MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2013

= Proposed Additions =

'\behowto.*\.com\b'


There has been a number of these ehowto&hellip;com websites including ehowtocuregingivitis.com, ehowtotrainyourpuppy, etc. none of which are of value. Some of these we have individually blocked globally for WMF wikis, however, they are predominantly focused at enwiki. That being the case, I would propose that we look at this broader filter locally to strain out the vast bulk of this dross. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to \be?howto[_-0-9a-z]*\.com\b, which would also allow us to eliminate the numerous "howto" entries in the blacklist with and without the beginning 'e'. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any objections? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, I've it. --Hu12 (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

dormgrow.com
Diffs: Cannabis cultivation, Cannabis cultivation, Grow light, Grow light, Growroom

Joja lozzo  04:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Continued promotion;
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dorm Grow LED ‎
 * --Hu12 (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

everdo.it
Diffs: and likely more in the article Getting Things Done. mabdul 19:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * User talk:Onemln
 * 


 * And onther [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=530512982 diff]. mabdul 01:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OneMln ltd
 * Article Spam
 * Accounts
 * Continued promotion, ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * Continued promotion, ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

mediafetcher.com
--87.78.47.137 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Diff:


 * So... it's a fake entertainment news web site (says so right at the bottom of the article sourced in that diff), but I don't see any evidence of abuse that would warrant a blacklisting. I'd expect The Onion to be more heavily cited for hoaxes (and it has fooled legitimate news agencies in the past), but we don't blacklist it either.


 * Therefore, this request is for now unless other stronger evidence comes up. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ,, , . The blacklist already contains an entry for mediafetcher: \bmediafetcher\.com\b This edit shouldn't have gone through. It may have to do with edits to the blacklist's mediafetcher entry here and here, but I'm not familar with the code so I couldn't say for sure. At any rate, mediafetcher is already on the blacklist, the entry just needs to be formatted/repaired by someone in the know. --87.78.47.137 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That edit went through because the broken formatting in the edit caused the link to not actually display on the page. Anomie⚔ 11:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. That makes sense then. Thanks, --87.78.22.184 (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that it's already blacklisted. Because you referenced a recent diff, it didn't occur to me to check that it was blacklisted. Anomie is correct, that edit went through because the reference was mis-formatted so the URL never displayed. If you copy and paste the URL into Sandbox you'll see that the blacklist does get triggered by it.
 * There's no log entry for mediafetcher.com, so it's hard to tell when it was added to the blacklist, so it's likely that those other examples occurred before the blacklisting. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=258987002 December 2008]. Anomie⚔ 18:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you have a quick way to find that? At the time I replied, I couldn't spend the time to search the history. I always have to do a manual bisection search. Go back 6 years from present, if I don't see it, bisect the lookback to 3 years and look again, if it IS there, bisect the interval to 1.5 years and look again (this time 4.5 years back), and so on, narrowing down until I find it. It is a tedious process. If you have a tool that lets me quickly find a diff, please let me know. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php?project=wikipedia&article=MediaWiki%3ASpam-blacklist&needle=mediafetcher&lang=en&limit=5000&offjahr=2013&offmon=1&offtag=4&offhour=23&offmin=55&searchmethod=int&order=desc&force_wikitags=on&user_lang=en&ignorefirst=0&binary_search_inverse=false is what I would use. Werieth (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. That works exactly the same way I do it manually. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually have a script I run on my computer, but it does the same as that. But on normal pages (unless the ramselehof.de tool is smarter than mine) you have to watch out that it will sometimes find a vandalism or revert instead of the real addition or removal of the searched-for content. Anomie⚔ 02:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The ramselehof.de tool gives you the option to search from the oldest or newest first, which should solve that problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Korean Monarchy

 * I've had a master and 10 socks add links to these two sites to between one and two dozen Korean monarchy related articles in the last two days (see the history on Joseon as an example). The site appears to be either a political party or an organization designed to revive the (long defunct) Korean monarchy. It's got a large number of ads, several donation links, and has no conceivable value as a link for Wikipedia. Rather than play whack-a-mole or protect a large number of pages (see Jyongchul's contribution list for the breadth of articles targeted), the blacklist seems like the most effective option. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a master and 10 socks add links to these two sites to between one and two dozen Korean monarchy related articles in the last two days (see the history on Joseon as an example). The site appears to be either a political party or an organization designed to revive the (long defunct) Korean monarchy. It's got a large number of ads, several donation links, and has no conceivable value as a link for Wikipedia. Rather than play whack-a-mole or protect a large number of pages (see Jyongchul's contribution list for the breadth of articles targeted), the blacklist seems like the most effective option. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a master and 10 socks add links to these two sites to between one and two dozen Korean monarchy related articles in the last two days (see the history on Joseon as an example). The site appears to be either a political party or an organization designed to revive the (long defunct) Korean monarchy. It's got a large number of ads, several donation links, and has no conceivable value as a link for Wikipedia. Rather than play whack-a-mole or protect a large number of pages (see Jyongchul's contribution list for the breadth of articles targeted), the blacklist seems like the most effective option. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * respectfully OPPOSE; the subject of the korean monarchy (& any considerations of its revival) are quite obviously LEGITIMATE TOPICS. the problem you have stated involves ONE USER (somehow?) mis-applying links.  you need to fix the problem with the user.


 * WORSE YET; your comment seems to imply that you cannot read korean(?) & therefore have only a limited ability to understand the content of the sites which you are seeking to blacklist.


 * "Rather than play whack-a-mole or protect a large number of pages" -- instead of this, you want to "nuke it"? (& overuse of "protection" is not a good thing either, for the record)


 * in allowing a website blacklist AT ALL, it is understood that it must be used SPARINGLY, & only when absolutely necessary; & with all due respect, your problem comes nowhere near the threshold to justify such a ban.


 * if this is "all it takes" to get a ban, we're going to end up blacklisting half the internet, & for prerty dubious reasons.


 * Lx 121 (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that the website is partially in English (enough that I can tell it will never have any value on Wikipedia), is not about the monarchy but rather about an a private organization called the "Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification party" seeking to restore the monarchy, is a self-published website (that looks like little more than a blog), is not written by experts, fails several different parts of WP:ELNO, has no value per WP:ELYES, is being used to drive traffic to Wikipedia articles (the blocked editor bragged about the "creation" of a WP article, an AfC they created that has been repeatedly declined), and is being spammed to a very large number of articles. If I could solve this by blocking the editor, I would, but they keep using webhosts to produce more socks (we're up to 15 and counting). If I could solve it by protecting articles I would, but the person is adding it to a very large number of different articles, some of which have no obvious connection to the Korean monarchy (like Korean Cuisine), so I'd have to watchlist and potentially protect every single article related to Korea. So, no, there is no other solution, this site has no encyclopedic value, and is being spammed. It meets all of the criteria, and thus needs to be blacklisted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Except that the website is partially in English (enough that I can tell it will never have any value on Wikipedia)"" -- that seems like an awfully sweeping judgement, based on a limited understanding of the site.


 * with respect YOUR PROBLEM IS WITH ONE USER, not with the site he's posting links to. you need to go & solve your problem with this user, this is the wrong place to try & "settle things". i am sorry that you are having problems with this editor, but you are letting that override ojbectivity & good judgement in your requested action here.


 * & we are not discussing whether the k.r.a.f.r.p. merits an article on wikipedia; you are requesting a BAN on linking to it from wikipedia, in ANY way, for ANY reason.


 * wp is still NOT CENSORED, & you are proposing to ban ALL web-links to a political party's website; that's asking for an awful lot. if you seriously want to pursue this course, you will need to provide a MUCH better rationale for the ban.


 * you might also need to start a community-wide discussion about the appropriate use of the "spam-filter" for blacklisting websites & organizations.


 * Lx 121 (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * also, with respect you are playing AWFULLY FAST & LOOSE with the definition of "self-published"; particularly when it comes to the question of political movements. you want to permanently block a party's website because it is "self-published", & you have a "problematic editor" who is persistently linking to it?


 * where exactly do we set the standard on that? what other political parties' websites can we permanently blacklist to prevent them being linked to on wikipedia?


 * do you not understand that you are trying to solve a VERY small problem, by creating a VERY much larger one?


 * Lx 121 (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a very small problem--it's spam happening at a rate faster than we can keep up with. There is no way to deal with that user--they're using anonymous webhosts to continually create new WP accounts; there is no technical means to prevent them from doing so. If the political party ever becomes notable enough for their own Wikipedia article, we can whitelist it for just that one article. Can you please provide any other case in which that site would ever be used on a Wikiperdia article? And we don't need to start a wikipedia wide discussion, because this is exactly what the spam blacklist is used for and has been used for for a long time. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * again, with respect, 2 key points here:


 * 1) your issue is with ONE USER who you consider to be a problem because they are "spamming links" to these 2 (& only these 2?) sites; there are plenty of "technical means" to deal with such a problem. listing all the option here would be beyond the scope of this discussion, but the project has had plently of experience in dealing with problematic users & there are no end of tools available.


 * 2)WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THIS POLITICAL PARTY MERITS AN ARTICLE; you want to BAN any access-links to their website from wikipedia AT ALL, EVER. & if we ever decide that the party merits an article, you would be willing to "allow" A single link, from that article, back to the party website(!?).


 * with respect, if you think that this is a reasonable aproach to the user-problem you are dealing with, then you have completely lost perspective & you should perhaps consider either taking a wiki-break, or at least passing the problem over to a different administrator.


 * i really think i've addressed all the key points you have raised & we are in danger of going in circles over this, so unless/until some new factors are brought into the discussion, i shall in future respond by referring to my previous comments.


 * as always, respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)



I do not count one 'user', I count 10 'users' (which may, and likely are, just one person). There may be merit in linking the site, but using sock/meatpuppetry to get your site linked on Wikipedia, and avoiding the discussion is not the way forward. If those edits include putting your links on top on a page which is, obviously, not having as a main topic the Korean Royalty, or in a 'See also' section then I do not think that this is in good faith anymore.

I would suggest, that either the editor returns to their main account, abandoning the others ánd the sockpuppetry, and stays on the discussion pages for this link, or we blacklist this and stop it. Performing whack-a-mole with a sockfarm is not the way forward, and, clearly, other administrative measures (protecting pages - that is a whole range of them, or blocking the editor - who will only create more sockpuppets) do not work (seen that the editor is continuing after this report and earlier accounts were blocked). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 10:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the possible creation of a page on the subject, if that happens, then that would merit a link on that page, and that can then be discussed for whitelisting. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 10:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There were 5 more socks after that. The person is blocked indefinitely on their main account as well, because the intentional creation of drawer full of socks means one is not welcome to edit here under any account. Of course, they could request an unblock on the main account; to be granted, they'd have to convince us they were here to do something constructive. Lx, you haven't 1) given a single legitimate use for this website ever on Wikipedia, and 2) haven't described even a single way to deal with the problem besides blacklisting. No other technical means will work. If you know of some magical way to stop the problem with the user, please tell us here and we shall pursue it. But I've been here a long time, and I don't know one that won't cause more harm than the blacklist will. Think about it this way: what is better, to prevent all anonymous users from editing any page related to Korean royalty (and other Korean subjects) indefinitely (i.e., using semi-protection), or stopping this one site which blatantly fails our policies? I think the latter is a much fairer approach. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Other accounts from Sockpuppet_investigations/Jyongchul;
 * Cross project spamming
 * ko:Special:Contributions/SpotDays
 * ko:Special:Contributions/Jyongchul
 * ja:Special:Contributions/TheKoreanMonarchy
 * ko:Special:Contributions/TheKoreanMonarchy
 * It is no longer the content or merit of these links that matters when such egregious abuse reaches this stage. Mass-Spamming, sockpupetry, block evasion and a host of others violations of established Wikipedia policies done in bad faith makes any rationale for placing these links irrelevant. If either of these become the official subject of an article, whitelisting can be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as appropriate (in an appropriate context). --Hu12 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is no longer the content or merit of these links that matters when such egregious abuse reaches this stage. Mass-Spamming, sockpupetry, block evasion and a host of others violations of established Wikipedia policies done in bad faith makes any rationale for placing these links irrelevant. If either of these become the official subject of an article, whitelisting can be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as appropriate (in an appropriate context). --Hu12 (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * NO, with respect, you are trying to solve a problem with (what you have claimed to be) ONE person (if, in actual fact, more than one person is involved, it would change the circumstances of your case; although that's not truly germane here).


 * the spam-filter is a VERY blunt too, & it is meant to be used SPARINGLY, & only in cases where it is absolutely necessary. THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE SUBJECT MERITS AN ARTICLE.  This is a question of whether there is something so fundamentally BAD about the site being linked to, that it would justify PERMANENTLY BANNING ALL LINKS to it, from wikipesdia.


 * ALL LINKS; not just in the article space. talk pages, user pages, discussions, working spaces...


 * the sites you are talking about are not obvious "spam", in the sense that they are not simply commercial advertising, or "content farms" (slippery concept, that that is), with advertising plastered on top of minimal useful content.


 * the sites in question are an expression of political opinion, regarding the nation of korea; ranted the position expressed may be rather esoteric, but it's still legitimate free-speech political opinion. & it doesn't seem to constitute any egregious examples of "hate speech", incitement to violence, or any other notably illegal activity.


 * WORSE; you have conceded that you are, in fact, incapable of reading most of the material on the site, as it is written primarily in korean, rather than, english. with respect, this makes you FAR less qualified to judge the material on its merits...


 * i'm not claiming linguistic expertise either, by when i look at the same site, i see a significant quantity of material about parts of the history of the korean monarchy.


 * it might or might not merit an article on here; it might or might not meet your stringent standards of quality for an article reference, however it DOES meet the minimum standard for inclusion in free-discussions of relevant topics.


 * & with all due respect, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY SUSPECTED SOCKPUPPETS YOU LIST HERE. this is the wrong place for that; you can block then as they turn up, you can block IP's, you can effect various protective efforts at the various effected pages.


 * the sites themselves are not "damaging"; they are not malware, nor are they spam. if we use the "spam blacklist" to ban sites merely because they are "inconvenient", then we are violating the very basic principle of wp:not censored. it becomes a convenient form of backdoor censorship, & one that is carried out quasi-"invisibly". most editors will never notice the blocks, until/unless they stumble into the "blacklist" by accident. when they do, most will be too busy/too intimidated/too uninformed/too disinterested/too lazy/too etc. to make the effort to come here & "fill out a form" & go through the tedious (& time-consuming) process to request an unblock.


 * when this blacklist filter was implemented, it was done so as a tool to deal with "extreme cases", & links to sites that were obviously problematic. it WAS NOT created to allow the wholesale ban of anything & everything.  the community DID NOT "sign off" on that kind of sweeping restriction, & if that is how the filter is going to be used, then the community is going to have to re-open a general discussion on the appropriateness of this action.


 * Lx 121 (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Lx 121, sockpuppets are cheap, do you really think that the diminishing and overworked admin corps will ad infinitum and ad nauseam continue to go find the sockpuppets, and block them. Or you think it is a better idea that we protect 10+ pages to prevent all edits to those pages (which will disrupt all other additions, including yours - sockpuppets and edits are cheap).  If you have a problem, go talk to the sockpuppet yourself, and get him to discuss.  And if that one editor who thinks that Wikipedia's model of discussion can be circumvented by sockpuppetry and link-pushing, then that person has obviously an agenda, obviously promoting his POV, and hence, obviously that is a 'spam'-like problem (spamming is just a form of ignoring our WP:NPOV-policy, so the spam-blacklist is just a tool to 'enforce' WP:NPOV, just like page protection and blocking editors).  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 08:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Forgot to note, that one of the last sockpuppets:
 * clearly states they are here to push their own site, and is including threats. The editor is obviously aware of this discussion (seen the posts to all editors involved in this particular thread).  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 13:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * clearly states they are here to push their own site, and is including threats. The editor is obviously aware of this discussion (seen the posts to all editors involved in this particular thread).  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 13:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

. Enough is enough. Lx 121's arguments fail to address the reason for this blacklist: as a tool for preventing abuse. The fact that abuse has happened in an egregious manner, and continues to happen in spite of blocking sockpuppets, is ample reason to list. If a trusted, high-volume editor deems either of the sites worthy of de-listing, we will consider the request, but for now, anyone wanting to link these sites may make requests for specific URLs at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Beetstra and Amatulić are quite correct. It would be unreasonable to lock up that many pages (10+). This would only prevent thousands of good faith users from contributing from the encyclopedia. This spammer has created 18+ sock accounts for the sole and primary purpose of promoting his own link. It is unreasonable to suggest that we "block them as they turn up", when established Wikipedia policies prohibit sockpuppetry. Even even after these links were blocked, another sock account was created and the promotion resumed, including attempts to circumvent the blacklist with redirects, creating articles and placing threats on multiple users talkpages;
 * "I was angry cause you were challenging me....Unblock my website. It is pretty legitimate website that you shouldn't tinker with, or you can come to South Korea to deal with me.' -- Lee, Jyong Chul, Founder and CEO
 * Arguing "censorship" as a method to get this site de-listed, when it was added as a result of abuse, is vexatious. There has been significant disruption in this case and major breaches of policy by this user. This is not a controversial action and is an appropriate use of a block. Therefore, this is closed. --Hu12 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

diminishedvalueofgeorgia.com

 * Domains
 * User
 * I cleaned up the spam reference some time ago, then I notice through my watch list that same article keeps getting added in. From looking in user page warnings, it looks like the article he's been adding are spam like over long periods of time. It looks like a scraping attempt from other sources in order to be able to add diminishedvalueofgeorgia.com website. diff 1 diff 2 as some examples. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems Rl10452 is engaged in discussion and no further linking is occuring (at this time). If the user continues, we can consider blocking, however blacklisting right now may be premature.--Hu12 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have given it a revertlist status, which should address issues. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the spam reference some time ago, then I notice through my watch list that same article keeps getting added in. From looking in user page warnings, it looks like the article he's been adding are spam like over long periods of time. It looks like a scraping attempt from other sources in order to be able to add diminishedvalueofgeorgia.com website. diff 1 diff 2 as some examples. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems Rl10452 is engaged in discussion and no further linking is occuring (at this time). If the user continues, we can consider blocking, however blacklisting right now may be premature.--Hu12 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have given it a revertlist status, which should address issues. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have given it a revertlist status, which should address issues. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

propertytradingcenter.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 12:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

portalhunt.com

 * Domain:
 * Known users:
 * Known users:

portalhunt.com appears to be a content farm working to insert WP:REFSPAM into miscellaneous articles. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PortalHunt
 * User:Portalhunt
 * as the --Hu12 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

mbabug.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 05:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

customa.com
Letsconspire appears to be SPA. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * seems to have ceased, --Hu12 (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

optimove.com
User has a history of adding dubious links Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User warned, --Hu12 (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuation of Korean Monarchy
This is just a different site for the same Korean monarchy resurrection site we blocked a few days ago. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Already listed ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

seemycells.co.uk

 * see ;, Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not enough evidence of abuse, --Hu12 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

livebloodtest.com

 * see . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not enough evidence of abuse, --Hu12 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

suzukigsxr1100.com
--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

restaau.co.uk



 * Spammers

MER-C 11:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

billtrack50.com

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Nov 1


 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers
 * boothmarketing.com: "Glenn Booth"
 * boothmarketing.com: "Glenn Booth"
 * boothmarketing.com: "Glenn Booth"
 * boothmarketing.com: "Glenn Booth"



From :
 * You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto your site, right? (Hu12)
 * Ok. I understand. Won't happen again. (Legination)

So they hire a SEO guy instead... MER-C 12:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

Anthony Richardson - OverVoice
Anthony Richardson is a leading voice over artist with international credits who, nearly 6 years ago was taken-in by all the "how to promote your website" gurus and accidentally became blacklisted. Is it possible to remove this please? I can assure you that my voiceover business is legitimate and I have many credits including a Hollywood movie, animation films, numerous TV and radio commercials and I regularly read childrens' stories for Stephen Fry's charity, Listening Books. Ultimately I would really like to be listed in Wikipedia's "Voice acting" section to include my IMDb credit.


 * Hi, thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately I must decline your request because we don't remove an entry from the blacklist at the request of a site owner or anyone else with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high-volume editor deems your site worthy of referencing in a Wikipedia article, then we would consider a de-listing request. Also, no website becomes "accidentally" blacklisted on Wikipedia. The inappropriate promotion was deliberate, and so was the blacklisting.


 * The article we have on Anthony Richardson appears to be about someone else. If at some point in the future someone writes an article about you, we would white-list a link to a specific page on your web site for use in that article. If you're considering writing such an article yourself (autobiographies are strongly discouraged here but not prohibited), be aware that it must comply with Notability (people) and Neutral point of view lest the article be quickly deleted.


 * Looking at your site, I can't see how any link to it would be appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia; see External links for further guidance. Therefore, this request is . ~Amatulić (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

virtualmedicalcentre
I've asked for this before, but I worded it wrong: I'm requesting the whole domain to be removed from the blacklist, not just one article. The articles from this site have a lot of good information; the site itself is verified by Health On the Net Foundation (verification here) and it's not on Quackwatch. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been blacklisted only six months, and for good reason, described at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Aug 1. I see this request as occurring too soon after the blacklisting to consider.
 * The fact that it may "have a lot of good information" is really irrelevant. There are other "good information" sites on the blacklist. They are there for the same reason virtualmedicalcentre.com is there: The site was abusing Wikipedia.
 * The verification you cite about HONcode is also irrelevant. Wikipedia has its own rules and is not bound by the opinions of other websites. The fact remains that their code of conduct has been less than stellar with respect to Wikipedia; therefore, they are blacklisted.
 * Finally Quackwatch does not claim to be a comprehensive information resource of every quack site in existence. Whether they are or aren't on Quackwatch has no bearing on the blacklist. All that matters is past history on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)Agree with Amatulić. Wether or not the site is verified, Quackwatch or otherwise is irrelevant and becomes quite secondary when the abuse gets to this stage. Mass multi-article Adsense spamming, mass multi-related domain spamming and excessive sock-puppetry are not signs of good faith nor is  replacing existing links with virtualmedicalcentre's link. Because of the large scale, long term egregious nature of the abuse, full domain removal is . Your request was replied to last week and it appears you worded it explicitly; "Specifically, virtualmedicalcentre.com/anatomy/sweating-perspiration/75 .". Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

forum.bodybuilding.com


hi

2 things

1. in adding references to the article jelq, when i attempted to include this site:

http ://forum.body building.com/showthread.php?t=259757&page=1

your spam filter blocked me (& btw it would be nice if it the "warning/blocked-edit page" was made a bit more user-friendly; is there some reason why you feel that there should not be any buttons on it to continue editing?)

now, the site is (as far as i can tell) a perfectly legitimate body-building forum (as per the title); so i would like to know please WHY IS IT BLACKLISTED?

i would also like the blacklisting to be removed, unless some adequate justification can be provided for it.

2. last august (aug 2012), i had another problem with your blacklist, which i commented upon, on this page.

the comment seems to have "disappeared".

yes, i know that you archive monthly, however MY COMMENT-PROBLEM IS NOT IN YOUR ARCHIVE

i have a problem with user-complaints being "disappeared" & would very much like an explanation & accounting of what has happened to my comment?

i thank you for your time & attention in these 2 matters.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the second, but forums are never allowed as sources per WP:RS, and almost never allowed as links per WP:EL. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * hello again (from our discussion above); "never" is such a pretty word. & i can think of MANY legitimate reasons to provide link to a forum about a given topic. if we're going to make a "total ban" on forum links, that's another community-wide discussion i'd like to be a part of. with respect, Lx 121 (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:EL, our guideline on external links. WP:ELNO (the list of sites that are generally not allowed to be linked to) point #10 says, "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." So this is already the community consensus. As I suspected above, you don't actually seem to understand our rules, and are making assertions based upon your own preferences, not based on current site-wide consensus. Of course, if you wish, you may start a wider discussion (start at WT:EL) to amend the guideline to allow forums...but that would be up to you. Until that point, it shouldn't be linked on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * so, what you are saying is that, according to your personal interpretation of the rules, it would, for example, not be permitted to cite a quotation from a politician's twitter feed, or their party's facebook page!?


 * i have to say, i do not think that interpretation truly reflects community opinion or consensus; perhaps it is time that the written rules were revisited, revised, discussed, & properly voted on. Lx 121 (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Lx 121, forum.bodybuilding.com is globally blacklisted. That generally happens (much like a local blacklisting) after significant abuse of a site.  That is irrespective of whether the site is or can be a good source (which do get blacklisted as well if their owners decide that reputation is less important to them than Search Engine Optimisation!) - if the abuse is not controllable by blocking the editors or protecting pages, this is the last resort.  Moreover, forums in general make bad sources and bad external links (yes, Qwyrxian is right there, and this is not the place to discuss those rules) - twitter feeds or facebook pages make at best primary sources, and that is not always what we want to base this encyclopedia on, so if a forum gets abused, the threshold to blacklisting is even lower than for a proper site.  This page, as the meta counterpart of it, are to control spamming.  If one page (or even 20) on that are suitable as a specific reference on a specific place, then please request that specific link to be whitelisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 07:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * hello, & thank-you for the reply;


 * i do not entirely agree with your position, as presented above, but setting aside most of the matter, there are at least 2 simple questions that come immediately to mind:


 * 1. IF a site-link is to be banned from the article-space, as a "last resort" (a claim which i think is being somewhat abused in a number of cases), then WHY is the ban not limited to articles? there is no reason why a blacklist should apply to talkpages, user-space, etc. & i'm not aware of any technical restrictions that would prevent this.


 * 2. with all due respect, i am still waiting to hear why my previous "problem" (from last august) appears to have "disappeared" from the archives. it is not appropriate to remove/delete such material, & i'd like it restored "for the record".


 * Lx 121 (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding 1 - who says that spam is only an article space problem, it is just as much as a userspace problem, and even a user-talk-page-problem (not forgetting the category or template problem). If you think that the spam blacklist should operate in a different way (which is something that I agree with), then I suggest that you get that changed in the mediawiki software - I've been involved in those discussions or am following the discussions, and I tell you, we are already waiting for a long, long time.
 * Regarding 2 - I suggest that we discuss that in a thread down in an appropriate section (there is a section for troubleshooting and similar), not here. Could you please show me the diff that creates a discussion by you that you think has disappeared?  Maybe it got accidentally removed, overwritten or something, or it did get archived.
 * Nonetheless, this is blacklisted on Meta (i.e., globally blacklisted), I suggest that you ask for whitelisting of the specific links. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 08:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

--  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 07:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =