MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2010

=Proposed additions=

Seelicolnshire
spamming by various ips socks of banned user Seelicolnshire --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

River Rafting in Rishikesh
Numerous IPs keep inserting this in the Rishikesh article. Latest example here --Manway (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Endorse. This has been an ongoing problem.   Will Beback    talk    21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Duplicate request, see below. MER-C 13:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

articledirectoryusa.com
The articles-oceans spammer is back. MER-C 04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

visitingeu.com


MER-C 09:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

accessdna.com
MER-C 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

medicalvideos.eu
Here we go again. MER-C 03:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn in favor of global blacklisting. MER-C 09:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, --Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

neutralenglish.com
Blacklist circumvention. . (I've dealt with the frivolous whitelisting/de-blacklisting requests). MER-C 04:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

TskTech web design


Three blocks, nearly two years of abuse. MER-C 09:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

labome.com


Dynamic IP citation spam. MER-C 13:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

watchpokemonepisodes.com

 * This link contains copyright violations, so it is not ever appropriate to link to, per WP:ELNEVER. An IP has repeatedly tried to insert this link, and there is really no acceptable use for it anywhere on the encyclopedia.  Them  From  Space  04:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This link contains copyright violations, so it is not ever appropriate to link to, per WP:ELNEVER. An IP has repeatedly tried to insert this link, and there is really no acceptable use for it anywhere on the encyclopedia.  Them  From  Space  04:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

polimore.com



 * Accounts
 * This url has been spammed over two years by SPAs. There's been no response to the warnings to all ips last month, and 81.213.223.53 is now edit-warring over the links, so I've requested the ip be blocked and am requesting blacklisting.
 * Note that the links being added are to sample software that's otherwise only available for purchase.
 * Earlier spam report: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking this one to meta. MER-C 07:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added it to .en meanwhile. It's hopping all over the place tonite. DMacks (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The meta request. DMacks (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * , where it is now blocked, so releasing .en local block. DMacks (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This url has been spammed over two years by SPAs. There's been no response to the warnings to all ips last month, and 81.213.223.53 is now edit-warring over the links, so I've requested the ip be blocked and am requesting blacklisting.
 * Note that the links being added are to sample software that's otherwise only available for purchase.
 * Earlier spam report: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking this one to meta. MER-C 07:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added it to .en meanwhile. It's hopping all over the place tonite. DMacks (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The meta request. DMacks (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * , where it is now blocked, so releasing .en local block. DMacks (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * , where it is now blocked, so releasing .en local block. DMacks (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

globalc2c.com


NRV + link vandalism. MER-C 04:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

24breakingnews.com


MFA. MER-C 09:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

cchr.org.uk
MER-C 12:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been repeatedly added inappropriately to articles for some time now from a variety of IPs. Adambro (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

=Proposed removals=

beerwurlitzer.co.cc
Please unlist www.beerwurlitzer.co.cc I know someone posted that .co.cc addresses are re-directs, they aren't. They are free domain addresses, of which I have three in total. Many Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.76.2 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you intend to use this site? Please note our conflict of interest guidelines which discourage linking to your own site. MER-C 10:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No response => MER-C 02:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

homelesshub.ca
Please remove www.homelesshub.ca from the blacklist. It should be unlisted because it is referenced in at least 2 current wikipedia entries (Homelessness in Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_Canada) and (Stephen Gaetz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gaetz). It seems only fitting that the URL be provided with these entries as well. There are a number of other wiki pages that would benefit from having this website listed, including: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless_youth  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeless_shelter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_Canada among many others. Thank you for considering this request, --Marsolais (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Done


 * Background information:


 * Related accounts:
 * Indefinitely blocked as a "spam / advertising-only account"
 * Indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts
 * User talk:Fred Bauder
 * User talk:Barek/2009 archive 2
 * Indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts
 * User talk:Fred Bauder
 * User talk:Barek/2009 archive 2
 * Indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts
 * Indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts
 * Indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts
 * Indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts


 * Possibly related accounts:
 * Registered to York University
 * Registered to York University
 * Registered to York University


 * Domain:


 * Problematic pages:
 * 'Housing First' Approach
 * The Homeless Hub
 * deleted three times
 * User:AMarsolais/Canadian Homelessness Research Network
 * User:HHub/homeless hub
 * Stephen Gaetz


 * Non-notable?
 * User:Fhyork/Stephen Gaetz
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Homeless Hub is being promoted on a number of legitimate, respected and trustworthy sites, such as the Calgary Homeless Foundation (http://www.calgaryhomeless.com/default.asp?FolderID=3173), Raising the Roof (http://www.sharedlearnings.org/res.cfm), the Wellesley Institute (http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/blog/affordable-housing-blog/an_introduction_to_the_homeless_hub/), PovNet (http://www.povnet.org/node/2287) , the City of Toronto (http://www.toronto.ca/socialservices/reports.htm), among many others. These sites are promoting the Homeless Hub as a trustworthy and genuine resource for all things relating to homelessness. That we would be banned from adding to homelessness entries or creating new ones on Wikipedia seems absurd.

From the thread created here, which lists all of our purported transgressions, it would appear that we are being blocked for our use of copyrighted materials. It seems that the person originally in charge of creating Wikipedia edits for us, was simply cutting and pasting content from our Topics section (which is all original material of Stephen Gaetz, the Director of the Homeless Hub). Although we are the owner of the external website, the Homeless Hub, we do not wish to grant permission to others to edit that content. Thus, we no longer want to use our original text and understand that paraphrasing and proper references are required. Now that we are more familiar with the rules, we request that our ban be lifted, our editing privileges be restored and the ban on the Homeless Hub URL be removed. We apologize for any inconvenience our lack of knowledge may have caused.

--Marsolais (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Done
 * ❌ We rarely remove sites from blacklists at the request of site owners (especially given the history of the site being added by single purpose accounts. No compelling argument made for the necessity of this link for the Wikipedia project. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com


I was writing an article about a proposed NASA rocket. However, an article I linked on from this website with lots of info about it was blocked. I see nothing wrong with it. If you do allow this link, I will be pleased. Thanks! Theguywhohatestwitter (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Examiner.com was blacklisted for abuse, and since most of the documents on the server fail our reliable sources guideline we are not removing the whole site from the list. You can however ask for whitelisting of specific links (the one you want to use) on the whitelist.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Examiner.com is the website of a chain of newspapers, isn't it? Are you now blacklisting newspaerps for opinio reasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.80.147 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I also have attempted to use examiner.com, which is a very usefull Wikipedia source, and have been blocked for what seems to be no good reason. I would very much appreciate if the site was removed from the blacklist, as there seems to be no good reason it is on said list as of right now. GrandMattster 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandMattster (talk • contribs) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I tried to use it to and I know I've used it in the past. This should definitely be taken off the list. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Examiner.com:
 * Offers its contributors a monetary incentive to increase page views.
 * Have no editorial oversight, see WP:RS. MER-C 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And journalists aren't paid for increasing their ratings? A lot of media outlets apparently lack strong editorial oversight. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the Huffington Post,DailyKos or Media Matters blocked? They certainly don't have any editorial oversight. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sites are only blocked if they have been regularly spammed to Wikipedia. The particular combination of the people contributing to examiner.com and its financial incentives have led to abuse in the past. Combined with the lack of editorial oversight (that is, it fails WP:RS), the spamming has led to the blacklist. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That makes more sense to me, but wouldn't it be better to ban the spammers rather than the website? The whitelist page is full of examiner requests. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The more sense answer was in principle what I said earlier about examiner.com.
 * Examiner.com is not the same as dailykos.com, huffingtonpost.com or mediamatters.org. The editors on these sites are paid by the organisation, and indeed incoming traffic would generate more income for the organisation, and maybe for the editor, which may be an incentive for said people to spam.  However, examiner.com is basically a site where everybody can create an account (where the to-be author is hardly checked), and write items on the server (which again, are not reviewed).  If that editor is then linking his self-written document from other sites, and editors follow that, then that editor will immediately see the effect on his bank account (in the form of generated revenue).  Now examiner.com is not of the scale of ehow.com (which operate under the same conditions, except that there is completely no checking of the account), still that is a huge spam-incentive (and it has even been said in previous de-blacklisting/whitelisting requests that editors wanted to link only for the reason of generating revenue).  Yes, it would be better to block the editors, but the incentive that these sites give yields a continuous influx of 'spammers': blocking said editors would hardly solve the problem, and would not be able to keep up with it.
 * Lot of the information can be found also on official news sites. Seen that it has a lack of editorial oversight, that it is often replaceable, possible other risks (linking to works under violation of copyright), and the fact that it was plainly spammed in the past, I strongly suggest to .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dirk. It's more sensible to put up a mosquito net than to swat the mosquitoes. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, since this came up above: examiner.com is not the website of a newspaper chain - rather the same company that owns the newspaper chain also owns examiner.com, and deliberately fosters confusion about the relationship between the two entities in order to to increase their web traffic. This is a part of the problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've fallen for that too, although there have been a number of cases where I would have found them to be a useful source. It's no worse on average, and probably better, than something like a self-published blog, press release, official website, etc.  If you're careful you can often find usable information.  But reading this section, I think I agree with the "mosquito net" analogy - if the site were unblocked we would have thousands of links again, most of which would be poor sourcing.  - Wikidemon (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

modsandhacks.net
Hello administrators, I would ask you to withdraw from the spam-blacklist the address "modsandhacks.net", since it is not spam. The website is new and has many projects, finally i am not the owner of the site simply was just doing a friend favor, i was trying to help him get his websites name spread. The problem is i tried editing two wikis "Wii Homebrew" and "PS3 Linux". As i was knew to wikipedia i did not know that i should not have done two wiki edits however the links were highly relevant and definitely(not spam). At first i didn't understand why it was removed because my links were highly related to my topics, however after i read up and realized that i should not have edited more than 1 wiki. I do apologize for that and if removed would not not make that mistake again. Thank You. Sud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.32.244  (talk • contribs)  16:45, 21 January 2010
 * Clearly you were spamming, including ignoring warnings and a block. twice --Hu12 (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

@User:Hu12 - i have a few questions for you hu12

A, the ip address you are relating to is a shared IP for a "uni dorm" - its given me loads of messages for SPAM which is not relating to me. i.e. Sonic vs mario. I have never heard of this site before so i dont think it is fair that i be blamed for that.

B - ive only posted 2 link which were totallaly relevant to the pages which they belonged to which were "Wii Homebrew" and "PS3 Linux" i cant understand why this is considered SPAM. For example if another IP was to "SPAM" a web address into wikipedia would that mean you would also ban them. Wouldnt that make it very easy for the competition to sabotage the site reputation by getting it banned from wiki? I personally think that this is clearly unfair.

C - Can i request for certain pages to be unblocked and defered to the whitelist for my site?

D - If like in my situation someone else but the web developer makes a link on wiki and it gets banned, does that mean the developer should be penalized. I can understand my IP and account being banned but cant see the logic in banning a site that has no direct relation to it.

E - Why is my google publisher ID being broadcast on this site? I request that you take that off as that breaks googles TOS, you should not have that there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.32.244 (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A: Both of those sites have the same (presumably your) AdSense ID in them. It's a foregone conclusion that they're both yours.
 * B: "Totally relevant" may be a bit of a stretch:     Also, see below.
 * C: As the author of the site, no. An established editor can make that request if the pages are deemed necessary, though.
 * D: At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter to us who posted the link. What matters is that we don't want it, so it's blocked.
 * E: Your Google AdSense ID is visible in the source code of both sites. It isn't private information. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 18:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Adsense Publisher account # 8660584239457560 owns both sonic-vs-mario.blogspot.com and modsandhacks.net, youve added both.
 * Twice vandalized this report
 * Multiple warnings have been ignored and Twice have been blocked and continued spamming.
 * It has become apparent that your account(s) are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising", equaly Wikipedia is not a place to promote Adsense related sites. per evidence of abuse and the well reasoned and detailed explaination by Zetawoof. Closing as vexatious due to this report being vandalized.--Hu12 (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

attukaldevi.com
I have absolutely no idea why this site is blocked. I am a web admin of attukaldevi.com, and the site providing the details of Attukal Devi Temple in Trivandrum, Kerala, India. I request you to visit this site and conform its. I don't understand why is blocked, so I am making this request to unblock it. — Nakshathra wiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It was blacklisted because you and the IP the were adding links to it ignored warnings to stop adding links. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

neutralaccent.com
Kindly reconsider this website and remove from spamlist. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.78.122 (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Continued spamming with redirect domain neutralenglish.com. . That domain is likely to be added. MER-C 04:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

www.HelloNingbo.com
Hello, I am the new webmaster of a city guide website called HelloNingbo and I have already started updating quite a few pages. Today HelloNingbo is PR6 and quite popular amongst expats and visitors in Ningbo-China. This site used to be listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ningbo.

Unfortunately the webmaster that left last December told me the link was regularly removed by a competitor listed on the same page and after several times, he began to be fed up and also removed the other one. The result of course was that there were both finally banned. What a pity to be so childish! Not only the webmasters were both punished but readers also missed some chances to get even more content. But we cannot go back and what has been done cannot be changed today...

About 3 weeks ago everyone celebrated the new year with new goals in personal life and business careers. So I would like to catch the opportunity to restart on a good basis and hope we could have this link back. I have only one word and write here that I WON'T remove any link EVEN if mine was removed. But if anyone was to remove the link again, I wish I could get in contact with an administrator helping me to lock the link.

I appreciate the work of all administrators/contributors and perfectly understand that you have lots of other things to do instead of interfering in stupid conflicts. This is why I would like to express here my sincere apologies in the name of the whole HelloNingbo team and would like you to consider it as a silly mistake that people did time for it. I hope the Wikipedia team can give HelloNingbo a last chance to be listed and I thank you very much for your time and concern.

Paul - Webmaster: www.HelloNingbo.com - January 25, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.12.28.98 (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Origional case. Yes, there was significant disruption and abuse. Respectfully, we do not remove domains from the blacklist when site owners or webmasters request them. Instead we de-blacklist sites when trusted and established editors request use of a blacklisted link in support of our encyclopedic pages. Additionaly this appears to be nothing more than a tourism/directory/social site and is a Link normally to be avoided. --Hu12 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.179.47.94 (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jess Harnell Official Website
specifically: jessharnell.cjb.net/

This is Website of actor/voice actor Jess Harnell. I'm trying to add this external link to his article Jess Harnell. Wolfdog406 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * cjb.net is a URL shortener, so it won't be delisted. Try http://www.freewebs.com/jessharnell instead. MER-C 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

One Ezinearticle page to be unlisted
Hi, I wish to use ezinearticles.com/?Calvin-Klein---Calvin-Kleins-Success-Story&id=240949 as a source in Calvin Klein, it has a detailed biography of use. Thanks. --Timish ¤ Gül Bahçesi  13:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to request that on the whitelist. Hence, .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

jonsay.co.uk
I`m the website owner of jonsay.co.uk and I know my site is listed in the blacklist. Quite frankly that is probably due to me. As all website owners should be aware, placing their own website links etc.. in wikipedia should be avoided at all cost, however the temptation is sometimes just too great. As far as I know 2 people have posted links from my website into wikipedia articles, and I am grateful. I on the other hand tried to also post 4 specific links into wikipedia myself. I placed them all on the same day, within about 1 hour. It has resulted in my website being blacklisted. I don`t deny I did it, but I honestly am sorry. Leave me in the blacklist, it is where I should be. If in the future one of your editors deems that my website might have something to add to wikipedia, then I will also be grateful to them. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.235.77 (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that's no action required, then. In the future, please note that this site is listed on the global blacklist so any future delisting requests should be taken there. MER-C 11:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

biblewalks.com
Please consider removing our site, [www.BibleWalks.com], from spam blacklist. It is there already for 3 years. BibleWalks is one of the leading web sites on the Holy Land, with 4,000 photos covering 250 Biblical sites. We hope it can be de-blacklisted,and adhere to Wikepedia's spam rules. Biblewalks (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This site is listed on the global spam blacklist, so you need to take it up over there. Bear in mind that 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 value in support of our encyclopedia. MER-C 10:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

www.centrozenmex.co.cc
Got a blacklisting message while trying to update the link in the External Links section of the John Tesshin Sanderson page. Checking the blacklist shows an entry for \b.co\.cc\b that is too broad, basically blacklisting every site in the .co.cc domain. All domains under .co.cc are free domains, and I suppose that some people could use them for spam, just as some people use domains under .com for spam. However, blacklisting all domains under .co.cc seems like a heavy-handed approach. The blacklist does contain entries for nine different individual domains under .co.cc, such as \bvaruninfosys\.co\.cc\b and \bworld-forex\.co\.cc\b, so I'm not sure why the blacklist of all .co.cc domains appears later in the blacklist. It would seem like the individual blacklist entries for bad .co.cc sites are the way to go, and the \b.co\.cc\b entry for blacklisting all domains under .co.cc should be removed. 201.163.207.73 (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The large majority of .co.cc is redirect. I am not sure for this site, as the only other website with this information seems to be on a geocities site (http://www.geocities.com/czenm/, still available in the web archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20060207033819/www.geocities.com/czenm/).  If it is really hosted on .co.cc, then I would suggest, otherwise I would suggest to link the place where it is now officially hosted.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

www.Explore.org
Please unlist www.Explore.org Explore is Led by Charles Annenberg Weingarten, and is a multimedia organization that creates video documentaries and photographic essays on nonprofits around the world. The Explore team members document their missions, which include traditional philanthropic site visits to potential grantees whose leaders have devoted their lives to extraordinary causes. Explore uniquely combines global grantmaking, filmmaking, and photography as tools to educate and inspire. I can't imagine why it would be blacklisted. People interested in the Annenberg Foundation ought to be able to link to it. Thank you! Andora36 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please unlist www.explore.org Explore.org is a nonprofit organization funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Explore uniquely combines global grantmaking, filmmaking, and photography as tools to educate and inspire. I can't imagine a reason that this site would be blacklisted, as it highlights the good works of nonprofits worldwide. People should be able to link to it from the Annenberg Foundation page and also Explore deserves its own entry. Thank you! Andora36 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Placed similar requests by same user in same section. MER-C 04:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam explore.org I
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam explore.org II
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Badums
 * --Hu12 (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

vbs.tv
vbs.tv is the video site of Vice magazine, featuring documentary material. I tried to add a very worthwhile video link to a relevant article, and was blocked by the filter. Although it has much useful content for the encyclopaedia, it seems it was spammed last Summer and blacklisted accordingly. Skomorokh  06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you already found a discussion giving reasons for blacklisting. May I defer you to the whitelist where you ask for this specific video to be whitelisted.  I am afraid that de-listing the whole domain would result in a new influx of links.   ??  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

TechnoArea.Co.Cc
May i ask why this site is blocked TechnoArea.Co.Cc plz remove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decentguy49 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not on the blacklist as far as I can tell. The articles that you created have been deleted because none of them met our WP:Notability criteria. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All of .co.cc is blocked on the Meta blacklist because it's mostly used for URL redirection. This would have to be added to the local whitelist if we wanted to allow it (I express no opinion on this, you understand). — Gavia immer (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

www.israelnewsagency.com/iranholocaustcartoonsisraelseo48480207.html ISRAEL NEWS AGENCY
Please remove this site www.israelnewsagency.com/iranholocaustcartoonsisraelseo48480207.html ISRAEL NEWS AGENCY from blacklist. How it ever got there in the first place?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Serious abuse, copyright violation, attacks on named Wikipedians and it is not itself a reliable or attributable source. This is not a legitimate news agency, nor does it have editorial oversight. I inclined not to de-list at this time.--Hu12 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Thank you for the link! I really enjoyed reading this article www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediaterrorismiranrussialeninisraelcensorship4877031407.html. Then I checked the facts about user Essjay, who is discussed in the article. Guess what, everything that the article claims is the truth including the article about Wikipedia in New Yorker magazine. Here's only one diff from now retired user Essjay talk page. I believe blacklisting  Israelnewsagency is a censorship in its worst. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not going to willingly deblacklist a site that (α) is a blog (and thus unverifiable), (β) has (attempted to) out(ed) users in the past (as that's harassment), and (δ) has someone trolling for its removal. Besides, we're not covering up Essjay. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I consider "troling" as a personal attack. Grow up and be civil before you edit.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pot, meet kettle. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

According to quantcast, it "offers news, live radio broadcasts, political commentary, Arab press coverage and a video gallery. Also available in French, Russian and Hebrew" In fact, quantcast has the stats here and notice that the audience for this are also likely to visit ynetnews, National Review, Weekly Standard, Jerusalem Post, Washington Times, spiegel.de and the Wall Street Journal. also "The site reaches over 138K US monthly people, attracts a more educated, 50+, rather male, mostly Caucasian following"  If it were a spam site, would 138 thousand (more) educated people be likely to read it every month? I think you are making a big mistake here. Stellarkid (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not it. The webmaster of the site (whom is banned) has used the site to post private and personal information on other Wikipedia editors. (It's worth noting that it was primarily for this reason Encyclopædia Dramatica got blacklisted.) Also, the site is a blog, and thus a site to be avoided. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 05:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You can ban the webmaster but the site is not a blog.  It is a respectable news site, and the information about Essjay was not unearthed by INN.  The Essjay article was properly newsworthy.  If it had been done by the NY Times would you ban the NY Times?  Stellarkid (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus it is one thing to have a site to avoid, and quite another to put it on a blacklist. Stellarkid (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Chummer, we have no interest in hiding Essjay. Drop the straw-man, please; it's useless. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 05:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not interested in the Essjay controversy either. Nations online gives information about Israel and INN is listed as online news from Israel --it is first in the list which includes Globes, Haaretz, Israel wire, Jerusalem Post and kolisrael.com. Stellarkid (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then why do you keep bringing Essjay up? —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 05:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The censorship thing is not about this one individual. Putting this site on the blacklist is censoring a point of view. The idea of simply blacklisting a perfectly respectable source because the sitemaster did not follow wiki rules is abysmally parochial. The site is respectable, and WP is demonstrating its ignorance by keeping it on some SPAM blacklist. Any site can be misused btw which seemed to be another argument made for keeping it on the list. Because it has been misused or misappropriated does not make it a blacklisted spam site. Stellarkid (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Essjay's being used by *you* as an excuse to try and remove a site which has, primarily, been used to harass editors and (due to it being a blog) is not a reliable source. Try again. —Jeremy <sup style="color:#4682B4">(v^_^v Boribori!) 05:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, you seem to be confusing Israel News Agency, the subject of this section, with Israel National News (Arutz Sheva). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye. None of what I said above, AFAIK, applies to Israel National News; only to Israel News Agency. —<i style="color:#32CD32">Jeremy</i> <sup style="color:#4682B4">(v^_^v Boribori!) 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow this discussion. I am not sure how any current blacklisting relates to Essjay, who to my best knowledge has not been active on Wikipedia since he stopped editing under that name almost 3 years ago. -- Pakaran 06:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ok well it looks like I don't know what I was talking about. You are right Malik.  I am confused.  Not clear on this Israel News Agency and will check it out.  Stellarkid (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Few days ago I had not a slightest idea neither about the site itself nor about user:Israelbeach
 * When I asked to unblock that site, I was told that I showed "a very poor judgment",but did I? First let's please start from the beginning. Here are some facts as I know them with
 * no commentaries by me.
 * Israel News Agency is not a blog, it is a fully accredited news organization by the Israel Government Press Office, is indexed by Google News
 * Joel Leyden serves as a media consultant to the Israel Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Trade, Tourism and Defense.
 * Now I took at the site and Joel Leyden more careful look.
 * Capt. Joel Leyden, an Israel Defense Forces spokesman gave interview to CNN here
 * His letter was published in TIME Magazine here
 * His site was mentioned in USA Today
 * Right now he is in Haiti with Israel Defense Forces, helping the relief efforts for earthquake victims.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * , we've been here before, it's a polemical site of no value as a source and was extensively spammed by its owner using multiple accounts abusively. The commentary above adds no new information, all these assertions have been heard before. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

www.cais-soas.com
I am not sure why this page is blacklisted. I am trying to edit incorrect terminology used on the Zoroastrianism page. The article has it backwards and has no source. Zoroaster is the Greek form of the Avestan term Zarathustra, which was shortened to Zartosht in Persian and Zarathusht/Zarthusht in Gujarati - see source below. The page has the terms switched. Zartosht is Persian NOT Gujarati, and Zarathusht is Gujarati NOT Persian. Please consider delisting this website or at least adding the link needed to include Dr. Jafarey's research. The website is www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/good_religion_Institutionalized.htm, which references historical sources. One of the founders of CAIS (Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies) is a professor at the University of London. A source like this one is needed to verify the correction I want to add, and also lists a good amount of scholarly sources for it's article. I'm Persian and can attest to the correct usage, but I don't think that is good enough (even though it's my language)--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Recurring request, basically, cais-soas.com was abused on a significant scale, and contained several documents in violation of copyright. Unless that situation has significantly changed, I am declining a de-blacklisting request, but ask you to ask for whitelisting of the specific link.  Hence,  and .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that there was copyright violations. According to what I see, a Dr. Jafarey is a university professor who founded the organization with another professor. There are various sources and links added on that page. I don't really understand what 'deferwhite' means - defer to a white list? The link to the paper is here (without spaces) http:// www. cais-soas.com /CAIS/ Religions/ iranian/ Zarathushtrian/ good_religion_Institutionalized. htm  This was the only link I could find that supported my edit. I don't really think the edit needs a source, since in my language the shortened name for Zarathustra is Zartosht. Zarathusht is NOT a Persian word but Gujarati. This is a BIG difference. Please let me know what I can do. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the rendered wikitext (not in edit mode) you see a blue arrow, and 'Defer to Whitelist'. That is a page, similar to this page, but there we can add specific links which are excepted from blacklisting, and that is where you could request your link to be whitelisted.  Please explain your request there.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try that later this evening. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

www.examiner.com


I tried to write on a talk page including a link to a relevant article (for the discussion, not to be included in an article). I looked at the addition of this page and I really don't understand the rationale for it to be added. Nsaa (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple, examiner.com is a self published site where one can basically create an account, start writing, and then linking ones own written information. When then someone clicks your link you earn revenue (similar to ehow etc.).  Examiner.com was abused in that way, and there were more similar reasons regarding promotional edits.  Examiner.com articles are, generally, unreliable sources, and much of the information is available elsewhere from more reliable sources.
 * That being said, there are documents on the server which can be used, and those can be whitelisted. The risks for continued abuse, especially with the pay-per-click incentive, is too big (as an other editor described it: sometimes a mosquito net is more effective than swatting all the flies).  hence, .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another argument: examiner.com has a wealth of information, is a top 50 US website and employes experts around the county - the blacklisting doesn't make sense. They have local experts on a number of topics that should be ideal candidates for authors on wikipedia. There are plenty of resources on examiner.com that benefit the general public, and the site in no way spams end users with unsolicited information. Because they pay their writers based on their knowledge the credibility of the writers (as they are expected to produce quality content) should be higher than on blogging sites. It is not a blog site subject to abuse - the writers are vetted for quality and knowledge and examiner.com should be a perfect companion to wikipedia in that the bulk of the work is leaning towards insight on a diverse range of subjects from experts of passionate writers about that subject. There are some cases of abuse but overall they encourage average folks with in depth knowledge on a subject to contribute their knowledge which is right in line with wikipedia's mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.242.109 (talk • contribs)
 * due to extensive past abuse. See the above comment. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Re 24.8.242.109: Wrong. Examiner.com is one step short from 'create an account, create a document on the server, link it from somewhere and wait until someone follows it' (and see the money come to your account).  The only step between it is that they do a minimal person check, that is all.  There is no editorial overview, there is no check if things are correct, nothing like that.
 * That means, that though there certainly is positive material on examiner.com, there is also material which is just there so people can earn money with it. Of the material that is good, that is often also available somewhere else.  And Examiner.com was abused by examiner staff, examiner.com was abused by users, and after blacklisting user requested de-blacklisting/whitelisting for the sole reason of making money with the added links.   if you think that a document is proper and useful, but de-blacklisting is .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

www.article-writing-pros.com
Hello, I have been posting a link to my site from a wiki article on article spinning. I had the link removed by someone and then I re-posted it, this happened 2 times and then I found that I was on a blacklist.

I can assure you that I am not a spammer. Of course I want to grow my business but I don't appreciate spam either. I was re-posting my message as I didn't know who was erasing it, it could be a competitor or..? But now it seems like it must have been someone from Wikipedia, but I am still not sure.

At this point I want to be removed from the blacklist as it is a very negative place to be. I can guarantee you that I will not post again as now I see that it isn't accepted. I have never posted links on Wiki so its all new to me. I had an article that was relevant to issues with article-spinning and I thought it would be OK to have the link pointing to our site.The page that was receiving the link isn't selling anything its just giving information..Please remove us from the blacklist.

Thanks

Article-Writing-Pros.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.137.120 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * . We typically do not remove sites at the request of the site owner, especially to allow the site owner to add links. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

=Troubleshooting and problems=

Scientific Exploration Society
I recently tried to add a reference to the following website: www.ses-explore.org (Scientific Exploration Society, a charity founded in 1969), and the blacklist prevented me from doing so. I think the problem is the "\bexplore\.org\b" line in the spam-blacklist. Is it possible to either whitelist the SES website, or (preferably) avoid having such a wide-ranging regex that seems to be catching any .org link with the word "explore" in the URL. That seems a bit broad to me, though I checked the log and the reason for the addition is here. I'm not entirely sure what should be done here, so that's why I'm posting in this section. One thing to note is that charities use the ".org" domain (in the UK at least), so any charity with the word "explore" in their URL will get blacklisted under the current regex, I think. Hope there is a simple way to solve this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I put this in a different section to get more attention? Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One possible solution would be changing this entry to [\.\/]explore\.org\b (if my regex and understanding of spam blacklist behaviour is correct - should block www.explore.org and h++p://explore.org but nothing else). By my count there are four active admins that do a lot of anti-spam work, two of which haven't edited since you posted this and the others don't frequent this page. I've seen stuff on this page go unanswered for months. MER-C 11:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being impatient. Maybe those whose posts were unanswered never followed up and pestered for an answer? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems. (The time I was talking about was August-September 2008, where blacklisting activity virtually stopped. The subsequent archives tell the story. The admins that usually handle requests here - Hu12 and A.B. - appear to be on a break, this is starting to look like one of those times). MER-C 10:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have whitelisted '\bses-explore\.org\b', which should allow you to link to http://ses-explore.org. Hope this resolves the problem.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Noting, only domains ending in explore.org where there is nothing alphanumerical before the first 'e' would be blocked, e.g. exploreR.org would not be blocked, reexplore.org would not be blocked, re-explore.org would, as would explore.org.uk, but the collateral damage is quite small (and unfortunately, sometimes 'needed' due to spammer creativity). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for dealing with this. I'll go add in the reference now. In passing, I would also like to note that www.explore.org looks like a legitimate site to me, and may well get referenced in some articles at some point in the future, despite the promotional activity that occurred. One article where it would be a legitimate external link would be Annenberg Foundation. Also, there are several interviews and other material on that site that would be legitimate external links or even (possibly) references for articles. I guess, however, that the normal thing is to wait until an editor trips over the blacklist and comes here making a specific request. I don't totally agree with that, but I can understand it given the volume of spamming that hits Wikipedia and the numbers of people willing to deal with it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That would generally be the case, though we prefer whitelisting in those cases. MER-C 10:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * hi!
 * to block (www.explore.org and h++p://explore.org) one can use
 * I'll do that. -- seth (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. -- seth (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I agree that 'waiting until someone trips over the blacklist and comes here making a specific request' is not optimal, it would be best indeed if relatively good links would be removed from the blacklist after some time. However, it is the only detection method that something is needed in a positive way, and seen the amount of incoming spam, it is not reasonably feasible to 'test if a domain is not spammed anymore' (it would increase the workload). There have been situations where 'good' domains were removed from the blacklist, and that the massive disruption started (again) (I am thinking about the sockfarms from aboutmyarea.co.uk and the SEO-push of e.g. uofa.edu). There's money behind it, it pays to have your links here, we are fully aware that tripping the blacklist filter can appear 'bitey', and for us regulars it can be totally annoying to have to go through this, but unfortunately it is necessary to keep the spammers out, sometimes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)