MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012

= Proposed Additions =

Ledger 123
Cleaning up disambiguation links and came across THIS. Looks like a site that has attempted to spam their way into Wikipedia. It looks like a site that sells the product and is nothing that contains information helpful to Wikipedia. Also looks like they are on additional languages according to the link summary. I have removed it from the article but fear it will be placed back in when the editor realizes that it has been removed. --Morning277 (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * , if this is a problem across multiple Wikipedias. May also want to wait a bit to see if this was a drive-by spam, or repeat problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Added it HERE. --Morning277 (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ledger123 is neither spam, nor a retailer, but first of all an open source project that is based on the most recent version of SQL-Ledger and provides many bug fixes and extensions to the program. The list of the most important extensions is found here: http: //www.ledger123.com/enhanced/. The code itself is hosted on Github at: https://github.com/ledger123/ledger123/ . Additionally, Ledger123 runs a very active mailing list. -- If it's not allowed to mention related projects, I wonder why an old fork of SQL-Ledger still remains in the article, or, to take a better known example, why nobody deletes the link to LibreOffice from the OpenOffice article. -- Vaslovag (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

punjabimoviesonline.net

 * Examples include diff, diff, diff, diff (where the editor removes other editors spam and adds their own!), diff and many many more. Actually the IPs edit history over a month seems to be just to add this spam link all over Wikipedia. QU  TalkQu 21:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly not a sign of good faith behavior shown in the IP's edits. Seems the spam is coming from only that single IP. There is another account,, however it only added once. IP has been blocked and links removed, however lets hold off on blacklisting right now.--Hu12 (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly not a sign of good faith behavior shown in the IP's edits. Seems the spam is coming from only that single IP. There is another account,, however it only added once. IP has been blocked and links removed, however lets hold off on blacklisting right now.--Hu12 (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly not a sign of good faith behavior shown in the IP's edits. Seems the spam is coming from only that single IP. There is another account,, however it only added once. IP has been blocked and links removed, however lets hold off on blacklisting right now.--Hu12 (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

At it again from another IP including diff, diff, diff and more... QU TalkQu 22:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a low-rate problem. I'd say for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All those movies are newly released (I browsed the Hindi section only) (though it seems to be an interesting website) but uploading these videos online negatively affects copyright owners! --Tito Dutta ✉  12:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

scrapbookpages.com

 * per: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * . Need accounts, IP's and some evidence of abuse.--Hu12 (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The abuse is systematic insertion of non-reliable sources on holocaust articles and predominantly Polish religious building articles in Central Europe. The pattern of abuse is localised to Western aligned spies who were processed through the holocaust, and to Polish and other Central European religious buildings.  The widespread nature of the abuse over time is the corruption of WP:V by a) users fascinated with the persecution of Western agents; and, b) relatively innocent Polish architecture fanciers.  The under patrolled nature of pages in these categories means that users and IP users from the first group can freely attack WP:V in an area covered by ample scholarship, and that users and IP users from the second group unknowingly taint otherwise acceptable Polish architecture articles in a sporadic way while attempting to improve the encyclopaedia.  Evidence regarding the nature of the source is provided via the RS/N archive, via the talk-page therein quoted.
 * Consider the amassing of this evidence to be in the "check-user" type analysis, it is synthetic and holistic over hundreds of diffs and articles this dreck source was removed from. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is a situation to . I've it to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList and User:XLinkBot/RevertList, which should catch any future additions (references and external links) and tag the associated accounts/IP's. Lets try this first, of course if abuse does resumes/continues we can then consider adding it here. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

tolololpedia.wikia.com

 * Spammers:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dede2008 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 July 2012
 * Requested by blocked account, however blacklisting may be warranted for now.--Hu12 (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

manila2024.blogspot.com

 * - This blog has been persistently used by certain IPs and users over a long period of time to make it appear that Manila is bidding for the 2024 Summer Olympics, despite the fact that blogs are not seen as reliable sources and is more likely for the purposes of gaining support or campaigning. Requesting that it be added to the blacklist to prevent it from being added again and again. Most recent time it was added was on [|July 2]. GrayFullbuster (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Medicina Mexico spam on Wikipedia




MER-C 10:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

latestmoviez.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 13:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have blocked a /20 range to cover those first four IP addresses, and I blocked the last one due to spamming after a final warning. The block log for the first one shows that it was blocked for 2 months as an open proxy. I am wondering why just 2 months; generally open proxies are blocked permanently. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Continuing:
 * MER-C 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 02:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And again:
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

to the blacklist. Enough already. I don't want to play whack-a-mole with range blocks, as I started to do earlier in this section. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Continued:


 * MER-C 10:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another;
 * Also some rangeblocks
 * MER-C 10:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another;
 * Also some rangeblocks
 * Another;
 * Also some rangeblocks
 * Also some rangeblocks
 * Also some rangeblocks


 * --Hu12 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Continued:


 * MER-C 01:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * More
 * Range blocks
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Range blocks
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Range blocks
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Range blocks
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)





MER-C 01:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rangeblocks
 * --Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

officialworldrecord.com
IP editor(s) have been spreading this link across all manner of records pages. The site itself has an "upload your record here" on the home page, which in itself discounts it from having anything to do with the official world records we diligently list on wikipedia (I primarily deal with track and field). A first IP editor was blocked yesterday, but it looks like this IP editor is going to be persistent. Trackinfo (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * Seems to be currently comming from one IP. Looks as if the domain was created on the 4th, is still an incomplete site and started spamming here on the 12th. Clearly this does not belong on wikipedia, however lets I'll block the IP for a week and if it continues we can take other measures. thanks for reporting this. (for now)--Hu12 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See here. Our spammer is back with a new IP as I suspected.Trackinfo (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Block evasion, persistent spamming...--Hu12 (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently not working. Our spammer is back with a new IP. Trackinfo (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That edit didn't actually add a link, so the Spam-blacklist won't catch it. If adding non-linked references to the site continues to be a problem, you might have to request an edit filter. Anomie⚔ 14:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Block evasion, persistent spamming...--Hu12 (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently not working. Our spammer is back with a new IP. Trackinfo (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That edit didn't actually add a link, so the Spam-blacklist won't catch it. If adding non-linked references to the site continues to be a problem, you might have to request an edit filter. Anomie⚔ 14:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That edit didn't actually add a link, so the Spam-blacklist won't catch it. If adding non-linked references to the site continues to be a problem, you might have to request an edit filter. Anomie⚔ 14:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

blugaa.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 10:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

kompenz-elastic.ru




Blacklist evasion: owned by same company as recently blacklisted domain:



MER-C 10:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

cinecoffee.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 08:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

beacon.org

 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/Alyssahassan




 * Spammers

There has been systematic efforts to promote this publisher and their books. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

windows8consumer.in


The IPs all geolocate from India, the which is where the blog is hosted. The IPs have been spamming the blog across multiple Microsoft related articles as references, restoring them whenever they are removed. - SudoGhost 18:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy of relevance is WP:REFSPAM. Rangeblocks aren't feasible.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

imagehyper.com


Appears to be ad revenue generation, URLs from here have been spammed onto numerous typo-squatted articles similar to the name of a new CEO. The IP is from a mobile telephone in Kenya, the four accounts are indef blocked. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

carcheckonline.co.uk



 * Spammers

MER-C 11:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

realblackmagic.com

 * See also: Sockpuppet investigations/Esptest



Spammers;

There is socking to promote these links. 1, 2, 3... — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: CU confirmed socking in this case.

both. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

successwithmustaphafoukara.com

 * - In the last few days I have seen at least three IPs trying to insert this link into an article. The link leads to a parked domain and is clearly of no value to any article. ,,. If you look at the contributions, you'll find that the spammer usually stops after the final warning. In order to stop this hit-and-run spamming, the site should simply be blacklisted. O.Koslowski (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)




 * MER-C 13:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

constructivecriticisms.wordpress.com

 * Not much to say about this. It is a self-published blog that the user has been placing on articles. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 21:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Limited in scope... I'm inclined to wait. Level 3 spam warning given for now. thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Limited in scope... I'm inclined to wait. Level 3 spam warning given for now. thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

winarticles.net



 * Spammers

MER-C 09:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

rashal.com

 * This site allows to download copyrighted book for free. In multiple articles in Wikipedia their link is added as "Download Page Title's books from here. We have removed few, but still there are 18-19 links. I am asking to blacklist the link! --Tito Dutta ✉  07:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone? --Tito Dutta ✉  21:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Be patient. We're all volunteers here, and we all have real lives to attend to. Thanks for reporting it, and don't worry, this report isn't going to go away until a decision is made. When you say "we have removed a few", who is "we"? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * did not know this page has backlog, okay will wait! We're all volunteers here,– applicable for me too--Tito Dutta ✉  02:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * I cleaned up the rest. the IP adding this Moved the link "up, and is never a sign of good faith. Is there evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers per WP:COPYRIGHT for these book download? --Hu12 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some clean ups are still remaining. see here, I can help to clean up! Yes, the site allows to download latest copyrighted books. They just scan and upload. The major issue is not they are adding the links as reference, but they are adding these links in external links section as "Download book of this author here" --Tito Dutta ✉  14:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are the cached search results...Here are the actual hyperlink search for rashal.com, cleanup is complete (unless someone re-inserts them). While simply stating "Download book of this author here", is not a valid reason to blacklist, it is a reason to remove as its clearly promotional. There is some evidence of abuse (see accounts above),but it was some time ago and not reason right now to add the link. If the site is carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright, then that may be sufficient for adding it. In this case there are a couple of concerns first the site is not a publisher but an individual, secondly, the site solicits on its homepage for anyone can send download links to copyrighted books;
 * Those are the cached search results...Here are the actual hyperlink search for rashal.com, cleanup is complete (unless someone re-inserts them). While simply stating "Download book of this author here", is not a valid reason to blacklist, it is a reason to remove as its clearly promotional. There is some evidence of abuse (see accounts above),but it was some time ago and not reason right now to add the link. If the site is carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright, then that may be sufficient for adding it. In this case there are a couple of concerns first the site is not a publisher but an individual, secondly, the site solicits on its homepage for anyone can send download links to copyrighted books;


 * " We always try to help you by adding new books... We do know you have some collection of bangla books, we have not.So friends we need your help... give us mediafire.com download links."


 * There is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT this is .--Hu12 (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Archive this talk! --Tito Dutta ✉  18:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Assorted sites offering free Minecraft gift codes


Spammy sites offering free gift codes for Minecraft in exchange for completing various sketchy ad-related activities. Most, if not all, sites that purport to offer codes like this are either useless, or worse, will actively steal your information. Even if these particular sites are legit, they're of absolutely no encyclopedic value to the project whatsoever.

These links have been added numerous times by various IPs to Talk:Minecraft, including:



 elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems the talk page spam is text, not hyperlinks, therefore blacklisting would not solve this. . Revert as it occurs for now. --Hu12 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Abyssal Chronicles.com
A fansite used mainly in articles related to the Tales (series). Users seem to have the idea to think its a site that should be used. Quick search also finds copyrighted audio. Also, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be reporting these kind of sites so a comment about this would be informative. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 03:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing evidence of abuse here. Only account I found that appears like a spam account is, from 2007. If there is copyvio issues, that needs to be shown. For now i think a better area for discussing this is to --Hu12 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing evidence of abuse here. Only account I found that appears like a spam account is, from 2007. If there is copyvio issues, that needs to be shown. For now i think a better area for discussing this is to --Hu12 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

nfohump.com
This site hosts "cracked" or "warez" copies of copyrighted material for download. Articles about Warez and "Scene" groups are extensively linking to these copyvio downloads as evidence of their accomplishments.

--Tgeairn (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No need for warez site links. Anomie⚔ 20:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The claims are not true! There is no cracked content or warez copies available on Nfohump (previous Nforce). Serials or keys are removed by the editors prior to publishing. It is a valid resource for linking to .nfo files. Nfohump is a news site. Please revert. --Ondertitel (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A news site would have a main page listing news stories, not ripped DVDs and games. Whether the massive copyright violations apparent there are directly hosted or just indexed I haven't bothered to try to determine, since it doesn't matter anyway. Anomie⚔ 02:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You should have bothered to determine since it matters a lot to me. News is news. In this case it's .nfo files from the warez scene and not stories. There are clearly no copyright violations. Sites like Nfohump are necessary to cite claims. A similar site that existed is even so notable that it has an article. Some text files go as far back as the mid nineties, far before the site existed. The web address used to be, but there is now their hosting company located. The requesting author got recently an article wrongfully speedy deleted. After some discussion he saw his error. Talk:Razor_1911 This shows lack in understanding the subject correctly. Blocking valid sites is unnecessary censorship. Please undo. --Ondertitel (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:ELNEVER, and note that linking to a site that indexes sites that violate copyright is also not allowed. If there are specific pages that are necessary for referencing an article and pass WP:RS and do not link to copyright violations, you can ask for those individual pages to be allowed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Anomie⚔ 15:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but you don't understand me. "that linking to a site that indexes sites that violate copyright is also not allowed" This isn't the case! There are no links to other sites with warez. --Ondertitel (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * nfo, warez and releases sites like nfohump.com are not allowed. see WP:EL #3. Wikipedias servers are located in Florida and linking to any nfo, warez or releases site would be considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry. Additionally it fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines which means this link could never be used as a citation for referencing content within Wikipedia, therefore I am marking this as closed. If a specific link is needed as a citation you can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

adscendmedia.com
- Advertising website (Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion). Please see this website's report for WikiProject Spam. --Captaincollect1970 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears there was only one IP back in November adding this;
 * Not enough evidence of current and/or ongoing abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not enough evidence of current and/or ongoing abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Hul2:

tintower.co.uk

 * Sceptre was just topic banned at ANI


 * Sceptre acknowledges his blog and he is paying attention to analytics.


 * Sceptre acknowledges an IP disruptively introduced the link to Sceptre's blog which caused the latest round of trouble surrounding the Bradley Manning article


 * With 21 current links on Wikipedia, I believe that we need to blacklist his site to prevent further disruption as well as Wikipedia being manipulated for the purposes of increasing web traffic. It isn't a reliable source nor an external link.


 * Blacklisting would remove the megaphone being used to soapbox. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear and ongoing abuse, using site aggressively to repeatedly Push a point of view in violation of WP:BLP, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:ELNO(#2,4,#11). Per ANI's WP:BLPBAN this is --Hu12 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

davidgsimpson.com/wikipedia/

 * Claims to be "his" articles which were deleted from Wikipedia. If accurate, they cannot possibly be used as a reference or as an external link, without violating copyright.  Added twice today by, and once yesterday with the additional www.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm adding specifically davidgsimpson.com/wikipedia/, because it not only fails RS and V, But as deleted content it also violates #2, which introduces factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

kompenz.ru



 * Spammers

MER-C 08:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

freemasonrywatch.org
This site was blacklisted for failing RS, viiolating copyright, and its editor User:Lightbringer (usurped - blocked) was community banned on enwiki several years ago for his behavior. All the material on that site was taken from other sources without permission, and it also failed RS. It was blacklisted to prevent disruption, which is something that was not mentioned in the subsequent removal, and the editor that requested its removal was likely also a sock of Lightbringer, as the request was unsigned. Abd, who commented in support, was unaware of the situation, as were all the other contributors to that discussion. The user has returned as User:Albertpirck, and is readding links to the site on certain articles, and that is the entirety of his contrib history aside from calling Freemasonry "a cult" and going on about "Masonic editors." The site should therefore be blacklisted once again, and permanently, to prevent reoccurrence. All pertinent discussion is linked here in the 2011 delisting. MSJapan (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Long-term_abuse/Lightbringer_(usurped_-_blocked)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive72
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Lightbringer (usurped - blocked)
 * "Accounts
 * "Violation if Indefinite community ban and resumption of abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Accounts
 * "Violation if Indefinite community ban and resumption of abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Violation if Indefinite community ban and resumption of abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Violation if Indefinite community ban and resumption of abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

innsbruck2012.com


This is the official website of the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics. Pretty sure it shouldn't be blocked, but I'll toss this here in case there was a good reason for it after all. -- Schneelocke (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was blocked in January due to abuse from and related sockpuppets. See
 * Long-term abuse/The Fresh Beat Band
 * Sockpuppet investigations/The Fresh Beat Band/Archive
 * I wouldn't object if the blacklisting entry were narrowed down to innsbruck2012.com/en/fanshop, which seems to be what was spammed. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me --- not that I'm sure even the fanshop link still needs to be blocked, but then there's no need for that one to be used (or usable) right now, either. It'd be nice to be able to reference the rest of the site again, though, so I've gone ahead and made this change. -- Schneelocke (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

BrandsFood.com


Hello Sir/Madam,

I'm owner of the following site, and it's now blacklisted. I don't know why it's black listed, I just provided a relevant and genuine information for the following page : Tandoori_chicken. The information I provided is absolutely correct and related to the the topic. My intention behind giving this information on this page is to providing and adding the details about the topic for the Wikipedia users. I don't know why my site now considered as spam and blacklisted. My question is to you that, "Is providing a genuine and relevant information on any topic on a particular page on Wikipedia considered as SPAM?" Besides that, if you think that my site is deserve to be in blacklist than I apologize for any illegal activity. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishaan.bhati (talk • contribs)
 * . The site was blacklisted due to spamming from multiple IP addresses as described in this incident report.
 * We do not de-list blacklisted sites at the request of the site owner or anyone else with a conflict of interest. Please read Conflict of interest for further guidance.
 * If a trusted, high volume editor sees a need for linking to your site, then we would consider such a request.
 * See also WP:ELNO. This is not an appropriate link to use as a reference or an external link.
 * As to your question, external links in articles do not constitute "providing genuine and relevant information". One does that by contributing to the content of articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

travelkashmir.net
This site was blocked last due to my negligence last year. This website is actually the new version of vKashmir.com who's domain is no longer in use & has expired last month. This is a website regarding Kashmir one of the beautiful destination in Asia. This website doesn't generate revenue by any means it has information related the Kashmir and has a business directory section which can be handy for tourists/visitors as it has information related hotels, travel agents, cafe, restaurant,schools, colleges etc. (listing in business directory is also free) I would appreciate if you "admin" can take my request in to consideration and remove it from blacklisted group. I would also request you to check the website before making any decision.

Today i tried to replace the vKashmir.com domain link with travelKashmir.net on one of the wiki pages and was not able to do it as it was blacklisted.

It is absolutely at your disposal to remove it or keep it as blacklisted. I am just requesting almost after 1 year to remove it from black list.

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubaikashmiri (talk • contribs)


 * You still did not understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm or a travel guide.   --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is your call, Just to mention this website had same information which i had listed old website vkashmir.com. I am in a process of renewal of my old domain vkashmir.com which is actually the old design of the same website contents & a with some updated information. rest i agree with you that this is not a travel guide or link farm. I am happy to live with it as i want to keep wiki clean.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubaikashmiri (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Account
 * It appears vkashmir.com has an active redirect to travelkashmir.net currently, and since there is a clear history of past abuse with vkashmir.com, there would be a likely hood of future abuse from the comments above and the frequency of requests to use these links. Additionally, the creation of multiple accounts in order to make multiple removal requests for this site is concerning. vkashmir.com is now --Hu12 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Account
 * It appears vkashmir.com has an active redirect to travelkashmir.net currently, and since there is a clear history of past abuse with vkashmir.com, there would be a likely hood of future abuse from the comments above and the frequency of requests to use these links. Additionally, the creation of multiple accounts in order to make multiple removal requests for this site is concerning. vkashmir.com is now --Hu12 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears vkashmir.com has an active redirect to travelkashmir.net currently, and since there is a clear history of past abuse with vkashmir.com, there would be a likely hood of future abuse from the comments above and the frequency of requests to use these links. Additionally, the creation of multiple accounts in order to make multiple removal requests for this site is concerning. vkashmir.com is now --Hu12 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

SkyNetIndia.info


Hello Sir/Madam,

I am owner of the this site(skynetindia.info). I am requesting you to delist/remove my site from blacklist as my site contain relevant and genuine information on all pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skynetmanoj (talk • contribs)


 * . We do not remove sites from the blacklist at the request of the site owner or anyone else with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high-volume editor believes your site is relevant to any pages on Wikipedia, we would consider a removal request from such an editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

echoview.com


This was blacklisted in 2009 on account of overzealous marketing activities by Brad Juhasz. Two things worth noting with regards to the blacklisting:


 * 1) Yes it was overzealous and probably even Brad would have apologized at a guess for misunderstanding (failing to observe that Wikipedia is not a marketing tool). Still, letting him know rather than blacklisitng the domain would have seemed more appropriate. Never mind.
 * 2) In the interim Brad no longer works for or with Echoview anyhow, and frankly any effort to makret through Wikipedia would be disapproved of by current staff. In other words they do not labor under the same misunderstanding.

Now I don't personally care whether echoview.com is blacklisted or not I'll admit. But I do care about consistency and the reason I even notice is that it was brought to my attention by a scientist inthe field of fisheries acoustics that on the page Fisheries acoustics at the bottom tehre are links to key hardware and software providers in the field, Simrad, BioSonics and HTI. This is not an exhaustive list but I could understand either view that a) it's useful information to readers on fisheries acoustics to know who the community players are and to benefit form the support materials they publish or b) they are commercial entities selling acoustic equipment and listing them amounts to advertising.

Either view sits fine by me, but if you apply a) to Simrad, BioSonics and HTI and b) to Echoview, I find this inconsistent.

I request that constency and clarity be applied and either unlist echoview.com permitting an entry on this page along with pother key players (not least because Echoview is in fact the glue in some sense that brings these three competing manufacturers and others together and also publishes pertinent materials to hydroacoustics and used by the fisheries acoustics community and developed with them and hosts the fisheriesacoustics.com forum that is not black listed and is llisted on the FIsheries acoustics page).

In short the inconsistency is noticed by acoustics professionals, efd back to me (as Echoview's sales manager) and I turn I to you, and request your consideration of a consistent approach to listing of fisheries acoustics community players. It's a small global community, and newcomers to it know about Echoview one way or the other and I don't care one jot in the long run whether we're listed on Wikipedia or not, but I do care that we have a professional Fisheries acoustics page and we are integral to the community (have worked with, employed or provided software and services to, most people who are likely to contribute to that page or have done in past).

--Bwechner (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

idebate.org 2


I previously raised this discussion below, and was redirected to WP:RSN. The discussion there has now been indexed and can be found at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126. idebate.org is the main website of the International Debate Education Association, a fairly well-respected international not-for-profit entity. It was blacklisted in 2009 as a result of somebody affiliated with the site spamming links. The site has grown considerably since then, added several editors, and now serves as a catch-all for translation and dissemination of collegiate debating news from around the world. The RSN consensus, to the extent that a three-person discussion can be said to reach such a state, was that while some articles from idebate may not meet WP:IRS standards, others do, and insofar as those articles are necessary to keep pages such as Yale Debate Association, Oxford Union, and World Universities Debating Championships up to date, the debate over iDebate's reliability should happen on a case-by-case basis.
 * Thank you for reporting back. The WP:RSN discussion does not provide a reason to remove idebate.org from the blacklist. Therefore, to white-list specific URLs on idebate.org for use in specific articles, on a case-by-case basis. You might want to reference the RSN discussion there too. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that response is not satisfactory. I've been trying to get this changed for several weeks, and I really haven't heard a coherent explanation for why this site should be blacklisted in the first place if the spamming has stopped. I satisfied the requests made by other participants in the WP:RSN conversation. What else did I need to do? Wardpackard (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, you can't claim "the spamming has stopped" because the site is blacklisted and therefore not possible to spam. Spamming happened before, and it can easily happen again if the site is de-listed.


 * Secondly, the consensus at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126 to appears to be that references to idebate.org must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Case-by-case delistings are handled by the white list, as I stated in my response above. Don't regard this as an inconvenience; I imagine there are many more white-listed examiner.com links than there would be for idebate.org links. If there is a section of idebate.org that has a common URL prefix, we can white-list that so that all pages with that prefix would be available for linking. For example idebate.org/debatabase/debates/ would allow linking to all debates, although all of that appears to be user-generated content so it wouldn't fly, but I offer it as an example. That way multiple pages can be referenced without making separate requests to white-list individual pages.


 * Finally, you ask why it got blacklisted. It got blacklisted due to promotional activity by people with a conflict of interest, as described in this incident report. There remains a lot on that site that isn't appropriate for linking, such as discussion forums and any other user-generated content. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Wardpackard (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

u2know.net
Hello, I'm the owner of the website : u2know.net" I started this project based on one of my old idea : to offer to web surfers all the necessary info's which they need.Starting from travel advices, to discoveries,science,good article.I put a lot of effort trying to find documentation related with each article which i wrote .On top of that i collect inf-'s from different publications and combine with my knowledge's and readings, plus my personal photo's gallery. It happen that while i search for my info's for my article I've found similar article BUT WITH DIFFERENT info's on wikipedia. I WANTED to share, and i add as "external links" SOME of my articles . In the beginning 2-3 ..an till maximum 10 !! I was removed, on reasons like : 'spam:" !!!, but NO explanation, even i read carefully the wiki policy regarding link spam and my links ARE NOT in any way as "spam". More, I've asked to some admins explanation and the response were : 'you don't deserve", BUT OTHER websites like : 'livescience.com" have MORE then 500 links spread all over wikipedia, some of the article are ONLY couple of phrases, BUT NO ONE say anything ! Now i see that I'm in the "blacklists". IS IT fair ? Can you please remove it, i don't want to spread among wikipedia publicity with my ...10 links ...i WANT TO SHARE ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.124.148 (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit this site. As is the case in your situation. When other users reached out to you about the spamming, your replies were;
 * " you are just a mf'
 * "YOU as an ignorant even don't want to click or read ???? "
 * "you remove the link m*fu* ????"
 * " FU* off you co*k suc*er ! "
 * In addition to the abusive behavior, spamming and disruption, u2know.net is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests, particularly when they are responsible for the abuse.. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site. Thank you for your time. --Hu12 (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So, did you had the chance to read carefully how ALL the discussion were started ? Which were the explanations? How "conflict of Interest Wikipedia Policy " is broke ? or in the beginning what was the reasons to define as "link spam". This is your decision.Ok No problem BUT READ CAREFULY all the details of conversation And can at least YOU explain me WHY livescience.com has ...more than 500 links speeded all over wikipedia, and some article like (just one example) Megalodon, consist in ONLY couple of banal phrases, is allowed to have such impact, and also please read the answer of Mr"OhnoisJamie" on this question. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&redirs=1&profile=default&search=livescience.com

Thank you for understanding

Have a look here as example : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie&diff=493211538&oldid=493101144 What he did ? EVERY time deleting conversation, and in the end to say : (cur | prev) 16:22, 18 May 2012‎ 180.180.71.136 (talk)‎. . (70,261 bytes) (+1)‎. . (→‎Spam links all over wiki, but you don't care !) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:21, 18 May 2012‎ 180.180.71.136 (talk)‎. . (70,260 bytes) (+1)‎. . (→‎Spam links all over wiki, but you don't care !) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:20, 18 May 2012‎ 180.180.71.136 (talk)‎. . (70,259 bytes) (+489)‎. . (→‎Spam links all over wiki, but you don't care !: new section) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:15, 18 May 2012‎ Ohnoitsjamie (talk | contribs)‎. . (69,770 bytes) (-595)‎. . (please feel free to tell the President of Wiki as well as the Wiki Parliament and the Wiki Supreme Junta) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:09, 18 May 2012‎ SineBot (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (70,365 bytes) (+301)‎. . (Signing comment by 180.180.71.136 - "- →‎Spam links all over wiki, but you don't care !: new section") (undo) (cur | prev) 16:08, 18 May 2012‎ 180.180.71.136 (talk)‎. . (70,064 bytes) (+294)‎. . (→‎Spam links all over wiki, but you don't care !: new section) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:35, 17 May 2012‎ Ohnoitsjamie (talk | contribs)‎. . (69,770 bytes) (+293)‎. . (ha) (undo)

The same with "Mr Apokryltaros" which consider himself as being the expert in Paleonthology -MAYBE he is, but HE DOEN"T EVEN read an article and already make conclusion. The rude discussion from my associate partner was AFTER he didn't give any explanations, or even he didn't read the article !!! Check please ALL details of conversation before.

Now coming back to spam as you said "early " ...i'm sorry but on different website were article in 4 languages :english,russian,romanian,german. (some of them) So again, were NOT just added "just because". And honestly IF YOU WILL CHECK like this ALL the external links which are in wikipedia, i think half of them doesn’t respect AT ALL the wiki policy regarding spam, vandalism, etc,etc ... Why you don't judge and analyze as impartial and neutral ALL the details from the begging ?

And again can ANYONE explain me WHY "livescience.com" has more than 500 links spread everywhere, with 50 cent quality article and couple of phrases, and NO ONE does something ? Is it "vandalism" and "spam" ? Which are the measure to be taken from ALL of you ? You can consider this dialogue as a request for spam.

Again, please read EVERYTHING carefully ! Thanks for understanding !

mixcloud.com
The ban relates only to spamming by people connected with the site several years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=317486670#MIXCLOUD_LTD_Spam. I think that the site may now be notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia, and some of the mix pages could be valuable as references/external links. memphisto 11:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this makes more sense as a whitelisting request if an article about that company passes WP:WEB or WP:GNG. I don't see how it would be useful for references in general. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In terms of popularity the Alexa rank for mixcloud.com is currently 4,574 - http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mixcloud.com. I also mentioned that it could be valuable as a Wikipedia reference/external link, as it would enable you to reference if a notable DJ had played a particular song or even link to a certain mix if it contributed to an article. memphisto 10:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I am from Mixcloud and I have written an article for Mixcloud to be published on Wikipedia. The link to the company's website was blacklisted and I was transferred to this page. If you need some references in order to enable the publishing, Mixcloud is a well-recognised name in the online radio and social media business. We we're awarded the prize for "Best Entertainment, Music or Video Startup" in 2011 by TechCrunch Europa and are featured in articles from the BBC, Wired magazine and Mashable Entertainment (see: "www.mixcloud.com/press"). Please take our demand into account and remove our website link from your list. Thank you in advance! Mixcloud2012 18:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC) (The User Talk page does not exist since I created the account today. Hence the message:If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database)
 * We generally don't take requests for removal from people with conflicts of interest, but only people who wish to write articles. I don't see an article from you, but I'd advise for you to wait for someone else to want to create an article (I might want to myself).--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Mephisto: Alexa rankings don't have any bearing on Wikipedia's blacklist, as far as I know. I don't know of any precedent for using notability as a criterion for de-listing. However, its usefulness as a reference is another matter. Would you mind posting a request on WP:RSN and see what the participants there think of it? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your quick responses. I will post on WP:RSN and see what your colleagues think of it. However, I do not understand how someone outside of my company could write the article with the link being blacklisted?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixcloud2012 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please bear in mind the following:
 * You should probably not write the article at all. See Conflict of interest for guidance.
 * You should change your username. Username policy prohibits company names or role accounts as usernames. Your username must represent only you as an individual.
 * You don't see how anyone outside your company could write the article? No Wikipedia article should be written based on insider knowledge, or on primary sources. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable and verifiable secondary sources. There is no article on any company that requires a link to that company's web site; at most all that is needed is a single link to the company's "about us" page, as a convenience, not as a reference.
 * I hope that's clear. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the clear details about wikipedia policy. I will therefore wait for someone to create an article and change the username. Thank you for your time.Mixcloud2012 11:03, 26 June 2012 (GMT)
 * Since this post and the blacklisting, there have been recent attempts to recreate article spam on this topic. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Oct_1--Hu12 (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

altafsir.com
I am trying to add a link to the book (Love in the Holy Quran) on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Ghazi_bin_Muhammad The site is a reference tool containing many reference books in both English and Arabic. Could the site please be added to the whitelist. The site is run on two domains altafsir.com and altafsir.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shart000 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 17 May 2012‎
 * What link, specifically, are you interested in using?--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There are several places on Wikipedia.org that used to link to the site, here is a list of some of the types of links.
 * 1) The author of "Love in the Holy Quran" lists details of the book here: http:// main.altafsir.com/LoveInQuranIntroEn.asp in English and here: http:// main.altafsir.com/LoveInQuranIntro.asp in Arabic
 * 2) The site is a reference tool in both Arabic and English, the site owners have spent several million $US transcribing manuscripts of old Arabic Quranic exegesis into digital form. They have several translations.  Users were linking to specific pages on altafsir.com as references.  Each of the works was authenticated by scholars (most of whom are professors in Universities around the world).

We would like users to still have the option of using the site as a reference. (There are currently over 100 works transcribed on the site, each work is about 20 volumes.)

I have noticed that they have 4 domain mirrors to the site, this was a mistake from the site admin. I have asked them to remove the mirrors and to forward the extra domains instead. They are currently working on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shart000 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. (I tried to add the link that we want but the spam filter is still in effect so we were unable to add it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shart000 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You refer to "we" in your comment above. Who is this "we"? Please know that we do not remove sites from the blacklist at the request of the site owner or anyone associated with the site. It seems that you were trying to add a link to altafsir.com in spite of our guideline Conflict of interest. We can't permit that. If a trusted, high volume editor feels that the material of your site is worthy of referencing, we would consider a request from such an editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Why was the site added to the blacklist? Who can we contact about removing the site from the Blacklist? We are a think tank based in Amman, Jordan. We are not directly associated with altafsir.com, but we do help them resolve small issues like this occasionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shart000 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * . As I stated above, we don't consider requests for removal from parties with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high-volume editor determines that links on altafsir.com are useful as references on Wikipedia instead of non-blacklisted alternatives, we would consider requests from such an editor.
 * The reasons for blacklisting are given in the links at the top of this section, as well as here. Apparently altafsir.com is also blacklisted globally due to rather massive spamming; see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/altafsir.com for the evidence that led to it. Even if altafsir.com was removed from the local blacklist here, it would still be blacklisted globally with little chance of removal. You can to pursue it further but it is likely you will get a similar response. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I hope that in the future the site is removed from the blacklist, it is a wonderful free authoritative reference on the Quran. I suppose we will have to wait until the site is reviewed by a high volume editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shart000 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

nepa.com.np
This site was blocked in March 2008 and no reason has been given. I would like to request that it be delisted. Karrattul (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * to unblock specific pages on that site. I see no reason to de-list it entirely. The reason for blocking is here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the site is intended to be used as a reference for this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sitala_Maju_(song) Karrattul (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, once the article is accepted into main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

mokimobility.com
MokiMobility is a new mobile device management provider. Prior to a page being created several links were added to relevant articles linking directly to the home page, both by external users and company users. This action was viewed as spamming and the url got blacklisted. A new article has been created for the company and added to relevant articles under vendor sections, but because of the blacklist a link to the homepage cannot be included on the page summarizing the company. A link to the homepage on a company listing is a valid and useful feature of the listing. --Bradem1976 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)--Bradem1976 (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * pending the outcome of the current proposal to speedy-delete the article.
 * Provided the article is kept, . There is no need to remove mokimobility.com from the blacklist. If you want just one link in the MokiMobility article, then www.mokimobility.com/about/ is the best one to request at the whitelisting page. A link to the home page won't work in this case because www.mokimobility.com is the actual domain and not just a page and therefore can't be whitelisted. Furthermore www.mokimobility.com/index.html doesn't exist and www.mokimobility.com/index.php redirects to www.mokimobility.com, providing an avenue for further link spamming. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

goo.gl
Google's in-house link shortner that is used only for links to google searches or products, which has worked for months but is suddenly blocked. It does not appear in the log. There was no discussion of this block. This shortening service, which abides by our rules since non-Google domains can't be entered, helps reduce overly-clunky and massive POST url's, and should not be blocked without some community consultation. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 01:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to not just be for "in-google" domains. Go there and you can create them for everywhere; the search on wp:en shows one "in-google" and one "out-google". tedder (talk) 01:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW it's on the mediawiki blacklist, not ours. tedder (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems to have been blocked at Meta since December 2009. So I'm not sure how it would have worked "for months". Anomie⚔ 01:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been using it for Google maps links since they introduced it, and today is the first time it has been blocked. The search tool is broken I believe Tedder; I've got them in at least 40 articles myself. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 10:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have an example of someplace you used it that worked and is not found by the search tool? Anomie⚔ 10:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like I've made a mistake... I was using g.co, which google maps seems to have suddenly stopped using. It's a good thing Google is easy to contact about technical issues. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 12:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, after some investigation, it appears short URLs generated with Google Maps will always use goo.gl/maps/. Is it possible to whitelist those whilst still blocking other goo.gl links? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 21:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's possible. for such requests. Although you may have to convince the admins there that there is a need to include a URL shortener in the white list when it's perfectly reasonable to include full URLs in articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Hopefully that logic isn't applied though - It's perfectly reasonable to write in technical English that nobody outside of a scientific field could comprehend, but that's counterintuitive to en encyclopedia that anyone can edit... Same with a 5 line URL in an edit window; it obfuscates the surrounding content with gibberish. However, I fully understand the abuse potential that is the reasoning behind blocking URL shorteners in the first place. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 16:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Engineers-Excel.com
Provides useful (and free) spreadsheet tools for Engineers, lot of content is based on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.88.232 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 8 June 2012‎
 * . No rationale has been given on how this would be a useful reference in any article. Furthermore, sites with content "based on Wikipedia" are generally inappropriate to include as links in Wikipedia, because such references are essentially circular. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

calculate-linux.org


This is the homepage of the Calculate Linux project, and the link is very useful to its article (namely in the External Links section). The article currently has a link to calculate-linux.com, but that domain no longer works.

It seems the link was added to the list automatically. The log of it can be found at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/calculate-linux.org. I also find automatic spam detection in itself going a bit far. It's called a blacklist so we shouldn't have to whitelist links that some bot detected as malicious based on some algorithm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.110.7 (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't added to the blacklist by the bot. The bot flagged it for human attention because of suspicious activity, and then a human decided to add it. At any rate, you're in the wrong place. to ask for it to be removed, or  to ask for one specific page whitelisted locally. Anomie⚔ 19:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

.nfohump.com
I strongly believe this website should not be blocked by the Wikipedia spamlists. It has been added recently. Links to different policy and guidelines were provided but they weren't really appropriate.

"nfo, warez and releases sites like nfohump.com are not allowed. see WP:EL #3" The relevant "content guideline" does not assert that statement. The page is for external links while the site in question is used as reference in almost all the cases. It is obvious that warez sites aren't allowed, but nfohump.com is not a warez site. Why would nfo sites not be allowed? There is no reason present in the quoted guidelines.

"Wikipedias servers are located in Florida and linking to any nfo, warez or releases site would be considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)" Sorry, those fears are unfounded. Applicable for warez sites and sites that infringe on copyrights, not nfo news sites. Let's discuss the case of The iSONEWS: United States v. Rocci. A similar site (and note the name, news). The domain was taken down by the government, but not for the above reason. It was only taken down after the owner was caught selling modchips and he handed it over to them in plea bargaining. " Individuals who now visit www.iSONEWS.com will no longer find the latest news on new pirated releases by illegal software piracy (or “warez”) groups. Instead, they will view information about the case of United States v. Rocci, as well as general information about copyright infringement and the criminal prosecution of individuals engaged in online piracy." The actual website stayed up.

An other similar site is Vcdquality.
 * "VCDQ is and always will be a legal site."
 * "You can't actually download anything directly from VCD Quality"
 * "VCDQ remains entirely legal and as such can look forward to a stable and promising future" (TorrentFreak is regarded as a reliable source when in comes to filesharing related stuff)

"Additionally it fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines" That's pretty vague and there are always exceptions. This site aids in verifying quotes. It is a reliable source for .nfo files from the warez scene. It prevents us from linking to iffy sites to quote nfo files. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." They are third-party, they publish the nfo files for the public and they have a reputation for accuracy (except for the serials/keys they remove to keep it legal ofcourse). "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context." It is an appropriate source in the context of warez groups, where it has been used.

WP:RS: "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

The website is no different than http://openlibrary.org/. They show titles, authors and covers. Nfohump shows names, dates and nfo files. Neither has the actual content in question.

The site is also referenced or discussed by other reputable sources. Some examples:
 * Where it even has a screenshot of the site.
 * "NFOHump.com has a traffic rank of 15,091 as of Nov. 13. However, sites that actually distribute or facilitate the distribution of pirated software rank much higher." "The .nfo files, DeMarines explained, are essentially press releases for piracy groups."
 * "NFOHump.com has a traffic rank of 15,091 as of Nov. 13. However, sites that actually distribute or facilitate the distribution of pirated software rank much higher." "The .nfo files, DeMarines explained, are essentially press releases for piracy groups."

An example of the cases in which this site was used: When they talk about what has been said, it's appropriate that we also show where the quote comes from to aid WP:V, just as in the DailyTech example above.

There was no abuse of linking to this website.

The autor proposing this block wasn't very familiar with the subject as he could not see the difference between a warez site and a non warez site. 

It is warez related so this might blur your vision too, but rationally and legally speaking there is no valid reason to block this site. Please don't keep the self censorship. --Ondertitel (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I am against this sites removal, another administrator can review this request. First, claiming "censorship" in this case is meritless, nor would it make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy on this matter. Arguments for nfohump.com's inclusion such as its reliability as a source, what the extent of the abuse is/was, or weather its useful or not are irrelevant. Because nfo, warez and releases sites like nfohump.com are "Illegal" and directly and materially contributes to, facilitates, induces, or is otherwise responsible for directly infringing acts. As I stated previously, Wikipedias servers are located in Florida and linking to any nfo, warez or releases site would be considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry. I would also add that most all the additions of this site were by .--Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you keep repeating something that I've proven to be not relevant by citing multiple different sources. That many additions were mine is probably true as it seems I'm the only one that cares to have sources for the warez related articles, but then again that isn't relevant either. Thank you for staying on the sidelines in this matter. --Ondertitel (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't know this before, but the site had its own page once: NFOrce. --Ondertitel (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The fact that reliable sources mention nfohump.com is irrelevant to its existence in the blacklist. Ondertitel's argument applies more to creating an article about nfohump.com than to delisting it. While I myself don't see anything there that would be a problem with Florida law (the site doesn't appear to facilitate any access to illegal content but simply publishes information about illegal content), I still see no compelling argument above to remove this site from the blacklist. It should not matter if it's blacklisted or not. No argument has been presented to show that any link on nfohump.com would be acceptable in any Wikipedia article. No link on that site would be acceptable as a reference in any article, and articles are not enhanced by including links to directory/repository/indexer/whatever sites in a list of external links. If an article were to be written about nfohump and survive the inevitable deletion proposals, then we could consider whitelisting a link to one URL on nfohump.com. Therefore I am inclined to mark this request as . ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "I still see no compelling argument above to remove this site from the blacklist." But you just confirmed that there is no compelling argument to have it added in the first place. WP:BLACKLIST: "Compelling evidence of a problem should be given when requesting a page to be listed". "No argument has been presented to show that any link on nfohump.com would be acceptable in any Wikipedia article." Sorry, but that isn't relevant for the blacklist. It's acceptable in certain cases to reference citations from primary sources. And how about this quote: "The .nfo files, DeMarines explained, are essentially press releases for piracy groups." Let me refer to WP:BLACKLIST: "However, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers." Which is clearly not the case. Please follow the rules. The blacklist is being misused in this instance. --Ondertitel (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering will get you nowhere on this. The link is of no use to Wikipedia, period. [[Image:Symbol declined.svg|16px]] Declined OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but can you explain that claim to me? "In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering" I'm not violating the spirit of the rules while I clearly think this block is. The link is of use to Wikipedia and here is an example why: . Authorial speak doesn't make your point any clearer either. --Ondertitel (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * External links are not a requirement for citations. They never were. In the example you gave, it is enough to state the source, as in "NFO file included in Centropy's release of Herbie: Fully Loaded, available on nfohump.com". This meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS.


 * Furthermore, I will repeat that I see no compelling argument to remove it from the blacklist, even though I don't see anything that would violate Florida law. Other admins here do see the site as violating Florida law. Your view or my view or any other administrator's view is completely irrelevant here. What matters is whether it violates Florida law, and that is something to be determined only by the WMF legal counsel, currently User:Geoffbrigham, not you, not me, not anyone else. I have posted a question on his talk page. Until we have an answer, it is probably best to err on the side of caution and keep the site blacklisted until we can get a legitimate legal opinion. Again, this request is . ~Amatulić (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've posted a note (Linking: Some Legal Considerations) discussing the legal issues, particularly contributory liability for copyright infringement, surrounding linking. Hopefully it will help clear up some of the confusion mentioned above. Pholm (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Peter for putting that together. --Hu12 (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So, can we finally agree on removing the link from the blacklist? There is no reason to have it added in the first place. There never has been any abuse. It's main usage is to provide (better) references, not external links. --Ondertitel (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While some external links may be permitted by the External link guidelines, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy whatsoever to be included. Its clear what nfohump.com's "purpose is". Liability here has not been eliminated and linking to this site is still a WP:LINKVIO, not allowed under WP:EL #3, and violates Section 4 of WMF’s Terms of Use. Additionaly, it fails Wikipedias requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Consensus by multiple experienced independent editors and administrators is clearly against nfohump.com's removal, as such this request is (again) --Hu12 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Really, are you going to keep bullshitting me? "Liability here has not been eliminated" Yes it is. I don't live in Florida btw. "linking to this site is still a WP:LINKVIO" No, it isn't. "not allowed under WP:EL #3" I don't see it how it fails anything, it's a guideline and "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". "violates Section 4 of WMF’s Terms of Use" How about linking to it instead of a general article? "to act in good faith, and to make edits and contributions aimed at furthering the mission of the shared Project" which this block isn't. It doesn't fail anything. "Additionaly, it fails Wikipedias requirements of ..." how general are your excuses going to be? Lets read the comments from above again: an admin even said that it doesn't violate these rules. And even if it would be true, it doesn't matter for this WP:BLACKLIST. According to the rules (and it's spirit too), this site shouldn't be blacklisted. How many times do I need to keep refuting these pseudo arguments? I smell a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "While I am against this sites removal, another administrator can review this request." Yep...
 * In recent news: http://torrentfreak.com/warez-scene-news-site-helped-by-google-after-wrongful-takedowns-120706/ Please, can we have the same outcome? --Ondertitel (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition. Closing as Vexatious --Hu12 (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

FindTheBest.com
The original ban took place when the site was very young and attempted to use Wikipedia for promotion. Now, two years later, FindTheBest has grown into a company of 50+ employees. The FindTheBest network attracts over 9 million unique visitors per month (with a CMGR of 19%). The company received venture financing from Kliener Perkins.

According to Alexa.com, FindTheBest is one of the 1,000 most popular websites in the US. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/findthebest.com

FindTheBest has received positive press from sites like the New York Time, TechCrunch and Search Engine Land.

The site powers product comparisons for large publications such as Golf Digest (http://bags.golfdigest.com), TechCrunch (http://smartphones.techcrunch.com), VentureBeat (http://laptops.venturebeat.com) and Ski Magazine (http://ski-resorts.skimagazine.com).

A link to the site would be useful on this page: Decision_engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanthomas1 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and none of those points are reasons to remove findthebest.com from the blacklist. to white-list an individual URL on that site for use in a specific article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are these not valid points for removing FindTheBest from the blacklist? Yes, the FindTheBest used Wikipedia for promotion when it was newly founded, but since then it has become a legitimate site serving millions of users each month.  Just because the management made a mistake by using Wikipedia for promotion means that the site should be banned forever?  If Google, Quora, or Facebook would have done the same, would they still be banned?  ~Evanthomas1  —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A site's popularity is not a reason to remove from the blacklist if that site has demonstrated disruption on Wikipedia. "Management" knew the rules, it was common knowledge in 2008 that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. They knew what they were doing and now must accept the consequences. And yes, if Quora or Facebook had done the same, they would also still be listed. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * May I ask what would be a valid reason to remove FindTheBest from the blacklist? Evan (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes you may. We would de-list if the site is now blacklisted on meta and need not be listed here, or the company has gone out of business, or the company domain name has been sold to an unrelated entity, or one or more trusted editors posts a legitimate request to de-list it, or the site is deemed at WP:RSN to be a valuable resource for referencing on Wikipedia, or a number of other reasons.


 * Furthermore, if you are the same Evan Thomas as the current business development manager of findthebest.com, you have a conflict of interest. Please read Conflict of interest for further guidance. You should disclose that on your user page and you should have disclosed it in this request.


 * Finally, you should know that we do not remove anything from the blacklist at the request of a company representative or anyone else with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high volume editor deems findthebest.com worthy of linking in Wikipedia, we would consider such request. At this time, consider this request . ~Amatulić (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do work for the company. Can you tell me why FindTheBest was originally blacklisted?  I was not an employee at the time of the blacklisting.  Maybe I can work to resolve this. Evan (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The site was blocked in June 2010 (not 2008) because your CEO Kevin O'Connor engaged in repeated edits promoting himself, oconnorventures.com, and findthebest.com, in spite of requests on his talk page to stop doing so. After several months of this activity, his account was finally blocked indefinitely and findthebest.com was blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you Amatulic for giving me a clear reason why the page was blacklisted. This gives me more to work with.  I also understand that as an employee of the company, I cannot create an article on FindTheBest because of a conflict of interest.


 * That being said, I think the company has learned its lesson. I would like to resolve this issue in a professional manner.  Now that the site is one of the most 1,000 popular sites in the US, I believe an article is appropriate on Wikipedia.  I respectfully request that the site be removed from the blacklist so that a high-volume editor may add an unbiased article on it. Evan (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * See the first response to you near the beginning of this section:.


 * In other words, an external link to findthebest.com is not required for anyone to write an article about the company. At most we would need to white-list a single URL pointing to the company's "about us" page rather than remove the site completely from the blacklist. For the company to be completely removed from the blacklist, we'd need a consensus among the admins here and likely also at WP:RSN that findthebest.com is useful as a general reference on Wikipedia.


 * We recognize that some people with a conflict of interest are still capable of writing neutrally. Note that Conflict of interest doesn't forbid you from writing about your company; rather, it recommends you exercise great caution when doing so. This caution is required to avoid your account being blocked and/or the article being deleted.


 * If you feel that you can write a neutral, non-promotional article that relies on references to multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources (not your web site or press releases), you are welcome to try your hand at it. I recommend starting the article in your own user space (User:Evanthomas1/FindTheBest for example) for you to work on at your leisure so that it doesn't get quickly deleted while working on it. You can request a review at Articles for creation to get feedback on improvements needed before moving it into the main article space. Once the article is moved to main article space, a link to the company's "about us" page may then be white-listed via a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you, this helps a lot. So just to be clear, I will:


 * 1) work on an unbiased article in my user space
 * 2)request that the article be reviewed
 * 3)move the article to the main space
 * 4)ask for the link to the "about us" section to be whitelisted?


 * Thanks again Amatulic for all of your help and patience. I often use Wikipedia but I'm not entirely knowledgable when it comes to editing etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanthomas1 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * COMMENT - I was asked by requester to come here and voice my support to remove FindTheBest from the blacklist. After review of the website and what it does, I would not recommend removing it at this time. It appears that there is affiliate marketing involved with the website (which is not in itself a reason to place the link on the blacklist) which makes it more likely to become a spam link. I am not sure of why it was blacklisted in the first place (although it does not matter - once it is listed is up to others to bring a case to have it removed). The information that can be retrieved from the site can be retrieved from other locations as well which is the #1 reason why I feel that it should not be removed. If there is a specific link on the website that can be shown to be useful for a specific article, I would recommend that the requester (or someone without a COI) request that the specific link be added to the white list. --Morning277 (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Morning 277, Thank you for your comment and investigating the site. But I believe there might be some confusion, so please let me explain.  I am not requesting a link to FindTheBest, but rather, I am requesting that an article on FindTheBest be allowed on Wikipedia.  To answer your question, FindTheBest was blacklisted two years ago when the site was in its infancy because it tried to use Wikipedia to promote the site.  Evan (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing preventing someone without a COI from writing such an article. You could even write the article yourself as a user subpage (e.g. at User:Evanthomas1/FindTheBest)—being sure to follow WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and other applicable policies and guidelines; see Your first article for an introduction—and then go to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, explain your conflict of interest, and ask for someone to review it and move it to mainspace should it be deemed acceptable. The only thing that cannot be done is to include a link to the website in the proposed article, but that can easily enough be requested at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist should the article become a reality. Anomie⚔ 16:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for that info Anomie. I will follow the steps you provided and write an article soon.  Evan (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The request was added to the COI noticeboard. Thanks again for your instruction and input.  Evan (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

skins.net
This URL was blacklisted in 2008 because it was associated with an overly promotional article by the company entitled "Skins Compression Garments": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=208662258#Skins_Compression_Garments There's now an impartial article on Skins (sportswear) which would benefit from having skins.net/index.aspx in the company infobox. There's also a page on the domain which outlines the scientific benefits of compression clothing in general as well as Skins, so this might be useful as a reference to the existing compression sportswear article: skins.net/why-skins/skins-science.aspx Erj501 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * to white-list specific URLs for specific articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

galerie-obadia.com
I believe this website should not be blocked by the Wikipedia spamlists. This gallery represent a number of prominent artists and Wikipedia articles about them can't be acurately updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.94.46.56 (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's blocked globally at Meta, if you want it removed you'll have to ask there. FYI, it appears to have been added in February 2011 after an IP user started adding it to articles on several different language editions of Wikipedia. Anomie⚔ 16:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

islandinkjet.com
This URL was blacklisted recently and the claim was due to spam. The blacklist was initiated immediately after I had added information referencing 3 notable companies on this wiki page (and the admin proceeded to delete the additions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ink_cartridge&diff=498894765&oldid=498892993is

I questioned the reason on his talk page and no reason was provided that related to the content itself. The reasoning provided was that he considered Island Ink-Jet spam. He then nominated Island Ink-Jet for deletion and placed the URL on the blacklist.

This is quite obviously a situation where the admin has been lazy in his NfD, deletions, and block due to not having reviewed articles on the subject matter. This can be seen by reviewing the current debate on the article for deletion page /Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Island_Ink-Jet where most are coming to the obvious conclusion that Island Ink-Jet is a notable and there is significant published material from reliable sources.

Unfortunately it was only though adding an external link on the NfD that provides a host of articles that aid in verifying notability that I noticed the url could not be saved as it had been blacklisted.: https://     www.islandinkjet.com/inthepress/

I request that you review (and comment) on the NfD. I urge you to review the url above highlighting some of the reliable sources that have reported on the subject. Pending a resolution of the NfD I request that the url is removed from the blacklist. This company's url should not have been placed on the spam list - it is notable and as most articles attest to - related significantly to pages dealing in printer consumables. At the very least this block is affecting our ability to discuss the NfD as many articles are hosted on the islandinkjet website.174.112.26.83 (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this user is affiliated with the company; the link was blacklisted after repeat spam attempts on Ink cartidge, Toner cartridge, and Stealth inflation.  . If Island Inkjet article is kept, a whitelisting is all that's necessary for that page; the link is not appropriate for any other pages per WP:RS. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is where I beg to differ. The addition of relevant, reliable and noteworthy subject matter to an article cannot be considered spam however this is what the admin is claiming.  The three companies cited in my most recent addition (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ink_cartridge&diff=498938678&oldid=498894765) were cited by Lyra Research as comprising 62% of the ink cartridge refill stores in North America as of 2006 (among dozens of reliable articles on the subject).  Clearly notable and clearly appropriate for pages such as Ink Cartridges which discuss the refill industry.  This is clearly not spam and stating it is is a personal opinion that is not based in fact and claiming that it is on pages such as this show clear lack of reviewing articles on the subject before pressing the delete button.207.112.18.250 (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
 * {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

! style="background-color: #efefef;" | Expand to see additional Alex Schulz/AHS HOLDINGS related domains


 * }
 * Accounts
 * Article
 * First, This request seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Guidelines such as External links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source are generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here:
 * islandinkjet.com Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * Is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy(#1,#4,#5,#11,#13)
 * Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * Additionally, External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote islandinkjet.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding links to islandinkjet.com and is considered  WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be islandinkjet.com related only. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for Citation spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is excluded.. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" .  Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote islandinkjet.com.--Hu12 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This statement is factually incorrect. I acknowledged when I was new to editing I improperly added external links however my most recent writing (and that by which resulted in the site being blacklisted) was neutral and contained no external links as is confirmed by: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ink_cartridge&diff=498894765&oldid=498892993is In effect, this is WP:Harassment against me as my edits are constantly being deleted based on a review of past history rather than an unbiased review of the content and references for said content.
 * Additionally, External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote islandinkjet.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding links to islandinkjet.com and is considered  WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be islandinkjet.com related only. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for Citation spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is excluded.. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" .  Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote islandinkjet.com.--Hu12 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This statement is factually incorrect. I acknowledged when I was new to editing I improperly added external links however my most recent writing (and that by which resulted in the site being blacklisted) was neutral and contained no external links as is confirmed by: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ink_cartridge&diff=498894765&oldid=498892993is In effect, this is WP:Harassment against me as my edits are constantly being deleted based on a review of past history rather than an unbiased review of the content and references for said content.


 * I am well aware of conflict of interest editing guidelines and as you say so yourself, it is strongly discouraged. It is not outlawed .  I also point out that my editing as proved above does not violate the WP:NPOV and is cited substantially by reliable sources from Government bodies, to newspapers such as the WSJ and independant research bodies such as Lyra Research.  These are not self-published materials and they are most definitely verifiable.


 * I also point out that this block is in itself a WP:COI as the article Island Ink-Jet cannot be updated with relevant WP:References and WP:Sources of which there are numerous articles that have been archived on the islandinkjet.com site under "/inthepress". In effect, this block is seeking to ensure articles from reliable sources are not mentioned on relevant pages within wikipedia.  This is a complete shame.207.112.18.250 (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What's a shame is that you won't stop trying to use Wikipedia to advertise for your company. As I already mentioned, if your article survives AFD, the whitelist is where'd you'd request an exception so that the link could be used on Island Inkjet only. There is absolutely no reason for it to be used anywhere else. Period. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure there is a reason - references and citations from islandinkjet.com cannot be added to articles. Note references and citations sections on Island Ink-Jet containing broken links due to the blacklist.


 * More importantly, the blacklist was added as a result of the previous poster's claim that references to Island Ink-Jet in relation to printer consumables were spam. The community has said otherwise and has rejected the same poster's Island Ink-Jet AfD nomination.  My writing should not have been considered spam which was also the basis for this blacklisting.  The site should be removed from the blacklist.174.112.26.83 (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong; your company's article only survived because the !vote result was "no consensus." The afd outcome has nothing to do with the inappropriateness of the links as applied to any other article. You spammed other articles (Ink cartridge, Stealth inflation, etc) with a link that clearly does not meet WP:Reliable sources using at least three different accounts. That's why it was blacklisted and will stay blacklisted. If you want to add the links to Island Inkjet, you're at the wrong board; go to the whitelist request board instead, where a provision can be made to allow that link at that article only. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Anonymous spammer: Examiner.com is notable enough to have an article, but is blacklisted as a reliable source. So are other entities. Just because you squeaked by an AfD with a no consensus (I wish I had noticed it so I could have added my delete argument) doesn't make you notable, reliable or any less spammy. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Island Ink-Jet article appears to already contain a hyperlink to the official page of the subject. Closed --Hu12 (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

examiner.com
I have come across several useful sources that I was unable to use because of this site being blacklisted. Why exactly has it been blacklisted? --Andomedium (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fails inclusion criteria. in addition;
 * Asside from past abuse, Examiner.com links have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * ""Examiners" are paid a very competitive rate based on standard Internet variables including page views, unique visitors, session length, and advertising performance. "
 * Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * --Hu12 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

idebate.org
To begin, I'm not in any way associated with iDebate. I was attempting to update the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Debate_Association to reflect the recently updated world university debate rankings. Those rankings are hosted only on iDebate. According to the ban log, people associated with iDebate were spamming links here shortly after its founding in 2007. It was at the time regarded as an unreliable and unimportant source. I can't speak to the spamming, but iDebate recently absorbed the other major sources for international collegiate-level debating news, and is now the premiere source of such information. I will request a whitelisting for my specific link if this request is denied, but I promise you, it will be difficult to write anything at all about university-level debate going forward without citing iDebate. All best. WoodpeckerSam (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * as premature for the time being. (You also posted this request in the wrong section, but now that it's declined, it's in the proper place.)
 * Please have a discussion about this site on WP:RSN and, if the consensus about this site is that it deserves to be linked on Wikipedia, and the community agrees with your assertion that multiple articles require references to this site, then post another de-listing request (this time in the proper section). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

FirstPersonShooters.net


\bfirstpersonshooters\.(?:net|org) # relentless spamming by site owner, promises to keep it up forever unless we protect the page.

What I said was that I would put it Back where it had been a link in good standing for years before someone removed it for no apparent reason. Furthermore, there has never been a definition of spam which encompasses placing a link to something in the place where it most appropriately belongs, which was Not unsolicited, which is Not commercial, contains No illegal material, etc. Also, FirstPersonShooters.org has never been part of this discussion, how did it manage to get banned? that just goes to show the complete lack of though applied to this issue. if someone would bother to go visit the site, you'll see just how much valuable information wikipedia is lacking in this area just because of this one unnecessary and unhelpful ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.73.124 (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2011
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2012
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. In addition, these sites are a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =

Clean up
As you may can see, the spam blacklist is extremely long and growing towards a size which is hard to overview by a human and which probably takes some time to apply (which happens on every edit). Due to that I wrote a script which takes the "easy" regular expressions and parses them back into domain names. Only those that either start with a \b or \. will be taken into account, cause otherwise the exact domain name which is blacklisted can't be extracted (as eg. foo\.com will match barfoo.com). Of course it only takes clear cases into account (the domain names can only contain 0-9, a-z or -, while the TLDs mustn't contain anything except of letters), furthermore all dots must be escaped. After it extracted those domain names, it checks with nslookup whether they still exist, if not, they will be removed from the spam blacklist (they will only be removed if nslookup returns NXDOMAIN, serv fails etc. are ignored). I've already did that with the global spam blacklist on meta twice (1, 2) and there haven't been any problems and none of the removed domains has been re added since.

So now I ran my script for the English Wikipedia, the new spam blacklist can be found here and the removed lines here. It would be great, if an administrator could apply the new list or I can do it myself, if there's consensus to do so. Feel free to per hand verify some of the removed lines using your systems nslookup, just your browser or the various whois sites out there - Hoo man (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm all for removing dead or outdated entries, especially since there is successful precedent already on meta. We'd just have to make sure the diff is reflected in the logfile. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's of course easily possible, as you seem to use the same format for logs as meta does. See the meta log entry for the first removal - Hoo man (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. I admit that I have no idea how this page works, but I trust you when you say it will work correctly ;) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Please notice [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diffonly=1&diff=496585352&oldid=496574697 this edit] made by me :) I'll log the change in a second - Hoo man (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've just noticed, that you use a different log style from what we use on meta (although you link to the meta help page). I've tried to do the "If you remove something from the blacklist, simply remove the relevant entry here." using a small shell script, but that doesn't work well either (especially cause cleaning out only the lines which have been removed results in a lot of left over trash). Any ideas? - Hoo man (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As there wasn't any reply, I used my list for logging now ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=496598127&oldid=496367416 diff]), it seems like that it didn't create much waste, feel free to revert, if you got a better idea or consider logging the removals, as we do it on meta a better idea - Hoo man (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The diff looks fine to me.
 * We also have a few entries that are redundant because they are already listed on meta. It would be nice to have a tool that locates matching entries between the two lists. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That's easily doable: double lines. I did that with the following short bash script: - Hoo man (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi!
 * Concerning the log: it is better not to remove the lines, but to add lines with a "removal" comment. Because otherwise it can be hard to find past discussions/reasons for blacklisting. However, in this case (NXDOMAIN, ...) the reasons for blacklistings won't help in future because the content of the website probably changes.
 * Redundant entries: I've written a perl script a few years ago that looks for redundant entries and checks against the meta blacklist. It tries to cope with some regexps characteristics, so it finds some more redundancy than just double entries. Presently it found around 65 redundant entries. I'll delete them within the next few days. -- seth (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * When I remove a blacklist entry, I just enclose the line in the log with strike-out tags . That retains the information but makes it clear that it's obsolete. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2012 (UT

How do I view the list?
I received a spam message in a recent edit. I was surprised, as the link in question seems to be pretty mainstream to me, www.cbronline.com

Normally I try to delve into this myself, but I'm stymied. I clicked on the links in this page (near the top) that claim to take me to the list of blacklisted sites, but instead found only a list of "B's", and no links to other lists. Nor did this page, or the assumed "C's" page, link to any history or such.

So, generally, how does one find the reason for a page being listed?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, you see that tab above titled "Interface page", right next to the Talk tab that you're viewing right now? If you go there, and search for the string "cbronline" you will find it. If you don't find it, then it's listed on the global meta blacklist at Spam-blacklist.


 * Now that you verified it's listed here and not there, you look at the log file linked at the top of the Interface page. This is a subpage (/log) under this talk page, or MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log in full. Search for "cbronline" there and you'll see that it was blacklisted in April 2010 due to an incident report at WikiProject Spam, specifically Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Apr 1.


 * From there you can see that cbronline.com was blocked due to its close association with cleantechnology-business-review.com. There is also a later discussion from last September in the archive of this talk page, at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2011 in answer to a question similar to that which you posted. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, formatting issue. Actually the log contains no information, atypically. Perhaps some sort of Search would make this simpler? One linked back to the spam message would be even better. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Message




Medicina Mexico I have been placed in charge of writing a new article for Medicina Mexico. I will be the only one doing this and I will make sure that there exists no spam, links outside of what is approved by WIkipedia. I can always be reached at. I am waiting for permission to write articles for Latin America Better Business Bureau and World Wide Pharmacy Association. As soon I granted permission I will leave a message here. I will also make sure that their exists no spam or links other than approved by Wikipedia. Thank you Samuel Samuelmeza (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)