MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2010

= Proposed Additions =

orebaregistry.com
Multi-year spamming despite block. MER-C 08:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Multi year and multiple IP spamming despite warnings and blocks, --Hu12 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=edikv0zbAlU
This link has been repeatedly added by IP socks of long term abuser. He is rapidly changing IPs (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Testosterone vs diabetes for a list of IPs) so blocking isn't helping. Semi-protection of several pages has slowed him down, but blacklisting the url will help. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . If its found that this user is subverting blacklisting, just report back and we'll add any additional URL's as needed. If further disruption continues, may want to consider a range block.
 * The two most used IP ranges are;
 * thanks for the report, Ed--Hu12 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have considered rangeblocks, but even though these are ISPs in non-English speaking countries, there are actually plenty of useful contributions coming from the ranges, so the collateral damage probably isn't justified at this point. Thank you for adding to the blacklist and hopefully this will help.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for the report, Ed--Hu12 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have considered rangeblocks, but even though these are ISPs in non-English speaking countries, there are actually plenty of useful contributions coming from the ranges, so the collateral damage probably isn't justified at this point. Thank you for adding to the blacklist and hopefully this will help.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

sites.google.com/site/datemix/
This specific page (which has no readable content) is being systematically placed onto multiple articles using multiple newly-registered accounts. Examples:, ,. More discussion at External links/Noticeboard and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'm not suggesting that all of sites.google.com be blocked, but this one page is being systematically spammed and the use of multiple accounts suggests that blacklisting may be the most effective way to stop it permanently. --RL0919 (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See also - Sockpuppet investigations/Merlion444
 * See also - Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive587
 * See also -
 * Also
 * See also - :: ANI report
 * See also - Sockpuppet investigations/Carmendi
 * Both, sorry for the delay--Hu12 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

whatsyourobsession.com

 * accounts

This link was inserted into several toy company articles and in the case of revoltech it was shown to be a copy and paste from the bowen designs article which was later modified when the mistake was caught by the spammer. This link is of little or no relevance to the toy companies listed other than that the site apparently sells toys by these companies via affiliate mall. The spammer seems to wait a few days and insert a few more links trying not to be noticed. I have issued a level 4 warning to the ip address due to the number of links added. I feel that the ip may try to re-insert the links as the "about" section of the website in question references Drteng.net, which is a Canadian healthcare blog and the only other edit from this ip is on the topic of Canadian healthcare. That indicates to me a single purpose user posting from a single IP. I noticed the linkspamming due to the fact that I created the initial Side Show Collectibles article.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks as if the spammer IP has stopped for now, and no links have been added since. While I agree with your assesment lets first see if this returns. If so we can consider a block, and perhaps blacklisting if multiple accounts are used. For now, lets mark this as . Thanks for the report Torchwoodwho. --Hu12 (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

babangida.com
Three years of link vandalism. MER-C 08:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mass Long term spamming and blatant Link vandalism. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

prokerala.com
Slow IP hopping citation spam, typically one IP per spam citation. MER-C 09:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

watchitfree.net




User has been blocked for actions, but to prevent further ip edits, it would be best for it to be blacklisted. It is a clear copyvio and has no encyclopedic purposes. BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * google_ad_client = pub-6325898017113118
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Movietips
 * Other Accounts
 * Appears the spammer just came back under new accounts and IP's, despite blocks. Spammers IP range is;
 * Site has navigation scripts, that attempt to block users from exiting site, plus multiple pop ups. --Hu12 (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional from sock investigation
 * Same malicious navigation scripts--Hu12 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional from sock investigation
 * Same malicious navigation scripts--Hu12 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Same malicious navigation scripts--Hu12 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Same malicious navigation scripts--Hu12 (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

medicanalife.com


. Speaks for itself, really. MER-C 04:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

. Returned with other domain. MER-C 12:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * vandalised this report
 * Also --Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

affiliate.image-line.com/BFDAJHE484
Repeated insertion of this link at FL Studio by an IP address numerious times. It's an affiliate link, See this diff and page history. Momo san Gespräch 19:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the IP admits that it is his affiliate link, see here. Momo san Gespräch 20:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * More;


 * Adding " ",this should catch all affiliate links and allow regular linking (if that is ever needed). --Hu12 (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also tagged the user account and the IP you found as possible sockpuppets.  Momo san  Gespräch 20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks, Momo san--Hu12 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

seo-training-blog.blogspot.com
MER-C 04:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/seo-training-blog.blogspot.com
 * , Thanks MER-C--Hu12 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

chinesepageantpage.com
MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2009 and Special:Contributions/71.22.155.161 (or ) MER-C 07:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Already --Hu12 (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so? MER-C 08:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * guess its not, --Hu12 (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

humanticsfoundation.com
This is the website of a banned user, User:Ilena. She has previously spammed it and Bolen (and his socks) have also done so. Both users have been banned by the Arbitration Committee. It is classified as a hatesite which attacks Wikipedia and its users and is often used by those who hate Stephen Barrett. It contains libelous material and shouldn't be allowed here.


 * This is the latest spammer.



Related situation: Diff with more information about perpetrators.

Brangifer (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . Looks as if we missed one (above)ANI. I'll log them with the previous report. Thanks again--Hu12 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . Looks as if we missed one (above)ANI. I'll log them with the previous report. Thanks again--Hu12 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . Looks as if we missed one (above)ANI. I'll log them with the previous report. Thanks again--Hu12 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . Looks as if we missed one (above)ANI. I'll log them with the previous report. Thanks again--Hu12 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . Looks as if we missed one (above)ANI. I'll log them with the previous report. Thanks again--Hu12 (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To understand the serious intent of these people's attacks, take a look at what this indef banned user writes about suing Wikimedia. (Copy and paste the link, then tweak it.) Mike Godwin, general counsel for Wikimedia, knows of these legal threats and has been in contact with that user. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

urlalacon.com
I saw that tinyurl is blacklisted. urlalacon.com has not yet been used to spam (as far as I know), but this is a kind of clone of tinyurl (I have just been using it to make a link to a google books page that had an URL with double quotes, which made it impossible to create a working link). --Eiku (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Reported to the Glogal Blacklist. thanks, Eiku--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Reported to the Glogal Blacklist. thanks, Eiku--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

musicproducerpro.net


Affiliate link vandalism over a year. MER-C 04:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

gazoomy.com


MER-C 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * , thanks MER-C.--Hu12 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

smartbook.asia
Persistent link vandalism. MER-C 02:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

convertmodfiles.biz
MER-C 09:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Hu12 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

discussionshome.com
Random discussion site of questionable veracity that is being used to host (or at least discuss) illegal football highlights, which in turn led to its being spammed on 2010 Africa Cup of Nations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and there are more. Dynamic IP user means blocking is not an option. Xenon54 / talk / 23:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC) (edited 02:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC))
 * google_ad_client = pub-1504021040121208
 * Accounts




 * Cross Wiki spamming
 * fr:Special:Contributions/41.196.231.62
 * pt:Special:Contributions/41.196.231.62
 * ar:Special:Contributions/82.201.241.205
 * fr:Special:Contributions/196.205.225.153
 * pt:Special:Contributions/196.205.240.55
 * fr:Special:Contributions/196.205.240.55


 * ✅. also requesting this be listed on meta--Hu12 (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Already shopping for removal, m:Special:Contributions/82.201.241.205--Hu12 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

baptismgiftsnow.com
blocked twice for spamming this link. MER-C 03:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

aworldnews.com


More fun subcontinent MFA spam. :( MER-C 06:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

africacupofnationshighlights.blogspot.com
On 2010 Africa Cup of Nations, related to discussionshome.com above; most probably the same user, most definitely related to discussionshome.com as all it contains is links to that website. Again the offender appears to be on a dynamic IP address (and judging by his removal request he also has a poor understanding of the external link policy) so blacklisting is the only way to resolve this issue. Diffs: 1, 2 (this was followed by a reversion), 3, 4, 5, 6. Xenon54 / talk / 01:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch, clearly africacupofnationshighlights.blogspot.com is an attempt to curcumvent blacklisting. --Hu12 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch, clearly africacupofnationshighlights.blogspot.com is an attempt to curcumvent blacklisting. --Hu12 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

janubaba.net
Another MFA site for your enjoyment. MER-C 03:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . ;)--Hu12 (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

sweetcaroline.com
blocked twice for spamming this site. MER-C 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently not MER-C 03:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Chinese knockoff spam


MER-C 09:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

picturesvideosonline.com


MER-C 08:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

asidols.com


MER-C 09:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

uggcardy.org


MER-C 09:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Adsense pub-6190349642831367


1.5 years of abuse. MER-C 13:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

view360.in


MER-C 07:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

modsandhacks.net


MER-C 07:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Twice vandalized this report
 * Multiple warnings have been ignored and Twice have been blocked and continued spamming.
 * --Hu12 (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

articles-oceans.info 2


MER-C 07:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

hitarthjani.com


MER-C 09:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

More shopping spam


MER-C 09:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Random spam


blocked thrice for spamming these sites. MER-C 09:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked 3 months, if spam returns under another IP lets reconsider. for now --Hu12 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

infoganex.hpage.com


Various IPs within the same company range are repeatedly adding the commercial link "*ICI COMPUTER EDUCATION http ://infoganex.hpage.com" to the list of schools on the Naugachia page. I asked for the page to be protected, but the spam continued after the protection was lifted. Admin User:Ged UK suggested I try WP:BLACKLIST if it continued - see User talk:Oscroft. Oscroft (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Accounts
 * ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

answering-christianity.com


Extremist Muslim blog listed on the Raymond Hate Directory. Has been spammed on numerous articles as a reference in order to promote the website (including articles completely unrelated to Islam or Christianity, such as Zoophilia. I removed it from nearly 20 articles several months ago, but it was recently inserted back into the Zoophilia article.--23:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt  (talk • contribs)  23:50, 22 January 2010


 * . Evidence of abuse, accounts and IP's? Seems there has been much discussion judging from the links that remain on various talk pages.--Hu12 (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

attukaldevi.com
More than one year of abuse. MER-C 02:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

yachtpals.com
For some reason this site is on the spam blacklist. No reason for this. Very useful site with original news articles. For instance, just tried to add information about sailor Geoff Holt and put reference to his original interview for citation but will not allow me to. Thank you for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.219.34 (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This request seems to be comming from the same range that previously spammed this and other "Bradley Hampton" owned sites. 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 a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a reliable source--Hu12 (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't understand. We use a public wifi hotspot for access. Could this be the problem? We have never spammed wikipedia and don't plan to do so. Please lift restrictions or let us know how this can be done. Surely one person at my hotspot spamming wikipedia can't ban all of us at the company for good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.219.34 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

bluesport.co.cc
This site isn't a spammer site.This site is a new sport portal, and I tried to add an external link with the transfer of Ionut Rada.I tried without account to add information to that article.I hope to "escape" the site to Smapper list, to add articles from this site and to specify the source information.Thanks for support, and a god night to me is night--12 hour! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alin9090 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 29 December 2009
 * bluesport.co.cc is Non-English-language content.--Hu12 (talk) 09:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not especially relevant, but what is relevant is that it fails WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Just for clarification, Non-English-language content also fails WP:EL (for English Wikipedia)..--Hu12 (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

aerobaticteams.net
Please check this site and ensure that it is not spam site. Many of the articles of Military Aerobatic Teams section at wikipedia uses the aerobaticteams.net like source. I don't understand why this site is blacklisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.155.239.132 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * aerobaticteams.net aerobaticteams.110mb.com
 * aerobaticteams.110mb.com
 * Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=1251741#aerobaticteams.net
 * aerobaticteam.blogspot.com
 * aerobaticteams.net
 * COIBot/LinkReports/aerobaticteams.free.bg
 * aerobaticteams.net
 * aerobaticteam.blogspot.com
 * Talk:Spam_blacklist#aerobaticteams.net meta declined
 * ect...


 * Mass multiple project spamming, plenty of abuse, Several declines, vandalism of reports related to aerobaticteams.net, and multiple attempts to circumvent blacklisting. Additionaly, the requesting IP above also spammed this. --Hu12 (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So can you explain me how wikipedia use a spam sources like my site? Is it fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.155.239.132 (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure what "how wikipedia use a spam sources like my site" means. However, if a trusted, high-volume editor requests deblacklisting for use in an article, we will be happy to give such a request careful consideration. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Look spanish version of military aerobatic teams: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Arrows http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Equipos_militares_de_acrobacia_a%C3%A9rea And many other teams. Also english versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BlueImpulseLogo.jpg and others... Please review closely my site. I think that many of english versions of this articles uses my site like source, but can't add me like References, because of blacklisting my site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.155.239.132 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OpenBlox.co.cc
I have absolutely no idea why this site is blocked. I am a editor from OpenBlox and I was editing our OpenBlox page here on Wikipedia. I don't understand why is is blocked, so I am making this request to unblock it please. I need it as a external link on the OpenBlox page here. --Sirnot1 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sites under the co.cc domain have been the subject of significant spam activity in the past, and as such the entire domain has been blocked. Individual sites can be whitelisted if they are needed as reliable sources, but - as it appears that the page you created is likely to be deleted shortly - it doesn't appear that this is going to be warranted. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 22:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

oldunreal.com
Can this site be unlisted/removed from the blacklist? It is the site of a third party update to Unreal and currently in the middle of an edit war. I am trying to ascertain why oldunreal.com should be blacklisted, as there appears to be nothing untoward about it - the best I can come up with is that the address is almost exactly the same as boldunreal.com which I found in the archive december 2008 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log#December_2008 Thanks. a_man_alone (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems the abuse from oldunreal.com has been ongoing. Since previous reports, based on Unreal's history it would appear the disruption continues (as early as yestrday) with continued spamming of oldunreal.com's patch, including attempts to curcuvent blacklisting thru the bad faith use of url/redirectors. Clearly the previous evidenced Off wiki threats of disruption have occured, and prior spam attacks and heavily used Meatpuppets by the site owners is sufficient evidence this will continue if un-listed. per continued disruption,  origional spam case and previous decline. --Hu12 (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, point taken - I'd missed the original blacklist discussion. Seems a shame that a potentially important factoid cannot be represented though. a_man_alone (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We are open to whitelisting one or a few links to the site if appropriate. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is the specific link that would be requested is to an unoficial patch, which is the primary source of the abuse and disruption. Equally, Wikipedia is not a Userguide for posting links to patch downloads for games.--Hu12 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew that "if appropriate" I wrote would come in handy (-: Stifle (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tumblr.com
I myself can't phathom why the website is blacklisted but there are many people out there with tumblr accounts or any blogging account that allows them network around the internet. This should be reason enough to allow the site. People can google a blog, we should be able to reference that here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakum41 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not all that clever to mark your own request as done, because someone might ignore it.
 * Links from Wikipedia are supposed to provide additional information beyond what an article might contain if it were a featured article. Blogs very rarely meet that standard (see also WP:RS). Therefore, ❌. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

vpipes.com
Could you explain me why this site is blacklisted? Thanks. Joseawiki (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears it was spammed by User:VPiper many times, and perhaps by other users. That's the one user I identified right off. tedder (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, spamming and commercial content additions such as this.--Hu12 (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com
Why is this site blacklisted? It is a legitimate news source, not very different from slate.com, salon.com etc. 70.23.244.7 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Content is scrapped from other sites, and fails WP:RS. see abuse log--Hu12 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Examiner.com stories are published with no editorial oversight and offer monetary incentives to authors to increase page-views. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How many people is it going to take objecting before you remove this blanket listing? As an example, youtube.com has all the same properties, yet it isn't blanket blacklisted, rather specific problems are blacklisted. Gigs (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Youtube offers monetary incentives to uploaders? - MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the uploader is on the YouTube Partner Program Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I hadn't heard of that before. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gigs, Examiner.com was abused, spammed. Hence it got blacklisted.  It is nice to know that YouTube does have a similar program, as YouTube is typically spammed and abused on a regular basis as well, as well as that it has many other problems.  Maybe we should blacklist YouTube?  It certainly is not a reason to de-blacklist examiner.com (see WP:WAX).  Moreover, every document on examiner.com is earning money for the creator, which is certainly not true for YouTube.  And there is a significant part of YouTube which is a reliable source, while I am afraid that for examiner.com that is not that widely applicable (if there were loads of whitelisting requests from examiner.com documents which would show us that the site contains quite some useful documents .. then maybe we would be more inclined).  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some examiners are indeed experts at what they are writing about. It's no different from geocities or youtube or about.com.  Lots of crap, but some amount of good stuff, use with caution.  As for requests... we can wait and see how it goes.  There have already been quite a few de-blacklist and whitelist requests.  I expect this to increase as time goes on.  Keep in mind there's probably a lot trying to use it in good faith that we don't know about.  Until we get blacklist hit logging it's hard to say (I still want that someday).   Gigs (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there is a clear difference, people who have (had) an account on Geocities and published their own work and then linked it here did not get payed for it (directly, at least, it may still be promoting the owner of the Geocities page), while people on examiner.com have a greater incentive to add their own links anywhere else, even if it the content linked to is rubbish or even in violation of copyrights. That indeed does not exclude that there is good information there, and that someone else who finds it there might want to use it as a reference somewhere.
 * Some sites get regularly requests for de-blacklisting of the whole domain, but I meant the number of granted whitelisting requests for specific documents. That number is low, for many of these sites, as much of the info, even if it is correct and useful and not requested by the owner of the site, is still often also available via other means, which is then a better place to link then to sponsor an individual (even if it is not the requester) who (likely) scraped the info from those other sites anyway, and it might still be qualified as 'original research', and there is no editorial overview.
 * I do agree .. blacklist hit logging would be great, even if it would be a toolserver gadget. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 14:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the apparent lack of editorial oversight on examiner.com it's unlikely that articles from that source would meet WP:RS, so it seems pointless to remove it from the blacklist if there's reason to expect spam linking will occur. Whereas YouTube has channels for major news organisations that are definitely reliable sources, so there are clear reasons not to blacklist YouTube as a whole even though some spam linking may occur. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the apparent lack of editorial oversight on the internet at large, it's unlikely that articles from random websites would meet WP:RS as well. Why don't we just blacklist the entire internet, and whitelist approved, reliable, sources? Gigs (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Gigs, please stop with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-arguments, but to answer: simple, because by far the majority of websites is not abused (or we did not see the abuse yet), however, examiner.com WAS abused. Examiner.com is largely unreliable (and the reliable part is for a significant part available from other websites as well), it was abused, it is completely a spam hazard (due to the pay-per-view), while YouTube has also a large unreliable part, there is a significant part which is a reliable source, it is abused also, and it is only partially a spam hazard (the part which is pay-per-view), however the rest of it is not (because there is a part that is a reliable source, and a large part which is just plainly useless, but at least does not sponsor others). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument is not that other crap exists, my argument is that the reliability of a source is not something that can be decided on a site wide basis when a site includes thousands of different authors with vastly different standards of reliability. As well, the reliability of a particular source is dependent on the context in which it is being cited.  I am fine with declining this specific request and considering the matter closed in the short run, but we should revisit this in the future as the whitelist and de-blacklist requests pile up. Gigs (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pile up? Where? I see an odd examiner.com link being requested every now and then, and indeed a handful of requests for the whole domain. But as far as I can see, only one of them is whitelisted. Not exactly many requests which are granted, it seems that most of the site is not very useful. When many documents are requested, granted to be whitelisted, ánd used, then maybe we should remove the blacklisting for the whole site. Until now, the site wás abused, we have not detected a lot of legit use of the site (yet), and the potential for abuse is large. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and add my request to the whitelist page as well for the URL that prompted me to look into this, if you are going to use whitelisted entries as a basis. Gigs (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gigs, An unreliable source does not become reliable by virtue of repetition. Something does not become reliable based on a certain volume of requests, nor is ("piling up") a valid reason for delisting this domain. --Hu12 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

tvrage.com
I'm a little confused as to why this domain's been blacklisted. It's perhaps the best alternative to tv.com, featuring episode guides and detailed information for a vast array of television shows, and it's now affiliated with the long-established Epguides site, which also has an affiliation with tv.com (and formerly TV Tome). Both tv.com and epguides.com are widely linked from and used as sources for Wikipedia; I don't see a compelling reason TV Rage shouldn't be too.VinnieRattolle (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Background:
 * Discussions on meta:
 * m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/10
 * m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/11
 * m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01
 * m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-05
 * m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-11
 * m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/02
 * m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/03


 * Discussions on en.wikipedia:
 * Template:Tvrage
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination)
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination)
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2006/11
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVrage.com
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/02
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television
 * This is a relevant, if numbingly long, discussion about what kinds of links, in general, are desirable in TV-related articles
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/12
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/09
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/11
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/01


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


 * Other disruption
 * Articles for deletion/TV.com
 * speedy kept as a bad faith nomination in revenge for the TVRage deletion
 * www.tvrage.com/profiles/JohnQ.Public/blogs/view/?vid=10089
 * A former staff member states: "It's no secret that this entire site, and the foundation of its existence, is based on getting information from other websites and formatting it to our standards. Why bother to lie people, we all steal info."
 * Fails inclusion criteria:
 * TVRage.com is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias other specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.
 * quote:"Like wikipedia, TVRage.com is a website where everyone can contribute" by 62.235.155.130 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly TVRage.com is not a "reliable source" and has no editorial oversight, anyone can contribute (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published.
 * Abuse:
 * In addition to failing "Wikipedias" inclusion criteria described above;
 * Massive Meatpuppetry;
 * Widespread disruption;
 * gross incivility;
 * persistent vandalism;
 * harassment;
 * persistent spamming;
 * Multiple requests/discussions and declines all with no consensus in favor of these links;
 * process abuse -massive sock/meatpuppetry in deletion discussions;
 * process abuse - Bad faith nominations of other articles (ie. TV.com);
 * accounts used exclusively for disruptive purposes, such as vandalism;
 * Multiple instances of off wiki canvassing for inclusion at tvrage and elswere including pettitions([);
 * persistently violating other policies or guidelines.
 * Threats of continued disruption; "But we will continue to pursue this matter as TVRage continues to grow."
 * As for tv.com and epguides.com see WP:OTHERLINKS. tvrage.com is --Hu12 (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that explains it, thank you. I tried looking for an explanation but I guess my knowledge of Wikipedia's a bit too basic to find all that. VinnieRattolle (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

LBPolyJROTC.co.cc
Hello I was wondering why this website is blocked, and If it could be unblocked because its a website about the Long Beach Poly (Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps) J.R.O.T.C. Ok thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Hockett (talk • contribs) 21:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ,however it seems to be an empty site and in particular "This website is Designed by C:/ PFC Edward Hockett.";
 * External links policy
 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * Conflict of interest
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm still building it thanks for white listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Hockett (talk •

regression.nl
The link you are adding is very interesting. You will find however that the Hubbert curve is not a normal distribution curve, but the derivative of a Gompertz function growth curve. Also, are you taking past discoveries into account as Hubbert did, or simply trying to find a good fit to a function? Once you have your paper peer reviewed so that it's information is known to be reliable, then it may qualify to be linked to from some Wikipedia articles... though probably not all the ones you have been editing. Additionally, it may be interesting to consider the change in consumption rates over the past 2 years. NJGW (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You were right, the hubbert curve has a different function. I’ve repeated the analyses but now with the hubbert curve. It works only by trying to find a good fit to a function. It is a very interesting link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin6758 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because wikipedia is not a chat forum, I'll assume you requesting delisting.
 * google_ad_client = pub-1771384325213654
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Feb_1
 * m:User:COIBot/XWiki/regression.nl
 * nl:Special:Contributions/Martin6758
 * Special:Contributions/Martin6758
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. 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. --Hu12 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. 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. --Hu12 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

AnimeNfo.com
We were told our website has been blacklisted due to content called "scanlations" which are scans of manga/comic related material being translated and distrubuted. -

we are an anime and manga database, nothing more we do not facilitate copyright infringement and delete any links, as well as, adivisng/punishing users if they break this rule.

the only scanlation content that we can see is a link from google ads on our pages to a site called mangafox which is guilty of scanlations but this is a randomly generated advertisement by google and in no way do we endorse this.

and even though websites are taken on merit and cannot be used as a way to justify adding a website like it, animenewsnetwork who DO have a page on your website, offer links to a site named crunchyroll.com which provides illegal fansub versions of anime —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.24.81 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears your claims are factualy incorrect. Site appears to continue to violate WP:COPYRIGHT, therefore this request is . --Hu12 (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

bensonhurstdentalcare.com
Why was this website blacklisted, there is a lot if relevant information about this organization (Bensonhurst Dental Care) and its doctors. They are involved in countless medical research that the world should know about, and they are the leading dental practice in NYC (Brooklyn). All content and information is original and not infringed. This practice and doctors has been up and running for over 20 years. Please reconsider blacklisting this website, all this site is being used for is to reference content about the doctors.--Grubin590 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to abuse, including spamming of cosmeticdentistbrooklyn.blogspot.com. In addition, it does not meet Wikipedias inclusion criteria of the External Links policy. Lastly, since its blacklisted, it does not appear to be used as a reference anywhere on wikipedia, nor does it appear there are any mentions of "Bensonhurst Dental Care" or its staff. --Hu12 (talk) 06:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, see the following articles by Grubin590 and subsequently deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion":
 * Alexander Rubinshtein - deleted 3 times
 * Bensonhurst Dental Care
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

hvarinfo.com
I tried to add this site, however, I found out it has been blacklisted which came as a surprise. Then we found out that it is due to our employe/marketer who obviously spammed trying to add it to Wikipedia. I understand and support this decision, of course this kind of behaviour will not be allowed again. I am writting this because we belive the site could be useful in its category Hvar, as it is not a spammy site itself, but it contains potentially valuable information, about the Hvar island, and other destinations on the island (E.g. hvarinfo.com/hvar/ for Hvar_(city) hvarinfo.com/jelsa/ etc.,

Also, it has information about the Hvar island on 8 languages rarely found on other sites, I belive a reference to this site on these languages would be valuable. I am also surprised to see there are some external links at Hvar which have no information about Hvar at all, while this site is blocked. Thank you for consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.132.116 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems it's one site in a series of related tourist sites spammed on multiple projects(including this one by Special:Contributions/GoPlay and Special:Contributions/88.207.92.102). 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.--Hu12 (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

plasticsurgery.org
This website is on the blacklist. I'd like to request to have it removed for it contains valid information regarding plastic surgeons who are qualified and board certified and is a great reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrogysten (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because of previous abuses and spam I'm reluctent to remove the entire domain. However, if a specific link is needed as a citation, one of the etablished editors can request a direct URL specifically for consideration on case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source, in an article about the subject. --Hu12 (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

translator.vndv.com
This site was blacklisted but I do not see the reason to put it into black list. Actually I want to add this site to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_translation#Software, because it is usefull free online machine translation tool which support all popular languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yplakosh (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On the Meta blacklist; see meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/translator.vndv.com for details, and request removal at Spam blacklist. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 17:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly wikipedia is not a collection of external links or a directory for online translation tools. Wikipedia exists to provide encyclopedic content on subjects, not to provide a repository of external links - other sites such as dmoz exist for that purpose. --Hu12 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =