com/file/19277/how-anthony-bolton-finds-winners.html

the (above) three specificaly requested URL's by Daytona2 are speedily Whitelisted for use. ✅.--Hu12 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but whether someone is or is not a high volume editor should have nothing to do with it. Just because I, or other editors are not high volume contributors, does not and should not somehow make us second class editors. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 09:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you misinterperate what I ment. The statement was not directed at your edit count, but at those accounts and IP's which are Single purpose accounts, used to spam "particular" links and which typicaly make requests for delistings with no other edits outside a particular topic. Editors requesting the use of this domain because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages are always welcome, however the quality of editor requesting them is also a factor, especialy when there has been a history of widespread abuse. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, if you'd said non Single purpose accounts, I would have understood :-) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 10:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As the original blacklisting admin, I have no problems with the idea of whitelisting specific Agora pages upon request from established editors and based on very close review. Having spent many hours looking at all the Agora domains and publications, I have to say they are a very mixed bag. A few probably meet our Reliable Sources Guideline, depending on the context, while others are just "financial porn".


 * Even the good stuff is often one analyst's opinion, so they should be treated as opinion pieces; i.e., "Moneyweek, a financial publication, has described Acme Roadrunner Traps as a leader in its field" as opposed to "Acme Roadrunner Traps as a is a leader in its field". Furthermore, we try to stay away from opinions unless the source is notable and the opinion is both relevant and notable in itself: Prime Minister Gordon Brown's views on the Obama election are probably quoteworthy (in a section on "foreign reaction to the 2008 election") but not his views on Australian wildlife. So even the Acme example would not be appropriate unless Moneyweek was one of the top experts on roadrunner traps.


 * As for removing these domains entirely from the blacklist, that's just inviting abuse, given their history (including multiple ignored requests to stop spamming us). -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiJob.co.uk
This domain was blacklisted during the debate over having a wikipedia page for WikiJob. The page was allowed (see "WikiJob") and I am now requesting the link to www.WikiJob.co.uk to be re-instated. I do not wish to use this domain to spam, or even link in Wikipedia. I only wish this link to be un-listed because I ahve heard scraper sites use the Wikipedia list of blacklisted domains - and I don't want this to happen.

Please help - and pleae visit WikiJob.co.uk to see, it's ot a spam site!!

86.0.222.254 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the answer you got on 5 December. If you have any evidence that scraper sites use the Wikipedia blacklist -- and I can't think why they would -- you should probably present it here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * . Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site. In addition, its a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Additionaly spamming talk pages and Source soliciting is also unwelcome on Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Epilogue I do not wish to use this domain to spam, or even link in Wikipedia. O Rly?. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts    --Hu12 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts    --Hu12 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

www.associatedcontent.com
I was trying to paste a link to a relevant storyfollowing link (.../article/196938/breast_feeding_cuts_hiv_risk.html) for reference for this reference desk science question. While I think it would be improper in most cases to link to an AC article as a reference or external link, it seems a bit over-the-top to ban it from talk pages and similar. Since wikipedia has a nofollow tag on external links, AC shouldn't be able to benefit on google rankings in any case. (I've been unable to find a page listing the original justification for the ban) EverGreg (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Associatedcontent.com has been (coi-)spammed on many occasions, and most of the contents fails our reliable sources guideline. If you think this specific link merits inclusion, I'd suggest filing a request for whitelisting.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Associated Content links:
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * . However, if a specific link does meet Wikipedias core content policies, as suggested above. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

seabreeze.servegame.com
I don't even know why it shows this address, because I actually typed the URL above with :4675/index.htm and it complains about being blacklisted, it even removed the :4675/index.htm, doesn't wikipedia handle port from the URL ?? Or just remove this address from the blacklist, it's a real website for a real BBS, go see for yourself, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurd (talk • contribs) 00:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Every external link containing "servegame" is blocked at meta wiki. So you may request whitelisting her at en-wiki, but such a request would be declined, because seabreeze.servegame.com:4675/index.htm does not seem to satisfy WP:EL.
 * So . -- seth (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't find servegame as being blacklisted, both in local and global blacklist, but anyway, I put the address on the webpage by removing the http:// and it works fine ;)
 * so you can delete this request, thanks --Zurd (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

VBS.tv
I recently started working at VBS.tv, an online, video-based extension of Vice Magazine. Apparently, a former Vice employee edited entries to the point of being abusive and links to VBS material have been blacklisted. Where can I locate the details of the blacklisting, and what can be done to have VBS removed from it? The individual involved is no longer with the company. Of course, if linking is allowed, we would be happy to request an admin add relevant links and refrain from doing so ourselves. I believe much of our content would meet Wikipedia standards and be useful, legitimate links. Our interview with the tailor that made the bullet-resistant suit President Barack Obama wore to his inauguration is one such example. Thank you. CorridorX (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference for those reviewing, here is the LinkSummary and prior discussions on vbs.tv:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I work at Vice/VBS.tv ....
 * Evidence of abuse :Accounts
 * Cross Wiki spam Accounts es:Special:Contributions/Melanieh de:Special:Contributions/Vicegermany de:Special:Contributions/MaiTaiMünchen de:Special:Contributions/Pepples de:Special:Contributions/84.191.237.45 de:Special:Contributions/87.187.85.203 de:Special:Contributions/87.187.101.45 fr:Special:Contributions/Maryone en:Special:Contributions/201.210.238.52 de:Special:Contributions/Buchumhang de:Special:Contributions/213.39.149.77 de:Special:Contributions/MaiTaiMünchen fr:Special:Contributions/90.39.216.247
 * Related
 * redirect site
 * We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' or employee's 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. --Hu12 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * redirect site
 * We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' or employee's 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. --Hu12 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * redirect site
 * We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' or employee's 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. --Hu12 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * redirect site
 * We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' or employee's 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. --Hu12 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' or employee's 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. --Hu12 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ashtalakshmi.com
My website www.ashtalakshmi.com is now blacklisted, I try to add some pages of my website to external links in wikipedia, when I got a message that The following link has triggered our span protection filter: ashtalakshmi.com ... . The page of my website contain about goddess ashtalakshmi. It have good related information. Please tell me how can my website URL add to related articles in wikipedia.


 * We have two blacklists. This one only covers the English Wikipedia. Since you added your link to more than one Wikipedia, it's been blacklisted at our global blacklist that covers all 700+ Wikimedia projects. You'll need to take your request to meta:Talk:Spam blacklist and reference this report: meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/ashtalakshmi.com


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

rythm.galatta.com/community/blog_entry.php?user=randorguy&blogentry_id=5544
I am planning to write an article on the sensational Lakshmikanthan Murder Case and I am using this blog by eminent film historian Randor Guy as my source. But the site appears to be blacklisted and I am not able to add this link to the list of references. Could you please remove this URL from the blacklist so that I could add it. Thanks- Ravichandar My coffee shop 19:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If a specific link is needed as a citation... --Hu12 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

filmtaka.com
My website www.filmtaka.com is now blacklisted, i add some pages of my website in wikipedia, when i add my website link in wikipedia, i got a message that my external link will be deleted by regex rule(s): \bfilmtaka\.com\b. the page of my website contain the movie trailer. so how can my website violate the terms of wikipedia. please also tell me how can my website URL will include regex rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Film17 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that you used at least three different accounts to add your links and you were repeatedly warned to stop:


 * Had you heeded these warnings, your domains would not be blacklisted.


 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.


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


 * 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 • contribs) 15:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

howcast.com
Despite past spamming, I think it would be beneficial to the project to link to this domain in many cases. The domain is already on XLinkBot's revert list - I believe that constitutes sufficient protection against inappropriate additions. Thanks &mdash; Mike.<b style="color:#309;">lifeguard</b> &#124; @en.wb 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. -- Kanonkas : Talk  03:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

websamba
Hi - I need to add this link - to the Mozilla Firefox article, as a link to a version of a notable extension which is now compatible with the current version of Firefox.--Vox Humana 8' 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's just a single page removal, we handle normal that at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I'll go ahead and handle this here for you now so you don't have to duplicate your effort by relisting it and then waiting some more. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- I've added that one page to the whitelist. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

insomnia.ac
This site should be removed from the blacklist. It contains information that is high in quality and useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H8erade (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 (in an appropriate context) --Hu12 (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

papatiger.com
Hello Wikipedia! Please remove www.papatiger.com from your blacklisted sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kockam (talk • contribs) 09:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference:
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Chasindream/Archive


 * Accounts:


 * Domain:


 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.


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


 * There have been rumours in various black hat search engine optimization forums that Google and other big search engines may be referring to our global blacklist when compiling their own black lists of search engine spam domains. Since these companies decisions are beyond our control and are made independently of us, we assume no responsibility for them and you would need to communicate with the appropriate search engine. 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 • contribs) 15:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

www.holocaustresearchproject.org
The site looks legit to me. I was attempting to add a ref from it to an article Heinrich Müller (Gestapo) (regarding the date when he joined NSDAP), when I got the message that the site is blacklisted. Sounds like a strange site to blacklist, as it seems to be a legitimate research project. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed before. Previous consensus was that it did not meet WP:Reliable sources criteria. It was originally blacklisted at meta because of spamming from multiple accounts. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. I found a link to this site by a fairly random google search when looking for some info for the Heinrich Müller (Gestapo). Superficially it looked quite all right to me. But if there is history of actual spamming from this site, that is a different matter. I would have to look at it more closely. Nsk92 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Past spamming and copyright problems indicate extreme caution. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no spammin from this website. The spammers were third party "Hate-Bloggers" who attempted to have this website removed by creating the appearance that the spam was actually coming from the HEART website. This was nothing more than an attempted denial of service attack that affected both wiki and the HEART website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.29.6 (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You say. Actually we get many more assertions of joe jobs than objectively provable instances of same.  Please tell me where I can find the editorial board, peer review process, fact checking and accuracy validation procedures for this site - if it can be proven to be a reliable source then individual links may be acceptable for Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

newenergytimes.com

 * COIBot Link Report for newenergytimes.com Sticking this up here for reference purposes -- Versa geek  03:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

More an explanation request than a removal request (although the owner would probably be delighted if it were removed). The owner has contacted me with a query why his domain was blacklisted. Not really my area, so if there's a readily accessible archive please provide a link to it. Otherwise, would much appreciate an explanation of the decision for the domain owner's peace of mind. Thanks much, Durova Charge! 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Check the thread above about lenr-canr.org. It seems that both are related to Cold fusion. Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That thread ends by referring the reader to Meta, and I was referred here from Meta by Mike Lifeguard. Durova Charge! 05:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you asked User:JzG if he knows anything about this? Jehochman Talk 06:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Jehochman, it is very odd that 20 minutes after you express a wish to minimize contact with me, you follow me to this page where you have been active at no other open thread. Please cease interference in this query.

The site owner has already knocked on the obvious doors--otherwise he would not have come to me. I would like a straight answer, please, from someone who knows the circumstances relevant to this domain. Durova Charge! 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I originally became aware of this issue, well before this present thread was started, through discussion on Jehochman's talk page of lenr-canr.org. He is aware of some of this, but I don't know that he's been following developments. He was generally neutral but seemed to assume that blacklisting wouldn't take place without some consensus among those running the list. JzG, in fact, bypassed that, he just did it himself. This matter has been discussed extensively, as to lenr-canr.org, on User talk:JzG, he recently archived it (when it was fresh), which is certainly his right....


 * There is no denial that there might be some issues involving usage of the site, it could be seen as -- or simply is -- an advocacy site, though I think it does publish skeptical articles. However, that's a matter for editors of the articles to determine. There are some editors who think that something is about "cold fusion" means automatically that it's fringe science, which is quite definitely not true. It's science in a field which has been considered "closed" by some kind of majority, but by no means by consensus of informed scientists, which is what would be true of a fringe field. And there is recent research that is ... stunning. Some of which exists in RS, but ... we have editors who will vigorously oppose using those sources just because it seems to "open" up the controversy. And I'm not talking about newenergytimes, I'm talking about sources we'd ordinarily consider solid.


 * Please see also discussion on this page of lenr-canr.org. There are two threads, the original "proposal" (brief) and the recent (with substantial debate). --Abd (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember this site and the issues regarding it. Here are some starting links - (especially telling), , ,  (there are, of course, more). The source was rejected by an 2 uninvolved editors (shockingly, without us involved editors showing up to poison the well) on RSN Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14. I have no opinion on it's remaining on the blacklist or not, or when/why it was put there, nor do I especially care, but I thought someone should note the two (er, there might have been more, but I forgot their names) problematic accounts and the RSN discussion that was with the GA review. Questions posted to me should be copied to my TALK page - I was checking for a totally unrelated site here and do not have this page watchlisted, because I'm not interested in getting reinvolved in this issue. Hipocrite (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the RS noticeboard discussion in May 2008 as conclusive on anything. Some obvious questions or issues were raised, but no firm conclusion was drawn. In a field like this, there is going to be a lot of debate over what sources are usable, and for what. NET is somewhat notable, its not exactly obscure. But I'd not care to debate its usability as a source without a specific example, and the result for that example might be different than for another one. Blacklisting is a blunt instrument and the level and nature of the uses of NET links above doesn't even come close to the linkspamming that might justify it.
 * That "telling link" is indeed interesting. Compared to totse.com, the prior repository, which was labeling the paper as fringe science, NET would be quite usable. But that was for a copy of a paper. TOTSE is now defunct, supposedly shut down yesterday. So ... exactly what was "telling" here? Krivit shouldn't have made that edit because of COI, to be sure, but that was, after all, in 2005! The most recent edit in the list of diffs was January, 2007. I also looked at the FA review that demoted the article in 2006, and at the GA discussion that promoted it in May 2008 (the occasion for the RSN query), as well as the delisting. I don't see any sign of linkspamming. --Abd (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the telling link was this one: . He is adding 4 links to papers hosted on his site and 1 link to a page on his site listing more papers. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Enric, this is nuts. That diff is four years old. If that was the "telling link," why did we wait four years to blacklist? I see no warnings on the account. Krivit hasn't edited any articles since June 2005.
 * Right, the site has a pro-cold fusion POV and it would be surprising if it passed WP:RS. Yet we don't normally blacklist sites for advocating fringe science or failing RS; they might still be acceptable as external links unless actual abuse were happening.  Have there been spamming/socking/copyvio or other specific problems that brought things to this extreme?  The site owner is willing to accept blacklist status if it's been assigned fairly.  Best regards,  Durova Charge! 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the talk page notification - it will remain required as there is a 0% chance that I can watchlist this page and retain my wikicivility in the near term. I really don't know the definition of "spam" as used here. I don't believe there was overly-disruptive sockpuppeting to include links back then, and I don't believe there is a copy-vio argument. I do know that the owner of the site repeatedly added in article-space references to his site that were not-reliable and often authored/co-authored by him. I know that the site has repeatedly commented on Wikipedia, and has, in my involved (but uncaringly retired from Cold Fusion untill such time as lots and lots of people get banned) opinion expressed a desire to modify the Cold Fusion page to be more in line with the sites POV, which in my involved (burfcfustalalopgb) opinion is at odds with Wikipedia's goal to disseminate knowledge. Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The site was listed by admin JzG on December 18, after he removed two references from Martin Fleischmann. He did not discuss the removals from that article, but he immediately went to the blacklist and blacklisted both lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com. He didn't name these in his edit summaries, and he didn't log them, so they were hard to find. The blacklisting was apparently discovered when an editor attempted to revert his edits. When he was challenged, he went to meta and argued there for a meta blacklisting, which was done. Nobody who understood the issues noticed the blacklist request there. There is now discussion on both this page and the meta blacklist talk page. The content arguments are not ones that we should resolve here, that's not what spam blacklists are for. No evidence was provided of anything like the level of linkspamming -- if any at all -- that would merit blacklisting as distinct from dealing with inappropriate edits individually. No editor is blocked, so that, as well, wasn't tried. The lenr-canr.org link removed by Fleischmann was placed several days before by a legitimate editor, and it seems appropriate to me. Here, for convenience, are the removals from the article by JzG:, and his edits to the blacklist: . I have discussed this with JzG on his talk page, which was joined by DGG, and JzG has been intransigent. I would argue that at least one of these sources, being a paper by Fleischmann himself, would be qualified as source for his bio, on the history of the cold fusion affair. It should be attributed, of course, but I think it was inserted as a general reference, not as a citation for specific text. The Fleischmann reference wasn't inserted by a COI user or spammer. It has, in fact, been restored, but without the link that allows readers to actually read the paper, since the blacklist prevents that. This paper wasn't published by lenr-canr.org, it was published in China, being proceedings of a conference, and there is no controversy over the copy being accurate, nor any reasonable controversy over copyright; lenr-canr.org webmaster Rothman has written in an email cited in discussion (here, I think it was), over the copyright issue that he is very careful to obtain permission from both authors and publishers, for all material on his site, which makes sense. He'd be shot down quickly, since lenr-canr.org is very prominent in searches. Summary: the blacklisting was an attempt to enforce a content position. The arguments for blacklisting are red herrings. --Abd (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Baby steps first (am slowly getting up to speed here). So are you telling me this domain actually is blacklisted at Meta, in spite of what Mike Lifeguard said last night?  Meta was the first place I checked.  Durova Charge! 22:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this site, i.e., newenergytimes.com, isn't listed there, I just checked, the meta blacklist is at meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist, for convenience. JzG "proposed" and blacklisted lenr-canr.org on en, i.e., here, about simultaneously, December 18. About a half-hour later, as I recall, he blacklisted newenergytimes.com. He didn't log either of these as far as I could see. He did not specifically propose newenergytimes.com, but stated that there might be a problem with it. He didn't list them in the edit summaries where he added them to the blacklist, which made it all harder to find. Then, much later, a few days ago (12 Jan as I recall), and after there was some questioning of the blacklisting, he went to meta and proposed the blacklisting there of lenr-canr.org, and the request was granted. Since lenr-canr.org was now meta blacklisted, the blackisting here was redundant and was quickly removed, but newenergytimes.com remains on the list here. Clear? Any more questions? --Abd (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia,

I do not know if I am allowed to post here or not. If this is the wrong place, please forgive me, delete this message and kindly provide some redirection.

In reference to the folllowing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bubble_fusion&action=history 21:23, 18 December 2008 JzG (Talk | contribs) (29,045 bytes) (Pruning gratuitous references to fringe website, per WP:BLP we need to be rigorous about sources.)

It's disturbing to see one particular Wikipedia editor, let alone administrator, censor the work of another Web-based information service. It's hypocritical for JzG to suggest that references to our work at New Energy Times are categorically "fringe" and that whoever links to our research is doing so "gratuitously." Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Britannica.

JzG's references to New Energy Times are pejorative and constitute name calling. Wikipedia may have risen quickly in 9 years, but this sort of behavior will not lead to its permanence or help it sustain its dominance.

Among others, we are reporting on U.S. government (DARPA, ORNL), academic and industry (Babcock and Wilcox) sponsored research. We are reporting on research published in peer-reviewed journals, not MAD magazine for goodness sake. If this is too "fringe" for Wikipedia, that is Wikipedia's loss.

If our investigations are challenged for their accuracy, state such and show it. If comparable investigations are available elsewhere, provide them. Otherwise, JzG and Wikipedia are abusing their power and the goodwill of numerous volunteers by aggressively and recklessly deleting references to our work put there by good faith editors. Why such fratricide in the Web-space?

The same day JzG deletes the bubble fusion references of our Web-based work from *his* Web-based work (Wikipedia), he blacklists our Web site without explanation, without attempting any due process.

This is shameful and abusive. How does JzG explain himself? I don't know. He has failed to respond to my e-mail to discuss. How does the Wikipedia community tolerate this?

I admit that I am largely ignorant of how Wikipedia works, but I do know that it has a significant level of respect among the public. The behavior of this administrator (JzG) does not enhance the image of Wikipedia and it does not serve the public interest.

Steven B. Krivit Editor, New Energy Times

StevenBKrivit (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Abd...I am a fish out of water here. I apologize for my previous message.
 * StevenBKrivit (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's unfortunate that Mr. Krivit wrote so much here, but he's not an experienced Wikipedia editor and doesn't understand the politics, which he would better stay out of, he'll just gum it up. He asks a lot of questions that won't be answered here, or possibly not anywhere, this is Wikipedia, for better and for worse. He has the right to defend his site against blacklisting, and this is a Talk page where Conflict of Interest editors are invited to comment. If he adds references to his site, himself, to articles, that's revertible simply on that basis, because of the COI, but he can ask the assistance of editors who don't have a conflict of interest, and Talk is the place to do that, it is not "spamming" unless it is done so often that it becomes a true nuisance. (In which case he'd be, properly, warned and, if the objectionable behavior continued, he'd be blocked.) The blacklist is properly reserved for linkspam where the burden of individual correction by editing has become too great and warning and blocking doesn't work; this should always be an action taken either with consensus or in the reasonable expectation of consensus, for efficiency. By now, that reasonable expectation isn't reasonable any more, but these things can take time.--Abd (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Replying to the query a couple of posts above, it seems the rationale for a different site has been spelled out much more clearly than for this site. There's a separate issue about the separation between editing and admin roles, so let's take this one at a time. What exactly was the problem that brought this domain to the spam blacklist? Durova Charge! 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, we don't typically remove links fomr the blacklist at the request of the site owner. This was being abused (like the lenr-canr site, including advocacy from the site owner, as we see) to promote a non-neutral view of a controversial subject - i.e. fringe advocacy.  It does not matter to me if we have zero links because it fails WP:RS and WP:EL or because it fails WP:RS and WP:EL and is blacklisted, the main thing is that we need to firmly end the long-term POV-pushing by the cold fusion advocates.  Essentially we are being accused of free energy suppression, a conspiracy theory, when what is actually happening is that we are wrestling content back from a bunch of POV-pushers.  Martinphi is banned, Pcarbonn is topic-banned, and I sincerely hope that we will end up with a more credible encyclopaedia as a result. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocking and banning people who hold a minority position and advocate it is highly unlikely to improve the encyclopedia; it's more likely to make it dull and less useful. When I'm researching a topic, I want to know about the minority positions, in an NPOV but relatively complete manner, not just majority views. Cold fusion isn't actually "fringe," there is a persistent minority of scientists who think the possibility is worthy of research, that research is appropriate is actually mainstream, and there is, in my opinion, some considerable reason to suspect that such research might eventually confirm it conclusively. But we are limited in what we can include in articles by reliable source requirements, which, on a topic like this, can take a few years to catch up.


 * The view that "POV-pushing" is blockworthy is a very dangerous idea. Incivility, treating Wikipedia as a battleground, edit warring and the use of reverts instead of the negotiation of consensus, all these may be blockworthy if suggestions and warnings don't work. Martinphi was banned, not for POV-pushing, but for the reality or at least the appearance of "outing" an editor with the editor's real name. The most dangerous POV pushers are those who push majority positions, in fact; the minority POV pushers are easy to handle if they violate guidelines and policies regarding editor behavior. Now, what does this have to do with newenergytimes.com? I'll say it: JzG has a bias against cold fusion, he's concluded that it's fringe and that anyone who accepts it is fringe, ipso facto, and what such a person publishes must necessarily be biased and unusable. There was no evidence of linkspamming on behalf of newenergytimes.com; as a magazine focused on research on the topic of low energy nuclear reactions, reporting on that, not publishing original research, it's a valuable resource, whether or not individual references are appropriate. JzG's unlateral blacklisting of the site, apparently to support his own edits that removed links added legitimately by other editors and not in dispute, except by him, and only disputed by bare removal without discussion, was administrative abuse. He's been asked to revert the blacklisting on the grounds of conflict of interest, if nothing else, and he's refused. So ... we will now see if it is legitimate to make "fringe" arguments and RS arguments in blacklisting, if mission creep has overcome the restraints on the blacklists, and if an administrator can protect his own edits to an article by blacklisting. If that's happened, broader community attention will be necessary, I'm afraid. This part of this affair could end quickly, right here. --Abd (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, um. The request here isn't from the site owner, it was from Durova, and, obviously, I've joined in it. Are you saying, JzG, that it's appropriate to use the blacklist to enforce content decisions (such as whether or not a particular link is allowed or not?) in the absence of linkspamming? Newenergytimes may or may not be usable, that's an opinion, and seems to be based on a judgment that cold fusion or other topics covered by the article are "fringe science." That's a POV, not a fact, there is substantial evidence that it's a serious field of research, including DOE recommendations that research continue. You are not being accused of free energy suppression by Durova and myself, it's merely been pointed out that you added newenergytimes.com to the blacklist yourself, on your own, without consultation, out of process, without evidence of a level of linkspamming that couldn't be handled by ordinary means. I have no opinion on whether or not links to newenergytimes are appropriate, only an opinion that the blacklist isn't how we suppress the use of a particular site in the absence of linkspamming. As to lenr-canr.org, same story. JzG has been asserting a content position for more than a year that lenr-canr, an archive of documents published elsewhere and which claims, credibly, to have permission from authors and publishers, can't be used, and it doesn't matter to him that editorial consensus was obviously to allow it. Nobody was edit warring to maintain these links, newenergytimes.com had been linked from Martin Fleischmann for a long time as a host for the 1989 U. Utah press release about cold fusion. JzG removed it from that article, and a similarly accepted link to lenr-canr.org, and then went to the spam blacklist immediately to make his edit not revertible, added it without logging it, without listing it in the edit summary, with barely mentioning it as a possible problem in his "proposed listing," which was moot because by the time anyone read it, he'd already listed it himself. JzG has claimed that these links were "linkspam," he really should, then, block or at least warn User:LeadSongDog for linkspamming, since he is the one who added the lenr-canr.org link to the text that ended up in Martin Fleischmann. Except, of course, that LeadSongDog, who is far from affiliated with lenr-canr.org, he's a critic of lenr-canr.org and appears to support the blacklisting, merely added the link as a place to read an otherwise unobtainable on-line for free access (as far as I know) copy of a Fleischmann paper published in China. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

'Summary: There was no linkspamming on a scale sufficient to make blacklisting legitimate, if there was any at all. I have seen none.' Two things have happened: registered editors in good standing have added links to articles, using newenergytimes.com, and these were not controversial at the time of blacklisting. They were relatively stable. Nobody was warned or blocked over this, not to mention persisting after warning or block as IP editors. No evidence of linkspamming has been presented here. Rather JzG has asserted "advocacy," which apparently refers to Talk page posts, as a problem, when, on the contrary, COI editors are not only required but encouraged to make such edits. In any case, blacklisting which restricts registered and legitimate and non-COI editors from using sources, or simply from discussing them with a link, is not the mission of the blacklist; instead, it was here used outside its mission by an administrator with clear involvement, in promotion of his "anti-fringe" POV, not in pursuit of true NPOV and balance, on the face of it, but of a "side." (I'm not denying good faith, but only failure to recognize and respect conflict of interest.) If this blacklisting is allowed to stand, the overall issue of how the blacklist is being used or abused will have to be addressed. No claim is made as a part of this comment that any particular citation of NET is appropriate, only that editorial process should decide the matter, not administrative fiat. Suggestions are appreciated. --Abd (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This user adds the link to 6 different wikis, and has only added this link. If there were no further additions, that would have been enough to meta blacklist this.  The editor adds 'references' (but did not add content, only the link), or adds this link to the top of a list of external links.  However, it has been used more.
 * Has next to the focus for the above mentioned lenr-carn.org also a focus for this link (59 additions of lenr-carn.com, 54 of this link, making it a good second). User has a topic ban on Cold Fusion articles.  Like lenr-carn.org, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14 (for this link "only good for sourcing opinions they themselves espouse").
 * Has next to the focus for the above mentioned lenr-carn.org also a focus for this link (59 additions of lenr-carn.com, 54 of this link, making it a good second). User has a topic ban on Cold Fusion articles.  Like lenr-carn.org, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14 (for this link "only good for sourcing opinions they themselves espouse").
 * Has next to the focus for the above mentioned lenr-carn.org also a focus for this link (59 additions of lenr-carn.com, 54 of this link, making it a good second). User has a topic ban on Cold Fusion articles.  Like lenr-carn.org, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14 (for this link "only good for sourcing opinions they themselves espouse").

Hence, my suggestion would here be similar to lenr-carn.org, keep this blacklisted as there obviously are and have been problems with it (some xwiki abuse, not deemed to be reliable). Where there are specific documents which are suitable whitelisting is the way to go. As such,. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just got around to looking at your comment in detail, Beetstra. New Energy Times is a notable on-line publication in the field, apparently the editor is supported by the foundation to do full-time investigative reporting. I've now read a fair amount of material from the site, and it is generally sound journalism on the topic, and includes criticism of cold fusion research, scams and frauds, etc. The RSN comment you cited did conclude that it wouldn't be considered a reliable source for fact, but might be usable for attributed opinion or report. That so many links would be added for NET wouldn't be surprising. It's notable, it is itself mentioned in reliable source, but ... Beetstra, this discussion shouldn't be happening here! The blacklisting was added by an involved administrator, it was totally improper, there were only a very few links at that time, there wasn't any linkspamming going on. The IP you cite, 76.126.194.190, last edit involving NET on en.wp was May 7, 2008. From other edits from this IP, it is very unlikely this IP is affiliated with NET. Pcarbonn wasn't topic banned at the time he added links to newenergytimes.com, and was very active with the articles. Anyone writing in this field would be tempted to use New Energy Times, which includes quite a bit of original investigative reporting, and the publication has been cited in reliable source. It would not be unreasonable to consider it reliable source for some usages; however, this is not a decision which should be made here. There were few links here at the time of the blacklisting, blacklisting wasn't necessary, all that blacklisting did was to make it impossible to revert JzG's edits. That's how it was discovered.... --Abd (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What Beetstra said. Perhaps we can think again if we ever get rid of the ring of POV-pushers, but the fringe types are too much of a problem right now, they got far too embedded and lots of folks are having to work very hard to pick apart all their nonsense and move back towards policy compliance on several articles. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

vuze.com
This was added to the blacklist on the basis of rather flimsy evidence of spamming (half the anons listed I can't find anything wrong with their edits). The blacklisting is making it difficult to expand the article of this notable subject, and I do not see a great likelihood of excessive spam coming from the domain if the blacklisting is removed. - Mark 04:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Until someone has a chance to look into how much copyvio material is hosted/listed there, I'm reluctant to remove it entirely. For the time being, I've made the entry for this domain more specific to the content/user pages.. It may turn out that we move this to XLinkBot in the same way that YouTube and other video sites are listed. -- Versa  geek  05:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that should do the trick anyway. :) - Mark 06:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the original discussion:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jan 1
 * and two follow-ups:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/12
 * I suggest checking with Hu12 before removing. My own opinion is that we should not remove from the blacklist but rather whitelist individual URLs on a case-by-case basis, given possible copyright concerns. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a specific link to be used, I hold the same opinion as Versageek and A.B. on the lack of evidence showing copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers for the site. Additionaly there is spam abuse evidence, as origionaly reported.--Hu12 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I followed, Vuze.com is a commercial entity run by a documented company and it has very strict copyright policies but as you have blacklisted an entire domain, I can't link to them. If there are couple of pirated content there, it doesn't entitle you to block entire site and blame a company as spammer. If it is the case, the entire Youtube and Google Video should be blacklisted. Vuze is not Pirate bay and it can't be treated similarly. If you see a copyrighted content at Vuze (while movie companies themselves maintain own "channels") you should report it to Vuze. If you think Vuze Inc. spams Wikipedia with anonymous accounts, it is a very serious allegation and you should come up with proof regarding such action. Ilgaz (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the company was blamed for spamming, it may very well be people who have content on the site, or uninvolved editors. I think that Hu12 and A. B. above mean that the link was spammed, not saying by who.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

encyclopediadramatica.com
It annoyed me greatly when I found it's spamfiltered. In spite of its sarcastic tone it's still the biggest source of knowledge on Internet phenomena and memes, and so a valid source. I see there's spamming potential in some ED pages, but this spamfilter is an overkill. Taw (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid source? This wiki is not a valid source .. encyclopedia dramatica would be similar as it is also a wiki.  Save to  I would say.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:SPS for why we usually don't allow open wikis as sources. -kotra (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

www.e-lab-book.com


As a scientist, wikipedia becomes more and more of a joke to me, unfortunately people come here for information. The above site is the only up to date site with electronic lab notebook information that doesn't sell ELN software. It is reviews all ELN software and discusses free ways to implement ELNs. It seems to periodically be slammed on wikipedia by users who work for companies selling expensive ELNs. Then zealous wikipedia editors who don't know much about ELNs hop on and start acting like it's a spam site (because let's face it many wikipedia editors get some weird sense of satisfaction out of defending the world from spam - which is fine - but they end up being manipulated by people out to make a buck). Hey, it's not my site - and the guy running it may be a punk sometimes with his defense of the site's right to be linked here, but I agree with the guy and think if you go to the page looking for info on ELNs and then go to all the links - you will be very disappointed with all the sites (as they are all very old and have many broken links) except for the e-lab-book link. I read the wikipedia external links section and agree with the guy, it fits perfectly with what wikipedia is looking for. Propoganda by ELN selling companies is far to easily excepted by over zelous wikipedia editors. 169.234.115.112 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There may be other links as well, but this one was challanged over and over, still it was insisted in adding it, using many accounts and without waiting for consensus on the talkpage. We are not a linkfarm.  I suggest you contact some appropriate wikiproject, or join the discussion on the talkpage and try to achieve consensus there.  If it is there deemed to be useful, one of the (established) editors from there can come here and file this request again.  Until then, .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * what a joke wikipedia is becoming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.115.112 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ip (169.234.115.112) has been blocked for vandalism, and is comming back to continue vandalism under multiple IP's registered to University of California, Irvine;
 * Even attempted to add links to google searches in order to get e-lab-book in.--Hu12 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even attempted to add links to google searches in order to get e-lab-book in.--Hu12 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

www.readwriteweb.com
I am the founder and editor of ReadWriteWeb, a blog that provides Web Technology news, reviews and analysis. It began publishing on April 20, 2003 and is now one of the most widely read and respected blogs in the world. It has around 275,000 RSS and email subscribers and is one of the top 20 blogs in the world according to Technorati.

We were contacted today by someone who tried to add a citation from ReadWriteWeb to Wikipedia, but got this message:

"I tried editing a Wikipedia page today and my edits were rejected. My edits included a link to one of your articles. Here is the message I got:

The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: www.readwriteweb.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted."

We've had other reports of this type of blacklisting in the past too.

We have no idea why ReadWriteWeb would be on the Wikipedia blacklist and we respectfully request that you remove it from there. We are a respectable and reputable tech news blog. RWW is a solid primary source which can act as a good citation for many Wikipedia entries.

Sincerely,

Ricmac (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Richard MacManus Founder/Editor, ReadWriteWeb


 * 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. Unfortunatly;
 * Blogs, and Blog sites are Link normally to be avoided
 * ReadWriteWeb Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation. Would seem there are plenty of other alternative Reliable and Verifiable sites available in which do meet our inclusion criteria. --Hu12 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd normally use the exact same reasoning for your decline Hu, but in this case I'd like to throw my support behind removing this from the blacklist. ReadWriteWeb is one of the top tech and Internet industry blogs (actually, it's the 17th most popular blog on the entire Internet), and could quite conceivably be used as a citation in that context. It has a defined editorial structure in its writing staff, and it is syndicated (center column) by The New York Times Technology section. I've written some tech focused articles, and I could conceivably see using the site either as a source (though not as a sole one to assert notability), or simply as a good resource to link to in external links. Considering that ReadWriteWeb is already hugely popular in its target audience, I can't think of a reason why they would try and spam us. If they don't pose a danger and they might be a resource either to cite with or link to, I think it's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to remove them from the blacklist. Steven Walling (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

ReadWriteWeb is a professional media site, you can check our About page to see that we're in the business of tech news, reviews and analysis. As I mentioned, it is one of the world's top 20 blogs according to Technorati and one of the leading sources of tech news. As far as I know, RWW is the only top 20 blog being singled out for exclusion on Wikipedia - every single one of the other 19 blogs are prominently featured in Wikipedia, in fact many have their own Wikipedia page! So why is RWW being singled out as a "link to be avoided" and none of the other professional blogs are?

We're also in Google News as a trusted source of news, e.g. check out RWW's coverage of Wikipedia!

I request that you re-consider.

Ricmac (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Richard MacManus
 * We do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to site-owners' requests, however If a specific link is needed as a citation, an established editor (such as Steven Walling) can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (Reliable and Verifiable) when there are no reasonable alternatives available. Thanks for your time--Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hu, I'm saying that I think RWW is reliable and popular enough that it should be used in appropriate articles, and not just by established editors like me. A similar example here is TechCrunch, which would never hold up to WP:RS in say, a history article, but is used all the time to verify information about the field it covers, since it (and RWW) is a top source of trusted information in this arena. I'm personally okay with asking for a case-by-case exception, but as you can see in his first comment, there may be other people who aren't established who think that RWW is a legitimate resource for the 'pedia. I agree, and I don't see any reason for the site to be on the blacklist either. The 17th most popular blog on the Net doesn't need to spam us to get traffic. Steven Walling (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is absurd and childish. ReadWriteWeb is one of the best Web 2.0 related sites, and I personally wonder that anybody could put it on a blacklist. Otherwise, blog is a form of publishing and is not related to the quality of the content. --KGyST (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if I were to agree (and Steven Walling makes a wonderfull case, IMHO), Blogs despite the quality or form of publishing, still remain a WP:SPS which has inherent problems. Because Self-published work could potentialy be acceptable to use in some circumstances, is the reason why I suggested its use be on a case-by-case basis. --Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to be getting off topic here. This isn't about whether blogs meet our definition of a reliable source (they don't), but if ReadWriteWeb should be on the spam blacklist. Considering that A) there's no conceivable reason why spamming would happen B) every other blog in Technorati's top 20 not only isn't on the blacklist, but has their own article, I don't see any logical reason for the site to stay on the blacklist. It's just not common sense. Steven Walling (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a regular reader of RWW and I believe that it qualifies as a legitimate osurce for news and information. They do not merely recycle press releases but actually engage directly as journalists, talking directly to technology leaders and performing original reporting. The question of whether it is a "blog" and therefore does not merit inclusion is a red herring as the very definition of "blog" is vague (chronologically ordered website? the same could be said of the New York Times). Really a "blog" is just a content management software package that runs underneath a website but does not dictate what the site's purpose is. Granted a tech blog hosted on blogspot.com or wordpress.com (free hosts) is probably on the far side of the line dividing legitimate sources of information, but RWW is far from that and should not be lumped into that category. I dont feel that th etraffic/readership issues are salient, but as far as credibility goes, RWW enjoys the same press status as print magazines, and should be treated in teh same manner. I have no affiliation with RWW whatsoever, though I do maintain several blogs of my own and write for BeliefNet. Regards, Aziz Poonawalla / @<a href="http://www.twitter.com/azizhp">azizhp</a> 75.135.74.16 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

--[[User:Divergence|Divergence}}

Respectfully, I'm floored that this discussion is taking place at all in 2009. There are published tabloids and even minor newspapers with less credibility that ReadWriteWeb. This distinction between 'blogs' and 'newspapers' is worse than archaic; it fundamentally dismisses the immense disruption in the media industry. Blogs like that are more transparent and verifiable than many papers by virtue of their readership and topicality. And, frankly, there's an odd double standard at play. Mashable, TechCrunch and GigaOm all have their own entries in Wikipedia and cover similar beats. Moreover, at least in this editor's opinion, Marshall and Richard's credibility on certain topics has proven to be more viable than the posts on at least one of those sites. I strongly urge the Wikipedia community to remove this blacklisting and reconsider its policy around blogs. It made sense in 2004. In 2009, there are now major blogs at the New Yorker, the Atlantic and the New York Times. Because the form is a reverse chronologically ordered list of entries, does it suddenly become an unreliable tabloid? I think not. Vetting should be based upon more than that, particularly the expertise and proven track record of the writer. That expert vetting is important to both Britannica and Wikipedia going forward. I hope you all get it right here.

-Alexander B. Howard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divergence (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Support removing from blacklist Agree with other comments regarding distinction between 'blogs' and 'newspapers' is silly and mostly just a technicality here. Also, it is silly to follow policy that leads to absurd outcomes (this is both the blog vs. newspaper policy and the "we don't negotiate with site owners" policy). We are cutting off our nose to spite our face; surely common sense should prevail (and anyway, if we want to get technical, the policy states "links to normally be avoided" which, to me at least, means we should use our discretion).

If we don't respond to requests of owners, surely the supporting comments here by Wikipedians count as separate requests? If not, must I make my request to do the same thing explicit?

[Disclosure: I read RWW]

Lanma726 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

When we supplant rules for judgment we often find inappropriate results. RWW is a trusted, respected and known entity with a global following. This is verifiable with little effort. While it can be tempting to employ 'policy' as a broad prophylactic, institutions that proceed without care for 'getting it right' may eventually discover their own credibility called into question. Oddly, Wikipedia - with it's user-contributor model (and alas occasional reliance upon 'unverified' inputs), might not itself qualify under some of its policies. Yes, crowd correction mechanisms work in quantity, but the proxy for that in the case of RWW is its readership and ranking.

[Disclosure: I occasionally read RWW. I often read Wikipedia.] jdriv (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Removal Blacklist seems like incredible overkill for this one. Sure, using a blog as a source is not *usually* the right course of action for an article, it seems strange that this would be actively blacklisted. How did the blacklist originally occur? If I saw a reference in an article to ReadWriteWeb that was not fitting as a primary source, then I would remove it from that particular article. My support, however, is contingent on knowing how this block was started. Did the editors attempt to insert themselves as references in articles? Was there any sort of abuse? Hampton (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If I may comment on Hampton's note above. I have not found any reason why ReadWriteWeb was put on the blacklist in the first place. The Wikipedia history shows it was added back in June last year, with no explanation. For all I know it was added by someone with a grudge to bear against our site.

I can tell you that in no way has my site abused Wikipedia. We haven't even tried to add an entry for ourselves here, whereas all the other top tech blogs appear to have their own Wikipedia pages.

I hope common sense prevails. Ricmac (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Richard MacManus
 * presume that you are also User:RichardMacManus if so can you please clarify, noting it hasnt been used in this discussion, by linking the two accounts if they are both you... Gnangarra 12:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's my old account, created years ago and which I'd forgotten about. I'm not a regular wikipedia user, and I have no idea how to link the two accounts together. I just want to get a resolution to this issue and be on my way, thank you. Ricmac (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Richard MacManus

Oppose removal atm from what I can trace through the page histories this blog site was listed originally as being like suite101.com where by the blogs are written by freelance writers and published without editorial review. The writers are then paid by the number of hits to the article which meant that the writers were spaming WP articles with links back to their article. Hu is right that blogs arent considered reliable sources but we dont list sites unless we are being spammed by links given the original reason. I think we need more information on; which article, the source being used, and the editor who wants to include rather then just a generic request from the company, oh any we also discourage the use of primary sources Gnangarra 12:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who has written for blogs before professionally, that is hogwash. No blog that reaches the top 20 of Technorati gets there by paying based on the number of hits, it's just plain ineffective. Writers are paid a flat rate per post, just like in the regular print business. But whatever their model, a blog that is this popular and influential doesn't need to spam us to get traffic, so to say there's still danger is completely ridiculous. Furthermore, as you can read in several arguments above: it doesn't need to be a source that should be used a lot to not be on the blacklist. We don't put TechCrunch on the blacklist just because they might be improperly used as a primary source, we just remove it as a source where it's inappropriately used. More importantly, a link to an influential blog post is exactly the kind of content that should go in external links, since it's relevant info that shouldn't be used as a source. There's simply no common sense reason why this is the only one of the most popular blogs on the entire Internet to be on the blacklist. Steven Walling (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gnangarra, that argument is ridiculous. But let me respond anyway: we do not pay our writers based on number of hits. Most are paid per article. Our lead writer is a full-time staff member, on salary. But I totally agree with Steve Walling, I don't see why how writers are paid is even relevant. Regarding "I think we need more information on; which article, the source being used, and the editor who wants to include rather then just a generic request from the company" - why do you need that? This is about the whole site having a blanket ban imposed, unfairly, on it by Wikipedia. I note that neither Gnangarra or Hu12 has yet responded to the fact that RWW appears to be the only top 20 blog that has this ban - it's double standards to impose this kind of ban on just 1 blog, while no other top blog has it. I'm trying to be reasonable here, but this is getting increasingly frustrating. Thank goodness there are people such as Steven who are trying to help. Ricmac (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Richard MacManus
 * This doesnt have anything to do with how much traffic you get, or where your site is on any given list this about whether your site was being spammed into WP, looking at the contributions of your other account it was also endeavouring to spam your site into the web 2.0 article and your links were removed as such, but that was 3 years ago I presume you've changed, theres 81 links to your site on WP now. Suite101.com was listed for spamming using this method and your site was said to be using the same methods along with some other sites the discussion was there for over two weeks and nobody responded to the claim thus it was listed. When you originally posted here you said that an editor notified you while trying to use your site as a source so I asked "I think we need more information on; which article, the source being used, and the editor who wants to include rather then just a generic request from the company" that way we can assess the current situation. I had already looked at the 81 links that exist and wasnt convinced either way about how useful these links are I was looking for some substanciation to your request by asking for an example. Gnangarra 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support removal: Gnangarra's argument is not only silly, it's patently false: RRW does have extensive editorial review of all it content, and a proven track record of reliability. It's sad to note that by this standard, National Enquirer would be a citable source on bigfoot, but, say, Richard Dawkins' blog would not. The idea that paper media are good and online media are bad is nothing but an idiotic prejudice that relieves editors of the obligation to actually do the hard work of evaluating sources on genuine merit, and we should not condone such laziness and stupidity here. --LDC (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did the hard work before responding, that was the reason for its original listing which wasnt disputed at the time and which everybody supporting its removal said they couldnt find. The person making the request has two accounts the other accounts edits were removed as spamming, they were also WP:COI given it was the sites owner and the sources author that was adding them. I have asked for information on this person request saying that another person wanted to add them to an article, surely if this is such an important relaible source then that shouldnt be a problem. Gnangarra 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Grudgingly support removal: RWW should not be on the spam list, and I believe its inclusion there is a regrettable error that should be corrected without delay. However, Ricmac's overly dramatic, ill-informed, and divisive request is disappointing. Also, his apparent efforts to canvass high-profile Wikimedians is against the spirit of deliberation and consensus-oriented decision making that we aspire to on Wikipedia. -Pete (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support removal simply because it's not spam. Our policy on citations still applies. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   22:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC) (an enwp admin)
 * Its was at the time of listing, Gnangarra 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support removal: A blanket ban on blogs is absurd, and I would think that those deeply involved with Wikipedia would have a more modern understanding of the publishing landscape. I do understand that some standard should be applied to publications to determine their suitability for inclusion. Perhaps that should be based on its age, readership, or its own notability. My belief is that RWW meets this standard at least as well as many of the references that currently are allowed. Dtunkelang (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've struck the comment above, because it's based on a false premise. There is no blanket ban on blogs. -Pete (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've unstruck my comment--I've never heard of comments being struck on talk pages. If there's no such ban, I stand corrected. But please be civil. I also apologize for commenting anonymously; I didn't realize that I had not logged in. I've corrected that mistake. Dtunkelang (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Dtunkelang -- I think striking the comment was maybe a little hasty and extreme. It was not my intent to be uncivil, but I see how it would come across that way. I am frustrated in this discussion by how loosely inaccurate facts have been bandied about. Anyway -- I am sorry and appreciate your reply. -Pete (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. But I still don't understand why a reputable blog would be blacklisted. Like the New York Times and other media, RWW has its ups and downs. But it surely isn't any less reliable a source than many of the online media sites regularly cited. It does seem that someone has singled them out arbitrarily.Dtunkelang (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking through the edit history of Richard MacManus, I personally find it entirely unsurprising that it was blacklisted. Blacklisting generally results from the behavior of the editor, not the content of the site. In this case, Richard twice added links to his own site (which is generally frowned upon under the Conflict of Interest guideline). His two explanations for the addition called those who reverted the changes as "idiots." Do you find it surprising that his efforts were met with a simple blacklisting? I don't. That doesn't mean the blacklisting should be permanent; I'd rather see him assure us that he will be more judicious and civil in the future. -Pete (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a reason to blacklist him as a contributor, but not to blacklist the blog as a reference to be cited by others. After all, nobody rational punishes Wikipedia just because its founder edited his own bio. I'll admit I'm not as informed on this debate as I'd like to be. I do know that I've seen external links removed from entries I edit for reasons that felt arbitrary, but I've hesitated to take a strong stand because the policy on external seems vague. Perhaps that's inevitable. In this case, I misunderstood the policy as making an artificial distinction between newspapers and blogs, and had a knee-jerk reaction. Now it seems that a site is being blacklisted as a source because of the behavior of its editor on Wikipedia. That strikes me as retribution against the wrong target. Dtunkelang (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you're exactly right. I think the original decision was incorrect, and should be reversed. All I'm saying is that I think whoever made the decision did so under difficult circumstances, and should not be vilified. Typically, sites with editors who are pushy and uncivil do not make the best sources; sometimes that judgment is made in a hasty fashion, because there are lots of sites to evaluate. Clearly, RWW is an exception. There was no conspiracy or bad intent to exclude RWW; it simply took a while before the issue came to light. With the number of people here supporting removal, I'm sure it will be un-blacklisted soon. I guess I'm just baffled at why anybody sees the need to pile on beyond that, quote and mischaracterize policies unrelated to blacklisting, and generalize about the decision processes of Wikipedia. I'm not singling you out, Dtunkelang -- I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. I'm not sure my words are helping anything here, so I'm going to move on. -Pete (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support removal because this site clearly has an editorial process (one that is, apparently, good enough for the New York Times) and is obviously not some 'self published' site, in the sense that its not just someone tossed up to put out their own opinions but rather has an entire staff. Counting this as 'self published' is a bit ridiculous. --Tedivm (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support removal. Not spam. "It's a blog and therefore not a reliable source" is not a reason not to remove a site from this list. --Conti|✉ 01:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support removal. RWW is as reliable, as any IT related newspaper / magazine. Saying that "it's a blog and therefore not a reliable source" is purely senseless, especially when more and more newspapers / magazines are published online with use of blogging software.--Piotr Mikołajski (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed
I have removed ReadWriteWeb from the spam blacklist. My justification for this action is available on my user talk page. I will not be immediately available for comment as explained there. Please feel free to continue the discussion; if opinions change, the action is certainly reversible. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 06:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A blog posting now recounts the experience here. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 11:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing RWW from the blacklist. My apologies to anybody I offended, now or in the past. Ricmac (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Richard MacManus

The Spamming Users
As requested these are some of the users that were spamming RWW into articles, which was the reason behind the listing
 * User talk:67.133.116.245
 * User talk:74.98.131.9
 * User talk:86.141.225.213
 * User talk:74.12.79.166

Gnangarra 12:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether or not the original blacklisting was justified is moot, for a delisting request coming from or supported by autoconfirmed editors. Blacklisting may be justified originally based on one kind of evidence; preventing linkspam efficiently may require erring on the side of blacklisting. However, delisting and whitelisting requests should have a presumption in the other direction, in my opinion, and the rebuttable default should be that evidence of actual harm to the project, with a likelihood of continuation, is needed to support maintained blacklisting, not merely the appearance of possible harm that multiple addition of links represents.


 * The spam blacklist community follows a general rule that multiple additions of links is spamming, with little regard for whether or not the links were appropriate in situ. This makes sense from the point of view of prevention, but less sense in terms of general editing policy. From discovering an initial situation where the blacklist was used without linkspamming, by any reasonable definition, I've been watching how the blacklist operates, and discussing it with blacklist admins (admins who regularly maintain the blacklist) and others. Because I believe that the matter deserves broader community attention, if the problems I see are not solved "internally," i.e., among the small group of maintaining administrators and myself and others, I am working on a report at User:Abd/Blacklist, beginning with discussion at User talk:Abd/Blacklist. All editors are invited to assist me in preparing this report. If consensus cannot be found, then wider process would presumably be followed, as needed to find a broad consensus as to how to better manage the blacklisting, delisting, and whitelisting processes to meet both efficient prevention needs and general editorial needs. I've formed a preliminary opinion as to how an approach to this. This particular request has been closed, and further discussion should not take place here, in my opinion, this page is for requesting changes to the blacklist. However, the pages I've created are my own pages, and others are free to disagree with me, to discuss here or elsewhere at a low level, to work on their own reports, or to escalate per WP:DR. I'm trying to avoid further disruption while at the same time addressing the issues efficiently. --Abd (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Entries related to a temporary blacklisting error on Meta-Wiki
An error made while editing the spam blacklist on Meta-Wiki resulted in the inadvertent blacklisting of domains containing "com". This was resolved shortly afterwards. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Corporate.WWE.com
Why was this blacklisted? This is the corporate website of World Wrestling Entertainment. I was trying to revert vandalism in the WrestleMania XXVI article when I got the notice that WWE's corporate website is on the spam blacklist. I assume this is just an error since it was fine a few hours ago. 01:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a technical problem which was fixed a few minutes later. The website is not blocked. -- seth (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

smh.com.au
This is the website for The Sydney Morning Herald, and I'm trying to use one of its articles as a reference. Smh.com" is the Sarasota Memorial Hospital website, so I'm not sure why the Herald article is blocked. Thanks.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 01:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a technical problem which was solved a few minutes later. The website is not blocked. -- seth (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Flickr.com
I link to this all the time to show what photos are available, requested etc on talk pages, and sometimes in articles where we can't get a photo. It's very inconvenient to me that I can't do this anymore. A large number of our photos come from here. Richard001 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The entire domain isn't blacklisted, only a subset ( \bflickr.com/(?:79/250582482_305b4c1817_b|88/243534260_bf5d79f1f7_o|120/250582489_502d133364_o|1282/1344096823_c25a593078_b|1315/1332889069_b98e8bffea_o)\.jpg\b ) - and that entry is on Meta. If it's not blacklisted, this will be a clickable link. I do believe that portions of Flickr are also listed on XLinkBot. -- Versa geek  02:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just assumed the whole site was blocked. I wonder why my link got blocked. Richard001 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a technical problem at meta-wiki which was solved a few minutes later. The website is not blocked. -- seth (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

transitchicago.com
I have no idea why this is coming up as blacklisted. It is the official website of the Chicago Transit Authority.Lost on Belmont (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Whatever the problem was seems to be gone now. No longer getting the blacklisted message. Lost on Belmont (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a technical problem at meta-wiki which was solved a few minutes later. The website is not blocked. -- seth (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

wiley.com
This came up while searching for scholarly articles: http:// www3. interscience. wiley. com/journal/118847240/abstract. Is this block a mistake??? They host a ton of top academic journals. Main website looks unquestionably academic as well. NJGW (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the history on this one goes back to before my time! -- Versa geek  02:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So has there been an attempt to unlist since then to see if the disruption continues? John Wiley & Sons is pretty reputable in the real world.  They now own Blackwell Publishing. NJGW (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was the typo on Meta?, if this saves.. it's not blacklisted. -- Versa geek  02:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! Thanks.  Looks like a lot of people will be asking questions in the next few minutes.  NJGW (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a technical problem at meta-wiki which was solved a few minutes later. The website is not blocked. -- seth (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki.Name.com
Not really sure why I can't use this as a reference? Created page Lynn (name) with information and tried to save it:. What went wrong? Clarissa Caldwell (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a technical problem at meta-wiki which was solved a few minutes later. The website is not blocked. -- seth (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

www.autoblog.com
Why was the site even blacklisted at the first place? There are plenty of Wiki car articles that have relied on Autoblog and it never raised a flag, and all of a sudden it is banned? This is completely outrageous, and the ban should be removed ASAP. Jacob Poon 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a technical problem at meta-wiki which was solved a few minutes later. The website is not blocked. -- seth (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

mysticwicks.com
The site is the only primary, reliable source where I have found the birth date of author Ann Moura. I found it from a "happy birthday" thread for the author. Here's the most important part: she is a member of the forum, posted to the thread and thanked people. She didn't deny in the thread that her birthday is August 20th, so technically she confirmed it. Currently Wikipedia blacklists the website, so I can't add the birth date to Wikipedia because I can't add a source to my information. Some other neo-pagan authors write to the forum, so there may be other some information about authors that they have confirmed themselves.

Here is an intentionally mangled link to the thread: http://mysticwi cks.c om/showthread.php?t=62834
 * 82.203.170.153 (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I succeeded in saving the link to the article. Interesting. 82.203.170.153 (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a technical problem at meta-wiki which was solved a few minutes later. The website is not blocked. -- seth (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

archives.starbulletin.com
I'm the administrator of starbulletin.com (| Robert Myers, Online Director), and we'd like to know what can we do to get this domain off the blacklist. The archives.starbulletin.com subdomain is our legacy site, where most of our content now resides. This means all reference links throughout Wikipedia that point to articles older than September of 2008 are now broken, and for that we apologize. However the links cannot be updated now, as one of our writers just showed me the domain has been blacklisted. Has there been a rash of users adding too many of our old URLs to Wikipedia? If so, I'll do what I can here to curtail or stop it. We would just like to be good net citizens and a useful resource for Wikipedians interested in Hawaii. Thank you in advance. -- Boradis (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a technical problem at meta-wiki which was solved a few minutes later. The website is not blocked. -- seth (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

Entries related to a temporary blacklisting error on Meta-Wiki
An error made while editing the spam blacklist on Meta-Wiki resulted in the inadvertent blacklisting of domains containing "com". This was resolved shortly afterwards. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

reputable sites blacklisted?
Any idea why sfgate.com is coming up as being blacklisted? One would think the website for the San Francisco Chronicle would not be blacklisted. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the number of reputable sites that have just been blacklisted. Something or someone has gone rogue. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or someone made a big booboo with a regex and blacklisted dot com. Gimmetrow 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to archive a talk page ... cannot.. almost all the sites are blacklisted, including salon.com, nypress.com etc. Please fix. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">? RATEL ? 02:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * it was fixed already. -- seth (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

archiving talk page failed
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-April/016297.html <-- Why this has been blocked? --Ans (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, and why it is unblocked now? --Ans (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * that was a bug which was fixed a few minutes after it occurred. -- seth (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it a bug in the software, or in the spam-blacklist? How can you know and fix the problem before I report it? --Ans (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a wrong entry in the spam blacklist. The spam blacklist belongs to the software, so it was a bug in the software.
 * The bug was build at 2009-02-26T10:31:53 UTC and it was fixed 2009-02-26T11:04:51 UTC. You were not the first bug reporter. ;-) -- seth (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

= Discussion =