MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2014

= Proposed additions =

pinkangelsmokes.com


Repeated additions of this - apparently, as I can't check it from a work machine - porn site link by at least 3 4 5 IP users I have been able to ID (only other reference I could find in a search was at Talk:Smoking fetishism requesting it be removed from the article in May of this year). User(s) using formatting in a - poorly executed - attempt at deception to masquerade it as a link to a government survey. be siege d talk 00:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Opppose, no current links, most IPs have been banned, spam threat has subsided; there is no need to blacklist. Liamdavies (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * MER-C 11:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

raveguide.co.uk
Being added by user of the same name. The user has been reported as a promotional user, not (yet) as a vandal. Fiddle  Faddle  22:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no active links, no user by the name indicated by nom have been active in years. Without further evidence of spamming or indications of alternative actions this shouldn't be blacklisted. Liamdavies (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . No evidence of recent and widespread spamming. MER-C 12:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Digitaldreamdoor.com
This website accepts user contributions without editorial oversight which means they fail the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Anybody can make a list of their favorites and publish it—a lot of what we see on Wikipedia is in the form of "100 Greatest Fusion Artists" or similar. The website has been added as an external link or a reference to Wikipedia many, many times, often by multiple good-faith users rather than by a single spamming account. If we blacklist the website the unreliable references and links will stop. Examples of this website being used as a reference or an external link: Back in 2007, Special:Contributions/65.2.112.232 added Digital Dream Door to seven articles in every one of his seven edits—an example of spamming. A discussion about this general issue can be see at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there an active ongoing spam threat here? Liamdavies (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added to XLinkBot. MER-C 11:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

en.softonic.com


Part of a plague of snowshoe spam on WP and many, many areas elsewhere, to drive traffic to this software download site. the en. version redirects to the second version. I suspect other prefixes as well as .en. Fiddle  Faddle  12:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of those links go back many years. Can you point out active spammers? Have other tactics such as warnings, bans, and/or edit filters been tried? Liamdavies (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No response => MER-C 04:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

landtobuy.info

 * Has been added here, here, here, and here. bd2412  T 21:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a one-off spamming run by a single user. for now, please re-report if the spam cannot be controlled with blocks alone. MER-C 13:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

cloudflare-watch.org
Indef blocked user spamming this website [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CloudFlare&diff=501572645&oldid=501483061 for years].--Elbakcats (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , page was protected. Please re-report if the spamming continues after the protection expires. MER-C 11:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

= Proposed removals =

ccel.us


This was added by User:Ckatz in the summer of 2011, apparently in response to this spam taunt, but it's quite unlikely that this threat was honest since CCEL (now titled Evangelical Christian Library) is simply a repository site for well-known theological and religion-related texts, most of them PD. I would not be surprised to see links to its materials throughout religious topics on Wikipedia; the case which caught my eye involves a reference in J. Z. Knight to an on-line edition of a book by Russell Chandler, once a religion writer for the LA Times. This looks to be a perfectly reasonable reference, and an online copy is surely preferable for an online encyclopedia. Therefore I would like to ask that this entry be removed from the spam blacklist as unnecessary and inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * One correction: ccel.us and ccel.org are separate sites. However, the rest of my request remains the same: ccel.us has a number of references now, and as far as I can determine it was never actually spammed. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ No longer a risk, isolated event, original IP offender has not edited since 2011. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Cosmoetica.com
This website was placed on the blacklist about four years ago due to various SPAs (supposedly controlled by the site's proprietor, though of course he has denied this) posting links to the site's movie reviews and essays on Wikipedia pages relating to the movies and subjects discussed. As of the present moment, however, the site contains in-depth interviews with 40 notable subjects (many of whom have Wikipedia pages), with more surely on the way, but these interviews have not been able to be cited due to the blacklist, despite the fact that they contain information that could potentially be used to correct errors re: the subjects' biographical information, views, etc. As well, the site owner Dan Schneider's own Wikipedia page has had links to the website removed from his own page - even when posted by SouthernNights, a well-known WP editor who is certainly not a SPA - despite the fact that it is by far the best source for information. Given it has been four years, with relatively little activity on even the site owner's own WP page in that time, I think it's reasonable to at least ask that the site be removed from the blacklist and be allowed to be the useful source of information that it can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.172.38.195 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Your request is well stated, but we don't know who you are. We generally consider de-listing requests from established, trusted, high-volume editors. Your IP address has only one edit.


 * Interviews may be worthy of whitelisting while keeping the site blacklisted. There may even be a common path on the site for interviews, so we would need only one whitelist entry for interviews. to explore this option, or to request whitelisting of individual pages on a case by case basis, but please, if you are an established editor, make the request while logged in. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

MoneyWeek.com
This site was added in October 2008 with no clear explanation. MoneyWeek is a paper magazine and seems to be a reliable source. Blacklisting it prevents us from linking to it as a source. Pburka (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Here is one of many clear explanations. Due to the large-scale spamming of Agora, we use the Whitelist when appropriate for these sites. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

airtet.in
my website blocked in early stage linking to from Wikipedia to website that' time i don't know about blacklist i am teenaged and excited and i wanted to see what happens if keep linking to my website also i linked to related content which regional government offices universities list many also i requested but i am unable see my request when i visited this page. blocking from wiipedia makes me feeling about guilty of spammer but i don't now spam that time when i linking to my website i thought that i am linking to relevant content what's wrong with me finally realized linking many times in less time made me as a spammer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.0.103 (talk • contribs)
 * It's hard to understand exactly what you're saying. However, in general, sites are not removed from the blacklist based on appeals from the site owner, but rather upon request from editors in good standing who wish to use the site as a source and can prove its usefulness as one. — Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . Linkspam is still spam. "I wanted to see what happens if keep linking to my website" is an expression of intent to engage in spamming. Repeatedly linking to your own personal website is also spamming. Personal websites are almost never relevant or appropriate for linking on Wikipedia. If you are saying you have reformed and won't spam anymore, that's nice, but your past actions have not earned any trust, so it's better if the site remains blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

plasticsurgery.org
This website is the official website of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, it's the official organization for plastic surgeons which are board certified in plastic surgery by the American Board of Medical Specialties. They are heavily involved in plastic surgery education, for example, AMBS certification candidates must have gone though an accredited plastic surgery residency program. They are also involved in public outreach such as educational material for public. So alot of articles involving plastic and reconstructive surgery may like to use this organization's website as a source, to verify information like procedure information, statistics, verify board certification status, etc. I can't even think think of any other site that could provide this type of information in a neutral way, maybe the PRS Journal but the articles are not public. I really have no idea why this entire site would be blanket blacklisted but I think it may suffer from a topic bias. ssc-capricorn (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that in 2008 or so, there was some spamming from what appears to be the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (that is ASAPS, notably different than American Society of Plastic Surgeons, ASPS). ASAPS is specific to cosmetic surgery, while ASPS is general plastic surgery. ASAPS domain is surgery.org and ASPS is plasticsurgery.org but for some reason the generalist ASPS was caught up in the blacklisting of spam from ASAPS members. ssc-capricorn (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the spam report very carefully, I think it's possible that ASAPS may even be an innocent party. The spammers were using these two sites to blend in with their own spam links in an attempt to look legitimate. However, lacking more information, I will let someone else put in a request for ASAPS, or put the request in at another time, but ASPS has no reason at all to be included on the blacklist. They were an innocent bystander.ssc-capricorn (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅, plasticsurgery.org is now delisted. I agree these are different entities. The COIbot reports for plasticsurgery.org and surgery.org are very different - the former is full of contributions from established editors and little activity on the English Wikipedia, whereas surgery.org was added by a bunch of anonymous IP addresses and COI accounts. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for taking the time to look into this. Thank you. ssc-capricorn (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

metalwani.com


I tried to use this website as a source just some minutes ago, but couldn't. It appears that some single-purpose accounts edited many heavy metal-related articles only to add links to this website, and it was ultimately banned since nobody used it for anything but spamming. Well, I was trying to use it legitimately now, they have useful interviews with fine information for metal-related articles. It's been almost 12 months since the events that led to its blocking, can we reconsider it? Victão Lopes Fala! 16:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * to request whitelisting of individual pages on a case by case basis, but be sure to look for alternative sources before requesting whitelisting of a page on a blacklisted site. Just one year has elapsed, too short a duration to reconsider the blacklisting. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rentarasta.com
Not understanding why this one in particular is on the list or even where to find out on my own. There is a screenshot archive of an article here that I want to reference. Docucopter (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Question How would this link be useful for Wikipedia? OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , no reply, no ratoinale given. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

energy-business-review.com
Why is this website blocked? It is used in articles like Project Hayes and Waitahora Wind Farm, and does not look like a spam website to me. --Pakaraki (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was being spammed by this user and perhaps others. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

eHow.com
The blacklist shows behow.com, so it appears to me that it is not really intended to block eHow.com. Spalding (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The entry is \behow\.com\b, which means (word boundary) ehow.com (word boundary). It is intentionally catching eHow.com. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The backslash before a character makes that following character treated specially - '\b' is word boundary, '\.' is a true '.' ('.' itself has a function - it would match any character - similar is true for '\?', '\/', '\$' ...).  Please see Regular expression, which contains, or will link through, to more information.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

tanners-wines.co.uk
This site was blacklisted in February 2008 when it was hacked. However it is now safe and well maintained. There is a wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanners_(company) which from a usability perspective would benefit from a link to the actual Tanners site. I think in light of the fact that the company has genuine history and a good online reputation combined with the fact that it was blacklisted due to hacking issues originally; that there is compelling enough reason to remove this site from the blacklist. CCarson789 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it was blacklisted because it was spammed along with another number of sites (and I do note that there are still 'single purpose accounts' active on the subjects related to that). I would suggest to ask for whitelisting of an about/index.htm per the common requests there (so, ) for use on Tanners (company).  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

www.fluoridealert.org


Blocked February, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2011

It was blacklisted through an unlogged request

The website specifically deals with the latest information regarding fluoride toxicity.

From their About Page:

"The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) seeks to broaden awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds among citizens, scientists, and policymakers alike. FAN not only provides comprehensive and up-to-date information, but remains vigilant in monitoring government agency actions that impact the public's exposure to fluoride."

This website is an encyclopedia of data about fluoride and research into its toxicity.

The blacklisting was not necessary to begin with.
 * ❌ It was added with good reason. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

pincode of India


About Site : Website contains more than 1,62,304 area of India with its PIN CODE Number. There is nothing like spamming activity on website

Why Listed in Black List : Website has very accurate with updates data so We thought to list it in External Reference link of Wiki Page. But we have try it to list 4 to 5 times. we thought there is some mistake from our side and hence link is removed so we have try more and more to list the site in reference link. But when we got error at that time we notice that there is something like spamming. But we do not have any intention for spamming activity. Website is Safe and also by mistake we have go on and on adding site... please...

Who we are ?: We are parcel courier company in India. And using this site frequently to search pin code so we have try to add the website in Reference link of Wiki Page.. But after getting error we realise that the site is in Black list so its our mistake.. please do not punish website owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.187.4.136 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You explain that to the website owner. If regular users see use of this link on Wikipedia, they will request delisting.    --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear sir my self SANDEEP website owner of Domain (pincode of india). some parcel courier company has go on adding my site into your External reference section and Wiki has Black Listed my Website... But this is not our fault. So is there any way to delete our website name from Black List. In such cases any one can go on adding some one site to make him BLACK LISTED ON WIKI.. so please suggest me some way to delete my site name from Black List. I Think the User who submitted my site on wiki has no idea about spamming and TOS of Wiki. So waiting for some guidelines to remove my site from Wiki Black List... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.254.245 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Site has no use on Wikipedia, and was abusively spanned by multiple IPs. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

According to this case any one can make any of the website to be list in BLACK LIST.. For Example If i want to Black List Domain : pincode.net.in .. ok from today onwards i will make it post in External Section of Many Page... For More than 5 times and wiki will make it BLACK LIST ... good. the same case is happen with pin code of india.com ... this site is punished without any reason. One person make try to add in external reference. but does it prove that site is spamming site ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.246.85.238 (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The question is not whether a site is spam, the question is whether a site got spammed. This list is to prevent that abuse, and here that was apparently necessary.   again.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the above IP is one of several IPs that spammed the site in question. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

markallenonline.com
I can find no discussion on the local or global lists about why this site is on here. It's only being used as an external link on the BLP of Mark Allen (triathlete). Since it's his website, an "official" one, I see no reason why it violates WP:ELNO. No discussion on why it's here. No spamming or misuse. I'm asking for it to be removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * SEO spammer - the spammer was adding other links in absurd places, and this domain was also on his list of links to be promoted (diff). Other spammers with overlap prompted admins to blacklist the whole lot.  Links were blacklisted, but this one was already there at that point (that was noted at that point).  I am removing this, noting that if the SEO comes back that it can always be re-added.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

www.applausestore.com/calendar


www.applausestore.com/calender — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.89.148 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why it's marked as spam, it shows the filming dates for a number of UK TV programs and I was looking to use it as a reference. 2.100.89.148 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That site is basically a big "buy it here" page, not appropriate for linking in Wikipedia. Aren't there any alternatives for this information? I see plenty of alternatives for Top Gear, for example. It would be best to use each show's own website, or the broadcaster's website, for this sort of thing. By the way, this isn't a de-listing request. This is a whitelisting request, which should be posted on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. 12.107.176.9 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that still count, even if the tickets are free? It's essentially just a way of guaranteeing a place at the filming, rather than a site to buy tickets for a show.  I'm also not up to speed with the difference between blacklisting and whitelisting! :O 2.100.89.148 (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It was marked as spam because of this. De-blacklisting is (really, I don't see the use, we are not writing a TV-guide here), if you need one specific page for a specific place on Wikipedia, please ask for that specific page on the whitelist -. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

adclout.com
This site is blacklisted in 2013.I just wanted to remove that website from black list. Some guys wanted to blacklist that website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.180.112.219 (talk • contribs)
 * , no reason was given as to how delisting benefits Wikipedia. Then there is this small matter. MER-C 12:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =