MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008

= Proposed Additions =

Planet of Rock spam
General nuisance spam...


 * Domain:


 * Account:

Evidence of spamming:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Scar ian Call me Pat  00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ for now, have blocked the offending account. If another account or ip is used to spam, please report back. Thanks Scarian. --Hu12 (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Carbon Copy Pro 3
Guess who's back? This time, he's trying calling it "CC Pro" to try and escape detection.



URL
 * ccpro2008.wetpaint.com
 * ✅, I wonder how many of the wetpaint.com sites are doing the same thing..(ref--Hu12 (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)



URL Looks like he's switched homes:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 08:09, 13 Feb 2008
 * www.squidoo.com/CarbonCopyProleads


 * Thanks, ✅ & user blocked -- Herby talk thyme 11:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If they return, we might pursue a checkuser block. It's working against the Obaid Azam Azmi vanispamcruftisers. (And I thought squidoo was already blacklisted...) MER-C 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * squidoo.com is Bl'd, but just for subdomains, i've readjusted the regex accordingly--Hu12 (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Already tried Checkuser, I'm afraid. --Calton | Talk 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

He's back...


 * User name:
 * URL: carboncopypromoney1.wetpaint.com/

Any chance of putting wetpaint.com on the link-removal bot list?

--Calton | Talk 14:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Far to many links using wetpaint.com, I'll list the expression "carboncopypro", and we can adjust as needed. Please keep up the good work.--Hu12 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Man he does NOT give up:


 * User name:
 * URL: del.icio.us/carboncopypromlm

--Calton | Talk 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How about using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist or MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist? MER-C 05:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I've added MediaWiki_talk:Usernameblacklist first, if someone wants to double check before I add it.--Hu12 (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Amazon.com referral spam
This spam gets added to articles about academic testing every few days. User was warned here about spamming by administrator User:Hu12 on 13 Feb, but the spamming has continued.

Blocking the IP addresses won't help because (a) the incidents are infrequent; (b) legitimate edits have occurred from those addresses; (c) different IP addresses are involved, although it's primarily 62.3.32.54.


 * Accounts


 * URLs
 * amazon.com/gp/redirect.html
 * With or without 'www'
 * There's no reason to use this URL except to disguise a referral spam link.
 * rcm.amazon.com/cm?t=
 * The part after the "t=" is the associate account ID. Used for associate referral links, probably just rcm.amazon.com is needed. I haven't seen this one on Wikipedia yet, but I'm an Amazon associate and that's what my links would look like, if I wanted to add my linkspam.
 * amazon.com/.*&tag=
 * With or without 'www'
 * The "tag=" string indicates an amazon associate who gets paid if someone buys something after clicking on the link. I'm assuming the blacklist uses something like egrep, so .* is a wildcard for "any characters".

=Axlq 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence of spamming
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Thanks for making the url regex easy. Agree with the rationale, consider this ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Maybe now the spammer will use tinyurl.com tricks (if that isn't already blocked, it should be). By the way, how come some patterns in the list are enclosed by \b...\b and some aren't? =Axlq 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is one of the referral links that I wanted to ban the most! Good work getting the regexps! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * \b indicates a word break, i.e. if there are letters or numbers on the other side, it won't match. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What about punctuation? If the blacklist contains \bamazon\.com will it still match www.amazon.com because there is a period, not a letter or number, before 'amazon'? =Axlq 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * . (a period) is a word break.. foobaramazon.com won't match, but www.amazon.com will. -- Versa  geek  20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

smarter.frih.net
IP user keeps adding these links to this site, which has classic science fiction stories with no indication whatsoever that they are licensed to appear there; when reverted, he/she calls reverting editors "ignorants"!


 * Accounts


 * Evidence of spamming
 * 
 * 
 * and all other edits by this IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 February 2008

Adsense pub-1118213816215986 --Hu12 (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅, no content on the pages but adsense and links back to wikipedia and fantasticfiction.co.uk--Hu12 (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Did you even bother to check the links? For instance the Asimov page has links for 2 stories: "Profession" on abelard.com and "Gold" on webscription.net Since when someone should prove he is not guilty? The site is useful for it has more than 400 links to online fiction legally published by tens of websites like gutenberg.org, scifi.com, webscription.net, baen.com, infinityplus.co.uk, strangehorizons.com, authors' own websites, etc. That's why I call those who throw the stone WITHOUT BOTHERING TO CHECK THE ACCUSATIONS FIRST as being ignorants! (UNSCRAMBLER (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC))

wwesuperstars.org
Multiple IP's (whom I suspect are the same person since they are so similar) and a regular user (who I can't find at the moment) continue adding this site to wrestling related articles even after being warned. Here are some examples:, ,.  TJ   Spyke   09:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the full list, dozens of articles being spammed by different users: WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/wwesuperstars.org.  TJ   Spyke   02:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed & ✅, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 10:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

codeuu.com
Editor attempting to avoid detection by use of throwaway accounts. See WikiProject Spam report permanent link. I have posted over at WikiProject Computer Science in case an established editor there objects. -- SiobhanHansa 19:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is not a good idea.this site is same as wikipedia.everyone can edit. Maybe some of its content is not good,you can ask the webmaster of this site to remove the content,if you remove it,we can not access this good site again.just like wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill14341 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ thanks - can always be removed if an established editor has valid reasons -- Herby talk thyme 10:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

oink.pytalhost.com
Domain: oink.pytalhost.com (pytalhost.com is a domain name registar and host)

Account:

Prior discussion:
 * I came across the situation at WP:ANI#User:Phantomia on Oink's Pink Palace, where was inserting external links to his personal web-site that may or may not be related to Oink. Per WP:EL, I removed the web-sites under 4.1.1, 4.1.4, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 4.1.12.
 * I figured that it was a personal web-site or web-site totally unaffilated with Oink, as the oink.me.uk original web-site contradicts the spam links assertions.
 * was blocked for 24h for repeated inclusions of spam links and 3RR.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, i didn't add the pytalhost.com link. I removed it. Or do i miss something? --Zache (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I checked at the wrong contrib. history for that.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * clear abuse, low value link, popups and other Links normally to be avoided criteria met. ✅ thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Would like to extend this to //oinky.6x, a reincarination of the previously mentioned web-site. has been requested for a block, and the page has been put at RPP.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The url does not resolve?--Hu12 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, oinky.6x.to ✅--Hu12 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is getting old: oink.dr.ag. I requested RPP at one point but was removed almost immediately. seicer  |  talk  |  contribs  02:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

internetisseriousbusiness.com
This page flies around the screen and shows numerous successive pop-ups when you try to navigate away from it. Thanks, George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help and assistance 20:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence that this was spammed? MER-C 01:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It was used on the help desk to deliberately mislead and annoy users. I have posted it here upon the advice of Hersfold.  Thanks, George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help and assistance 17:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅Added to blacklist, user who recently added it blocked, removed all links to it. Woody (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

gov-certificates.co.uk
This site is a copyright violating Wikipedia remote loader mirror (see Mirrors_and_forks/Ghi and ), and has been for some time, and it has also been spammed on Wikipedia (eg ) and even used inadvertently. This site simply has no place on Wikipedia. Perhaps it should be blacklisted at meta. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

partenovcfd.com


Block evading spammer, spammed today after was blocked twice for exactly that. See WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 12:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

tangeroiseimmobilier.com


A real estate company in Tangier. They keep adding their link to the Tangier page from different IP addresses. User:Khalid hassani has indicated on the Revision history of Tangier, on 25 Feb. 2008, that they are also spamming the French Wikipedia. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I added this at the bottom of the page yesterday, instead of here. They've just added their link to the Tangier page for a fourth time. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They've just added their link to the Tangier page a fifth time. --RenniePet (talk) 09:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accounts

✅--Hu12 (talk) 10:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

herbalcurepedia.com spam on Wikipedia
Previously deferred to XLinkBot: Still spamming today with a new IP:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Feb 1


 * Domain:


 * Other accounts:

Time to blacklist. -- A. B. (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

bobfinnan.com
This site was extensively linked by its owner,, and post removal there has been reversion by among others. I've blacklisted it for now to prevent further abuse. Can be reviewed in a couple of months, I guess. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

www.craigslistinformation.com
has been added to the Craigslist article about once a week or so.


 * 


 * 


 * 

Thanks! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry this seems to have been missed. Is it just teh one IP adding it & is it still happening?  Personally I'd go for a block next time (if that is the case) and then list after than (feel free to nudge me on my talk page for the block if you want) -- Herby  talk thyme 12:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing recent, --Hu12 (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Backgammon spam
Every edit by has been to add either backgammons.artprom.biz or artprom.biz to Backgammon. (The first version of the site is in English, the second in Russian.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed up to a point. However with only that number of edits let's try other methods first.  I've blocked for 48 hours.  Let's see if it springs up from another IP/or after the block and then look at this.  Hope that is ok & thanks for picking it up, cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I thought blacklisting was more to the point because the site is blatantly commercial with no useful content. I doubt that a short block will have much effect because it's used so infrequently and the user was only up to a third warning. But, however you want to handle it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cross-wiki spam:
 * ru:Служебная:Contributions/82.211.176.12
 * -- A. B. (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No apparent continued spamming, I'll mark this as --Hu12 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

webmasters.am
I am proposing that the URL www.webmasters.am be added to the spam black list. This link is posted anonymously from various IP addresses:

And posted on various topics: (diff) (diff) (diff)
 * Internet Information Services‎

(diff)
 * JScript .NET‎

(diff) (diff) (diff)
 * VBScript

(diff) (diff) (diff) (diff) (diff) (diff)
 * Active_Server_Pages

These are all links that fall in to the EL category # 11. Usually the edits are made on the same day within minutes of each other.

The user has also been active in removing these links. Christopher G Lewis (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * --Hu12 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No activity --Hu12 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No activity --Hu12 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Regexp for penisenlarge
As would be expected, the penis enlargement article gets its share of linkspam. and, for example, have been repeatedly blocked for linkspamming (also see spam blacklist report on User Talk:125.209.115.132). Every so often this user comes back and adds variations of a domain name that contain the string "penisenlargement", such as penisenlargementss.com and penisenlargementy.com.

Example diffs of spam:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

I suggest we add a general purpose regexp to this blacklist, something like. That would pre-emptively take care of future "contributions" of linkspam to that article. I'm assuming egrep pattern matching here; not sure what's actually being used.

Keeping in mind the debate below about blogspot, we should of course avoid casting too wide a net. A regexp matching simply "penis" may be a bit too broad, but I think "penisenlarg" is almost guaranteed to be spam. =Axlq (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: Well, one can't get them all. Another user just got a permanent ban for spamming the article with enlargementpills.be. Is there a way to make this blacklist context-sensitive; that is, block certain domains from being added to specific articles? =Axlq (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Update again: After seeing another incident, I moved this section from discussion section below to this proposal section. =Axlq 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't selectively block sites from articles. I think blocking spammers would be better here. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets try both. Take for instance the theory of gravity, we can choose to ignore $F = \frac{G m_1 m_2}{r^2}$ . Its not useful in all circumstances, nor remotely necessary in most circumstances - but we should not ignore gravity. Watchlist the penis related articles, and we'll test for a week. Obviously there is abuse associated with specific site above. This regex appears to skirt the Scunthorpe Problem, but if this occures it can be easily and quickly reverted in the event of any false positives. It shouldn't trigger on URLs having just the word "penis" or "enlarge" in them, it should trigger only if both strings are present. ✅ a little Viagra for Wikipedia--Hu12 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

sarilocker.com
Being spammed since December at least by throwaway accounts - so warning messages not particularly useful.




 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
 * Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.

-- SiobhanHansa 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, ✅ thanks for the report SiobhanHansa--Hu12 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * related vandal account --Hu12 (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

surgery.org

 * plasticsurgery.org
 * injectablesafety.org


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jan_1


 * Accounts

→American Society For Aesthetic Plastic Surgery --Hu12 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Persistent, switching accounts, warned etc etc - ✅ -- Herby talk thyme 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

www.premature-ejaculation-selfhelp.com

 * www.premature-ejaculation-selfhelp.com

Repeated addition of link in Premature ejaculation by anonymous editors.

  

--William Avery (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. thanks William --Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

cdaclass.org
Spammed on the child care related articles, semi-protection won't work because editor is now using throwaway registered accounts.


 * all edits. Warning left.
 * all edits. Warning left.
 * all edits.
 * all edits. Warning left.
 * edits on September 09 2007.

-- SiobhanHansa 03:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

www.peselfhelp.com

 * www.peselfhelp.com

(Seems to be the same folks as www.premature-ejaculation-selfhelp.com)

Repeated addition of commercial links in Premature ejaculation by anonymous editors.

   

William Avery (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A bit "premature" with the reporting ) & equally it got listed quite suddenly! ✅ & thanks for picking it up -- Herby  talk thyme 15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

freeforums.org


Wide spread mixed spamming of these low value, low membership freely hosted chat forums. I'm not convinced these could ever meet Wikipedias inclusion criteria. Not only are forums Links normally to be avoided, they fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

was: a c democracy dot org

starmometer.com
This is a blog; spamming in favor of this site has stepped up in recent weeks. Examples: by User:Onemigs,  by User:Starmometer,   by User:Tlkforever (talk). -- Howard  the   Duck  14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree ✅, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

associatedcontent.com
(Originally posted this request at meta, but got deferred back here.)

See discussion at:
 * en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam
 * en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Sep
 * en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul
 * Associated Content, Performance Bonus Program and Payment

For comparison to the suite101.com case, which is essentially the same problem:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/12

Most recent discussion at the admin's noticeboard shows a clear consensus to blacklist this site. Essentially, the problem is that anyone is allowed to post their own articles there, with no editorial oversight. Additionally, authors there get paid by the pageview, so there's a clear incentive to spam links to them. At current count, there are 731 links on en.wikipedia, 13 on fr, 7 on de, and I haven't exhausted my searching options yet.

We've dealt with this site in the past, and removing the links just resulted in even more showing up. Once we have this under control, we can deal with removing the existing links. (Likely the only page that we should allow to keep a link there would be Associated Content (and other language versions, of course).) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Associated Content links:
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * 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) 15:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Perry Bible Fellowship has an interview with the author on the associated content and the page can't be edited until the link is removed. However the link in question is used to support a statement about the comic. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be ok to edit now.--Hu12 (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

debatepedia.org
This is a redirect to the wiki at a previously blacklisted site idebate.org (Original Wikiproject spam report). -- SiobhanHansa 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

andrewprokos.com
This is a commercial photography site, with the site owner clearly wanting to sell his photos. This site does not meet the external links guidelines, and he has been told so. Nonetheless, the site owner (presumabely) keeps re-adding the link. I spotted this back in July, when new user was adding them. I warned him about this at that time, though he recently blanked my message and continues to spam. 

The link has been repeatedly spammed on numerous pages about landmarks, neighborhoods, and places in NYC and DC. He adds the link in a sneaky manner, with a false or misleading edit summary. See here as an example diff of how these links were added. His edit summary was "added architectural landmarks", with the edit including an additional sentence. However, he always also sneaks in his link with the edit (under a false edit summary). That edit was back in July, and I had reverted it then.

This morning I found the link again on a page, and saw the link had been re-added on numerous other pages. Looking at the edit history of that page, I see it was re-added shortly after I took it out, by a new user. (a sock) This time, his edit summary was "notable buldings - grammatical error". In reality, his edit had nothing to do with any grammatical errors or notable buildings. He simply re-added the link and apparently continues to do this as recently as last week. -

I took out approximately a dozen of these links today, on various pages about NYC and DC. Since he continues to add the link, do so in a sneaky manner, and will use socks to so, the best course of action is to add the link to the spam blacklist. As an admin, I could add it myself, but an independent admin (whoever maintains this page) should do it. --Aude (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * - MER-C 07:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - interesting method & so ✅, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 09:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

entrainbow.com
Holiday-card related, promotional. At first I thought these links were only being spammed from 61.0.137.*, so I thought a /24 rangeblock might do the trick. However, a link search indicates that the range is wider than that. Activity usually heats up before a holiday (Easter and Easter bunny in this case). OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. ✅ too broad for a block, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. ✅ too broad for a block, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Iahead Technologies spam on Wikipedia

 * Domains spammed to Wikipedia:
 * Google Adsense ID: 8875816474869484
 * Google Adsense ID: 8875816474869484


 * Google Adsense ID: 8875816474869484
 * Google Adsense ID: 8875816474869484


 * Google Adsense ID: 6626036070259347
 * Google Adsense ID: 6626036070259347
 * Google Adsense ID: 6626036070259347
 * Google Adsense ID: 6626036070259347
 * Google Adsense ID: 6626036070259347


 * Content deleted as inappropriate:
 * Jeqq
 * Articles for deletion/Jeqq
 * [[Image:Error!.PNG]]
 * Errorforum


 * Accounts:

There appear to be dozens more: -- A. B. (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some related domains:


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Earthly Green Enterprises: Shaklee spam on Wikipedia

 * Domain:

-- A. B. (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Spam accounts:


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

petitiononline.com
I had used one of this website's petitions in the article Wizards (film) as a citation for the fact that the petition had gotten the film released on DVD. This fact has been verified by the director both in interviews and on the film's DVD release. It should be linked in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Linking to the petition itself isn't a suitable source as verification (since the mere existence of the petition is not verification that the petition is the reason for the release). The interviews of the director in which s/he confirms that the petition is what prompted them to release on DVD is a much more appropriate source.  Can they not be cited instead?  -- SiobhanHansa 14:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They are cited, but I feel that it is important to also cite the petition itself. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Not a reason to delist the whole domain --Hu12 (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

quasimodobell.com
I am contributor to this site. There are about a lot of people working in this site for free. It contains data that can not be found elsewhere. We have covers for lps for every country and accurate catalog numbers for record collectors that we collect personally. Our discography material is unique and rare not for every artist/group we have but for the most. We only add links to wiki when our link provides info that is worth noticing and only with relevant material. Every music fan who knows about recording industry can appreciate that our info is sometimes great. And of course all is free. No copyright laws are broken. We dont give downloads, we dont sell anything illegal. We understand that we may added too many links too soon. We feel they are worth it but if we are creating any trouble we will stop it or minimize it. Please consider our case. Thank you. Andreas Xantzis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreasxatzis (talk • contribs) 11:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've see a lot of spamming cases, but I have yet to see one at this extreme level, using 228 sock accounts (including requestors) spread ove 300+ articles (now cleaned). Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam --Hu12 (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that several related domains were missed earlier:


 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Other domains were subsequently removed from this listing based on further discussion. -- A. B. (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Other domains were subsequently removed from this listing based on further discussion. -- A. B. (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are links to the relevant rules about this sort of thing:
 * Conflict of Interest Guideline
 * External links Guideline
 * Spam Guideline
 * "What Wikipedia is not" Policy, especially these sections:
 * "Wikipedia is not a soapbox"
 * "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"
 * Business' FAQ


 * You were provided with links to these policies and guidelines in the warnings some of your accounts were given.


 * 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 encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.


 * Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.


 * Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting here, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. We do not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative.


 * -- A. B. (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint about inaccurate report
I received the following comment on my talk page; I have copied it here along with my first, brief response:


 * Dear Sir, I am representing a Greek company that create quasimodobell.com I was asked by my client to review your answer about his proposal to remove his from wiki black list today, and also i was informed that you mentioned other sites we created in your post.''


 * First. I do not own quasimodobell. My client does, I only created it. I do not own all the other sites you mention except my company domain and two more that absolutely nothing to do with quawsimodobell. I dont/cant tell my customer how to use his website. I dont post in wikipedia. I never did and i am not interested in. You refer to my company site and other sites we have created in your answer. You also give some google adsense ID. Different from those in quasimodobell ownen by different people. What are you doing???? If the owner of quasimodobell is spamming or doing anything you dont agree with, resolve it with him. His email and contact information can be found in his site. You dont want him posting in wiki? Did he spam? Then add him to your blacklist. Whats the point of reffering to other sites we have created for our customers and our company sites. Do you understand that you are attacking different persons? You refer to a greel blog, a greek web design company, a blog with nothing to do with quasimodobell, a greek classifileds website and a internet niche directory. Did this sites spam wikipedia? Did you find any link or post in wikipedia to this websites? Absolutely not. Please remove all our links and references that have nothing to do with wikipedia COMPLETELY before we have to take legal actions against you personally.


 * Starfish.gr PK. 
 *  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.250.225 (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 


 * Dear PK:
 * I am very concerned about your comments and want to make sure I've done the right thing. Please understand that we get comments all the time from not-so-innocent spammers insisting they did not spam or that their domains were not related. At the same time, we also make mistakes. When everyone is using pseudonyms or anonymous IPs, it's often difficult to sort out these claims.


 * I am copying your response to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist in order to get additional opinions there and have others review my actions. I will respond further to your comments there.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I take these comments seriously and I will investigate this and respond further today or tomorrow when I have better computer access. In the meantime, I would ask that before anyone blocks this user per our No legal threats policy, I suggest they also read the "Don't overlook legal threats" essay:
 * "When newcomers make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before wielding a banhammer."

I think it's quite possible that the "possibly related" domains above may not be owned by the spammer; that's why I marked them as "possibly" related. I also think that the other domains I cited are definitely closely related based on the links I posted as footnotes above; I will repeat them here:
 * http://www.aboutus.org/quasimodobell.com
 * http://groups.google.com/group/alt.internet.search-engines/browse_thread/thread/74d6cd428b007f74/7047dd98c942f0cb#7047dd98c942f0cb
 * http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=nEzMvxEAAADriA6elXJnq57ujDtDH4ZCkdEasx1kiYTQavV7mdW13Q
 * http://groups.google.com/group/google-co-op/browse_thread/thread/1fa09a02c128172b/c7ad04daae5294db#c7ad04daae5294db
 * http://groups.google.com/group/Google_Webmaster_Help-Indexing/browse_thread/thread/298b9bf05a57f9b4/602f8c3780090a7a?lnk=gst&q=#602f8c3780090a7a
 * http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?show=more&enc_user=hlVBoDEAAAC0ZCEBAysSlShC_gPAdXUZnEMetPjOHWvH2w497mQTWwWaV44w5J1KZQLg616zpW077j2jf7J8ZFK392Ir2mQh&group=all

In the meantime, I ask that others not block or sanction the IP above. -- A. B. (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I will post one more comment here about this subject because I am very concerned with it and furthermore I dont think you read my post carefully. Here is how it goes. 1. I do not own quasimodobell.com. I created it for a customer of mine. Before me it was created by a company named araneous. That explains the first link. Contact the website or search the net. You will clearly find the owner name. 2. I dont ask you to not-ban quasimodobell. If they spammed wikipedia do as you must. 3. As quasimodobell was created by me, my client asked me how to raise his traffic. Thats why i posted with my name visible, questions in google groups to help him. If I wanted spam advice I wouldnt use my real name and I would definetely not use google groups. 4. What my client does with his site is not my responisibility. You cant blaim all my other sites and customers because of his actions. If any other site of mine is found responsible for spamming then ok, but there isn't one. The only clue you have is the link from quasimodobell that points to my company. So What??? It is not a secret. You are not the Internet police and you are not responsible for saving the net from spammers. You do your work for wiki and if someone spams wiki then act accordingly. The only relation between the websites you mention is that they were created by me. But I dont own them all. I own finditgr coopdircom but thats not a secret either. Ban the website/ip/user that did the spamming. 5. Right now sites that I own, and my customers own are mentioned in wikipedia as related to spammers. Do you understand that you are accusing different people and companies for the actions of a specific person? You work for wikipedia, so ban-delete-attack anyone who attacks wikipedia. If you find a website that spams, that was created by a company that has created 2000 other websites will you accuse all these 2000 websites???? We are a small company and maybe that why you did what you did. If we were huge you wouldn't. But we will stand for our legal rights and for our customers rights too. Resolve this matter as soon as possible. And please read my post carefully. Starfish PK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.250.225 (talk) 09:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion of other domains was subsequently removed from this listing based. For earlier version of this discussion, see [ . -- A. B. (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, can you point us towards the relevant domain registration entries? Thanks.

https://grweb.ics.forth.gr/Whois?lang=en In this link you can whois all Greek domains (.gr). It is in English.

quasimodobell.com, other .com are from register.com You will also see that quasimodobell is not even hosted in the same servers as my sites.


 * I note that this spam campaign extended from mid-2006 through 2008 which includes the time period when you were promoting this site. Your IP traceroutes to the Democritus University of Thrace, which was also a source of quasimodobell promotion.

My promotion for quasimodobell was clearly about giving advice for legitimate link building. Thats why i asked in google groups. I only gave them ideas with what to do and corrected the mistakes in their code for better seo. It is very possible to find IP's from Democritus Univercity because members of quasimodobell team are students there, and because there is free internet access with good bandwidth inside the campus. I have worked there from time to time. I created their websites. Will you add a whole University to your spammers list now?


 * As for your concern that we presume to be some sort of Internet spam police, the answer is that we don't. We just act to protect our own site. This blacklist covers the English Wikipedia only. Another blacklist covers all Wikimedia and many MediaWiki wikis; your links were not reported there since we did not find any evidence of link-spamming to other Wikimedia wikis.

You probably dont understand the influence wikipedia has. If you refer to my company as spammer you are causing me a great loss. The words "propably related" is not covering your actions. Either you have real proof and you are ready to defend your suggestion or you dont mention it. If I found your last name to be the same with a serial killer and wrote "propably related" on wikipedia would you find it serious or not?


 * As for "working for" Wikipedia, I'm just a volunteer.


 * -- A. B. (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed mention of these other domains from the discussion. Thanks for your patience and help and I apologize for my mistake. -- A. B. (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Clear evidence of abuse. we all are volunteers here at Wikipedia. Closing as --Hu12 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

insomnia.ac
When I tried to add a review article about ketsui as reference, I was informed it was a spam site. Last time I checked, it is a legitimate video game review site. Why was it entered spam list in the first place? The whole idea of the spambot list simply isn't working, because spammer would just move target, while innocent people who happened to inherit spammer's domains will suffer. Jacob Poon 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The owner of the site added links to it to many VG-related articles, which was done in good faith, but it seems somebody thought it was not.see this, this and this. - Master Bigode from SRK.o// (Talk) (Contribs) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * see  for now--Hu12 (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

paleontex.net.tf
I own, and am the sole contributor to, this website. It contains no content that could be seen as blacklist material and I will only use it on my own user page unless somebody requests otherwise. Thanks, George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help and assistance 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is early so maybe it's me but I can't see that it is blacklisted here? -- Herby talk thyme 08:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's other domain's freewebs.com/dendodge, is that blacklisted? I've not got time to check.  Thanks, George D. Watson  (Dendodge). Talk Help and assistance 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok.. I guess my time is short too so I'm not sure how to deal with this. You requested a removal & gave a reason & it is not blacklisted.  Please see what the issues is with the other site & let us know why that one should be removed, thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

sarilocker.com
Please unlist this domain. It will be used only as an external link under the "External Link" heading in relevant and meaningful ways, such as an external link on the Sex Education page, or when linking to articles contained on the site the provide more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fran510231 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear evidence of abuse, along with vandalism to this page. - . Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.--Hu12 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

smarter.frih.net
This site is a collection of links to legally published online Science Fiction. It is useful because it gathers in one place all known free online SF works (over a 1000 and the number is growing) from tens of more or less specialized websites such as gutenberg.org, webscription.net, baen.com, scifi.com, infinityplus.co.uk, strangehorizons.com, eidolon.net, etc. and authors' own websites. The accusations of copyright concerns are completely unfounded. No content is stored at the site and all links are to free online science fiction (free as in having copyright owner's consent). Let's take the example of Isaac Asimov. Right now there are online 2 stories: "Profession" at abelard.com and "Gold" at webscription.net. If someone bothered to check the links, he would have seen the copyright notices at those websites. They have the right to make those stories freely available to anyone. (UNSCRAMBLER (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC))
 * The listing (request here) looks perfectly valid to me. My concern is not just about content but also about the fact that the IP who placed the links completely ignored the fact that they were not required by the community (& were rude about it as well) -- Herby talk thyme 09:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "not required by the community"!? For me it seems a requirement for an author's page to have a link to the works of that author (if they are legally available, of course). I think that for a Wikipedia user it doesn't matter what kind of person the contributor is but it does matter if he/she finds the contribution useful. As an avid science fiction reader I find this type of links as being very useful. (UNSCRAMBLER (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC))
 * The listing request was perfectly valid. It would seem some in addition to multiple IP spamming some of the additions, are link vandalism such as . edit summaries such as "for the ignorants: check things first before crying copyright", would indicate that the requestor is one and the same "That's why I call those who throw the stone WITHOUT BOTHERING TO CHECK THE ACCUSATIONS FIRST as being ignorants! ". Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available.--Hu12 (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Of course I am both the editor and the requestor. Who claimed otherwise? And if someone wrongly accuses me of breaking a law (copyright in this case) what I am supposed to think about him/her?
 * 2) Again unfounded accusations: after ludicrous copyright infringement accusations now it's link vandalism! Let's take them one by one:
 * - that's replacing an informative link with a more complete one. freesfonline.de is a good site but in this case (Asimov) as in several others their page is less complete/informative than the new link (more stories)
 * - same as above
 * - exactly the same as the first one
 * - that's removing a commercial link with no relevance to the subject!
 * - same as the first
 * 3) I thought Wikipedia was about information not about easily-offended self-righteous editors! For people like you I will always be guilty as charged without ever bothering to check the accusations just because you don't like the way I talk! (UNSCRAMBLER (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is excluded.. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site. Thank you for your time.--Hu12 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

opticsplanet.net
Please unlist opticsplanet.net The site is the largest specialized source for astronomy, hunting, and other optical products and has a ton of unique content that wikipedia users can link to and visit from the "External Link" in relevant and meaningful way. No spamming has been intended and no commercials/advertising content - just unique How to's and explanations. The list of some of the articles is here (space is added before .net to be able to insert the link with examples) http://www.opticsplanet .net/howto.html and here are a few specific examples http://www.opticsplanet .net/riflescope-glossary.html http://www.opticsplanet .net/secure-scope-mounting-system.html (Pshvarts (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)).
 * Not listed here, --Hu12 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

petitiononline.com
Why is petitiononline.com blocked? Please unlist. 89.54.154.208 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

asociacionjacob52.com
Hello, this link is in the black list because of my fault, when i was a newbie i started including it everywhere. It's been a year and a half, and i'm now quite a best contributor in es:, and the link is now only where it belongs. So i request the removal from the list. Thanks, Gons (¿Digame?) 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC).


 * This site has been blocked at meta so cannot be unblocked here. you'll need to make your request there. -- SiobhanHansa 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ups, thanks, Gons (¿Digame?) 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gons (talk • contribs)

letterwhiz.com
I own letterwhiz.com and am requesting that it be removed from the blacklist, what steps must I take to have it removed. -- Jasen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.151.128 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The domain was involved in a significant case of abusive linking at the beginning of the year (see: this report). Typically, we don't remove domains that have been spammed from the blacklist in response to requests from site owners. 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. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an established editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated to be be important for furthering our encyclopedic mission. -- SiobhanHansa 13:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

hotrails.co.uk
This site was added to the external links on the "Blue Oyster Cult" page, AFTER the official site links. It's a large site, and has been online 5 years. It is an ongoing attempt to document the career of Blue Oyster Cult, and has hundreds of contributors - including current and ex-members of Blue Oyster Cult THEMSELVES and their roadcrew!!

It contains lists of gigs and setlists and reviews completely unavailable anywhere else. The site is unique - it's completely ad-free and no mailing lists are involved. Yet Wiki have blacklisted it as "spam". Needless to say, I disagree, and would like this decision to be reviewed.

The official sites you DO list are by and large pretty useless as founts of BOC knowledge - take the "www.julesradino.com" link you have there - yes, it's "official" but do you come away - after perusing it - with one iota of info on the band? I'll save you the trouble - no, you don't. Have a look at my interview with the BOC drummer at this url:

[Please note, I can't put the actual link here as it won't let me save the page when I do - because of course it is "spam" - please append the following to the url domain mentioned above "/blueskybag/albertbouchard/050212.htm"

The drummer himself said it's the most in-depth interview he's EVER done... it forms the basis for the new section on the site dealing with the band's history from 1967 to 1971 - NOBODY else is doing this. I have tons of emails from visitors who say this is the BEST, most informative BOC site anywhere, yet you say it is SPAM.

Have a look at the BOC history page - for say - 1980 here:

Again, I'm not allowed to put the URL so append the following to the basic site domain: "/history/1980.htm"

This sort of thing is NOT available ANYWHERE else. Yet, apparently, it's SPAM...

By trying to add the link to the Wiki BOC article, I'm attempting to promote a site that not only the average BOC fan will find very useful but also I'm trying to reach the "casual" BOC fans to try and get THEIR contributions to the ongoing BOC story... it's a socially-motivated documentary project - it'll never be complete but along the way, it'll become the most comprehensive encyclopaedic repository of publicly accessible information and opinion on this band that it is possible to get... If that's SPAM to you, then to misquote Dr Seuss, spam I am.....

PS: If I've failed to observe the correct protocols with this submission, please accept my apologies... DuckBarman (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Particularly concerning (asside from the obvious evidence of abuse) is the clear documented threats to continue disruprition wikipedia by spamming (threat was made in the article space) "keep deleting the link if you want, we'll keep adding it..". In addition, this site is an unofficial fansite which is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.


 * We do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in supports of our encyclopedia pages. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available.--Hu12 (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - as such many links are not relevant. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site for that reason too. -- Herby  talk thyme 13:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * > clear documented threats to continue disruprition


 * I've never knowingly "disruprited" anyone or anything in my life! Some months back when I first  added the link, it got removed each time within an hour -  a fellow fan added it again, and finally it stayed for a fair while.  Then when I checked again yesterday, it was gone again.  Hence I thought it was a case of someone deleting my post again because it "wasn't official" or whatever...


 * So - the main argument - if I understand it correctly - is that the site in question is an "unofficial fan site" and therefore is a site to be avoided... I've just read your 15 bullet points under the heading of links to be avoided and the first one - about a "site that does not provide a unique resource" would clearly seem to be relevant.  Have a look at it if you have a minute, but maybe you need to be a BOC fan to understand why it's different...


 * > Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site for that reason too


 * The external links would seem to be at odds with this philosophy - if anyone adds an external link, then isn't that "promoting" that link and should therefore be removed? Looking at those external links which  you DO allow - they are mostly the "official" sanctioned sites by the band members themselves.  No other sites are listed there.  Can you tell me why THEY are more relevant  to an encyclopaedia -promoting as they do, the current careers of those members in most cases - and in one of them, you have to pay $50 to join!! - whereas the Hot Rails site is all about documenting the past career and plotting it against a set timeline?  No axe to grind, no adverts or mailing lists or anything - just the facts told by the people who were there...


 * Go to the official CBS/Sony site - and similar sources - and look at the sanitised links they provide there - just like the Wiki page, you get the same "official" - sanctioned - links...


 * I'm not sure how USEFUL this is to a BOC fan who wants to find out more about the band's history, but I suppose THAT must be what you want, and - consequently - my idea of what constitutes a legitimate encyclopaedic resource must differ wildly from yourselves... 82.38.141.32 (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A good reference is black listed
this page is blacklisted: *http:// education. stateuniversity. com/ pages/ 2338/ Prosser-Charles-1871-1952.html - added spaces so it will save here. Why is it black listed? It is a good reference for artcile Charles Allen Prossor. Is there anything that can be done about this?Cool10191 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the discussion area. That article does not exist, if its created and you would like it to be used as a reference --Hu12 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A good reference is blacklisted
http: / /transportationhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/louis_bleriot is blacklisted, and I was trying to use it as a reference. I don't see any possible reason it could spam the website, and I believe it is a legitimate web site for research. STYROFOAM1994 talkReview me! 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think it could be used as a reference --Hu12 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Vuze.com
Vuze.com was added to the blacklist as spam on the articles Vuze, Vuze, Inc., and Azureus, Inc. This is rather nonsensical, as Vuze.com is Vuze Inc., is the company that develops Vuze, and is the new name of Azureus, Inc. We have a domain blacklisted for being used in articles about its owner. It's like blacklisting apple.com for being used on iPod. There seems to have been a handful of attempts to link to a specific video on the service, but we'd have to blacklist half the web if that were the standard. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 18:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've whitelisted the homepage and have added it to those articles . Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

VBS.tv
I have tried to add a link to VBS.TV on the Vice Magazine page, as they are affiliated with the mag. However, the site appears to be blacklisted. I can see that a user VBS.tv has added links to several related pages which have since been reverted, is this the basis for it? If so, I would argue that, although specific content/deep links may not be notable enough to merit inclusion on related pages, the VBS.tv website is significant enough by itself to merit links to the homepage when discussed in relation to Vice Magazine or its impact on IPTV. For that reason, I think it should at least deserve consideration for the whitelist. Thedregs (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008--Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

artericerca.com
Trying to update a spelling mistake on Antonio Visentini, I couldn't complete the action because artericerca.com was blacklisted. Having a look at it, I can't see why: it looks like a good-quality Italian-language resource on painters. Dsp13 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * . Foreign-language links are Links normally to be avoided. It appears this was listed on the meta blacklist. I've removed the offending link so you can edit. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Foreign-language links are certainly not mentioned at WP:LINKSTOAVOID. English links are preferred when available, but there's certainly nothing categorically wrong with foreign sources. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LINKSTOAVOID. The blacklisting is a meta issue and the editing problem reported is resolved.--Hu12 (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

aerobaticteams.net
Hello, My name is Alexander, and I'm the owner of the Aerobatic Teams web site aerobaticteams.net. My site is dedicated to Modern Aerobatic Teams, like yours same section. Why my site is blocked to adding links. This is not spam, because my site is relevant to wikipedia Aerobatic Teams section. Exaple: in you Blue Angels page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Angels have External link www.funonthenet.in/articles/airshow-san-francisco.html which is relevant with this thematics, but my Blue Angels www.aerobaticteams.net/BlueAngels.html is relevant too, but my site is blocked. Also my page is more informatible then this page, but this page not blocked, only my site. How can I receive rull from you to adding links to all aerobatic teams pages in Wikipedia? As you can see my site is not commercial. I know that you media is not web site promotion tool, but you are education organization and peoples must have access to more inmormation that needed. My site is education site and have education role about Aerobatic Teams past and present. For that reason I think that must have link to my site in you Aerobatic Teams pages. You passed a lot of unuseful site links, but not mine. Can you help, and help to aerobatic teams fans to learn more about this teams joining to my site. Thanks Alexander —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.47.21 (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Back in January 2008, you and several other logged-out editors added links to this site to a number of articles where they were not appropriate, and continued doing so despite warnings. Here's the logs. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see but our webmaster during this period don't see. Please help us to fix this problem form us, and we will be more attentive for the future. So please remove our site from blacklist, because we look like criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.71.15 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See also - Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * See also - Special:Contributions/84.1.47.21 spamming up untill 10 days ago
 * See also - Spam Item aerobaticteams.net
 * See also - Spam Item 2 aerobaticteams.110mb.com
 * 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. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available.
 * Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/. --Hu12 (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

- This decision prove me that Wiki is not real encyclopedia. So We must colect editor votes to removed from blacklist, because our FORMER webmaster was stuped. What is the point? Everyone can become editor, but does this info will be real - no one knows. Also this smell me like censorship. Sorry that I boring your time and hope that you will make right choise for other blamed in spam sites. We just want to share our information for free, but we suspended. And, I don't real think that you open and check our site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.47.21 (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

- One last thing. Our site blacklisted for not relevent content, but what of our content is not relevant for Aerobatic Teams? Maybe some editor don't like our site, because its more informatible, then his page. Who knows... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.47.21 (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

freemasonrywatch.org
This is a good reference. Many articles and images. Often quoted and referenced by researchers and writers. Has been referenced in Washington Post, New York Times and a number of television documentaries and news reports. Only a member of the Freemasons would want this website blacklisted, which is probably how it got so in the first place Davinciscode (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC).
 * It is anything but a good reference. Refer to the request for putting it on the blacklist in the first place. The ArbCom case where the site was deemed an unreliable resource in principle is at Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer. WegianWarrior (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

per WegianWarrior.--Hu12 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: Note this edit by Davinciscode, a special purpose account. That username is listed at Suspected_sock_puppets. -- A. B. (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

lulu.com
Lulu.com is an online self publisher for small authors and I can't figure out why it is blacklisted. The only discussion I found was here, but that didn't indicate any activity one way or the other. We can't reasonably maintain the Lulu article with the link to the company blacklisted and it makes editing articles that have related materials on their site difficult as well. For instance both Count Your Sheep and Real Life have works printed via the service. I can't make any edits to the Count Your Sheep article unless I remove the link to the book, nor can I add the link to Real Life about the new book. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133 would be it. Do you have an ISBN for these books? MER-C 06:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it along with ehow and Associated Content. As with most sites that invite content from the public (sound familiar?), there can be valuable stuff and abuse at the same time. If the abuse spreads, I would still recommend other measures than the spam blacklist. There may be more on this list that need to be reconsidered as well. --Michael Snow (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There was both discussion and consensus for the additions, along with documented abuse. In addition;
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * . If a specific link is needed as a citation, a request for whitelisting on a case-by-case basis can be made, where the url can be demonstrated as a ”Verifiability” source.--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more than just verifiability, it's being able to have external links to companies and their website in the articles specifically about those companies. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've whitelisted lulu's homepage (www.lulu.com/en/index.php) and all the links that are used in the Lulu (publisher) article. --Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

I tried to add a new talk section to, using "+". This means that only my text was on the screen. Previous text on the talk page wasn't even in view. Thus it was very confusing to be spam blocked with a text addition that had no links whatsoever. Shouldn't this only happen if you're editing the full article? And should it really apply to Talk pages, where such links might be discussed? (cf. the article itself)? If so, am I supposed to change someone else's talk to fix the spam blocked link? (fortunately in this case, it's myself using it as a reference (See 'Open University credentials') but normally I'd be pretty uncomfortable changing some else's talk? Natebailey (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC) = Discussion =

Header
I put the header in a template to reduce size of this request page and included MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist/Indicators which is loosly based off of RCU's indicators.--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Would the following regexes work? —Random832 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How to keep wiki free of spam
I think that this "hub" of admins is a very interesting wiki-phenomenon. The rules ?guidelines? here are also very interesting, brief, (and uneditable?)
 * Does the site have any validity to the project?
 * Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Is there a Spam project report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
 * Close the request entry on here using either ✅ or ❌ as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.

Here are my questions:
 * I wanted to know if there are other guidelines about what should be wiki-blacklisted.
 * Is there a general list of blacklisted wiki site? (Maybe this would be good for my e-mail spam filter, for example??)
 * Do links that are blacklisted have to fit all the above criteria? Only one?  Case by case?
 * How long after something is marked ✅ is it kept here before archiving?
 * If an admin puts a website on the blacklist... and that site is then discussed under Proposed removals... can the same admin keep it black listed and call it ✅? Or could that be perceived as a conflict of interest for the admin him/herself?
 * How are the archives organized? How can I search them easily?
 * Can you point me to some disputed blacklisted sites? (disputed amongst admins?)  Or are things always clear cut.
 * Does a proposed removal need only one vote from one admin?
 * is there a way on wiki to have voting? (has this been tried)??? i.e.: three admins must agree for x & y to happen?  almost like a jury?  Or are decisions on wikipedia made without jury - and only by judge (i.e.: admin).
 * In this initiative... have there been cases where the admin was found to be biased? Or found to have ulterior motives?

I think this is really fascinating, and am considering doing a review of blacklisted sites to better understand how the process works. What happens to these sites? What % are challenged? What % are manipulated to avoid detection? How many (if any) get removed from the blacklist - and if so, when? Of those that are removed, how many are removed by the original blacklisting admin? Any statistics here?? It is my guess that most of blacklisted sites stay blacklisted forever... but that some are troublesome and keep coming up with ways to try to beat the system. Is that true? What has been done to prevent this? Would anyone be able or interested in helping me with this? Or offering other suggestions of what to look at? Sign your username: Newtowiki2 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You raise some interesting questions that probably needed asking. Here's my unofficial two cents
 * Relevant guidelines and policies:
 * Spam blacklist (guideline)
 * What Wikipedia is not (policy)
 * External links (guideline)
 * Covers links listed at the end of an article
 * Reliable Sources (guideline)
 * Covers links used as references within an article
 * Largely overlaps Verifiability (policy)
 * Spam (guideline)
 * Note that inappropriate linking is spam -- it does not have to be commercial
 * Conflict of Interest (guideline)
 * Template messages/User talk namespace
 * Blacklists:
 * MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist
 * The blacklist for the English Wikipedia ("en.wikipedia") only
 * Fairly new -- before, bad en.wikipedia spam was blacklisted at meta (see below)
 * meta:Spam blacklist "meta"
 * Has been around for several years
 * Maintained on Meta-Wiki
 * If we find spam has been spread "cross-wiki" (i.e., to Wiktionary, other Wikipedias, etc) we list it there.
 * When I think a link should be blacklisted
 * Spammer knows our rules and spams anyway
 * Usually I assume this means 3 or 4 warnings; I may shortcut that if
 * The problem is big enough
 * The spammer is using open proxies
 * The spammer is disruptive in other ways
 * The spammer is involved in off-wikipedia discussions of how to bypass our spam defenses
 * The spammer never uses the same IP twice and there's just no way to warn him
 * Cross-wiki spam usually gets taken to meta immediately
 * URL redirection domains such as tinyurl.com get blacklisted on sight at meta
 * Sites that attack or attempt to breach the privacy of Wikipedia editors may be blacklisted
 * Listing sites here, then blacklisting, then adjudicating their possible removal:
 * If it's controversial, I'll ask someone else to get involved. Everything is transparent and so if I just try to hide a poor decision under the rug, it will blow up in my face.
 * If it appears open and shut (buyviagra.com or getrichquick.net), I just go ahead and handle it. 95+% of spam falls in this category.
 * Recordkeeping:
 * Blacklisting additions are supposed to be logged at meta:Spam blacklist/Log or MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log
 * Some local blacklisting is done based on discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎, not on this page
 * Note that some spam goes on the blacklist not from this page but from discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎
 * Other methods of spam control:
 * Bots are nice when they work
 * Blocking is a waste of time; spammers just get new IP addresses or user names
 * Page protection is disruptive
 * Blacklisting is efficient and minimizes disruption
 * There's a lot more I could write but I'm out of time. I hope this helps. It's just my opinion. -- A. B. (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for these thoughts. I have tried to organize this into a table.

Ultimatly, we can all agree about the 95%. I want to better understand how the Spam-blacklist affects the 5%. Clearly the spam-blacklist plays a key roll in managing the 95%. Was this list intended for the 5% in the first place? What about having every new external link go to a pool that requires review by an admin? This way, we would catch spam before/as it happens? And would perhaps prevent or discourage those from trying to spam? Or is this also too burdensom on the admins, and risks slowing down the rapid growth of some articles? Newtowiki2 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ariel article problem
February 12, 2008 I cannot add the internal links, Starting Out In The Eveningor actress Lili Taylor to the Ariel article. They are already in your system. Why are they blacklisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborrahh (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem was not with the internal links. There was a blacklisted external link I just removed which blocked editing the page. Try it now. -- A. B. (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Friends Cyber Club - friendscyberclub.com My social networking site seems to be banned by wikipedia, can you please remove it from your black list, i have taken a proper care of the site, cleaned it completely, also edited the picture of the member galleries, now member pictures will only appear once the admin approves it. Now friends cyber club is completely clean, will make sure no one spams our site too! i think it is ready for removing it from the blacklist at wiki!

Looking foreword to this, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.77.5 (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

whatbird.com
Hi. Why is whatbird.com blacklisted? I tried to add identify.whatbird.com to the Science ref desk but it said it was blacklisted. Can someone tell me the reason for when it became blacklisted? Thanks. ~ AH1 (TCU) 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Short version | Long version. MER-C 08:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

how to keep wiki free of spam
In regards to my post "How to keep wiki free of spam" I was hoping to get a few more comments before it was archived. Is there little interest? little time? other priorities? all of the above? From my perspective, it seems as if these are important questions that may be difficult to answer but need to be considered (but I must disclose bias... as they are my questions...) I do not think that some of these questions have been asked before... and I hope I have not offended any by asking them now in my attempt to understand the blacklist better.

I wanted to share with everyone that I started a table on my talk that all are welcome to contribute to. Newtowiki2 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You posted a bunch of questions, received a well thought out and fairly comprehensive response and then posted some very none specific comments in what I found to be a difficult to read format. It wasn't something that was easy to respond to.  If you could summarizing one or two of the points you have questions to and concentrate on those it may be easier for people to respond in a productive fashion. Also while people will likely be happy to answer specific questions that have direct relevance to your ability to contribute, they may be much less willing to engage in a more in-depth conversation unless they are particularly interested in pursuing the discussion for their own edification. -- SiobhanHansa 17:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks SiobhanHansa. I have limited time on Wiki so although i worked very hard in making a table to organize my thoughts and the reply- this seems to have been a difficult format to stimulate discussion.  Out of all of my questions, here is the one that seems the most important.  The Wiki blacklist is a powerful tool, and run by respected and powerful wiki members.  Isn't there a risk of abuse amongst the admins (or at least risk of being accused of abuse)?  What if the admins have their own bias?  I reviewed only a very small section of the archives (as I ref on my talk page) and I was most surprised to see examples in the archives where the same admin had taken these actions on individual sites:
 * Listed a site for blacklist (without offering it as a proposed blacklist or other atempted warnings)
 * Responded to discussion (or dominated discussion) when their action was questioned on proposed removals
 * Made the "call" by marking an item as done
 * Archive the discussion


 * If the same admin takes on all of those roles for a single website in question... does that put the entire blacklist at risk as being a fair and unbiased wiki tool?


 * I also saw several examples where a site was kept on the blacklist because it was determined to be an "unreliable source". Is the mission of the blacklist to eliminate unreliable sources?  Is blacklisting an unreliable source the same as preventing spam?  Are there broader negative associations with being on a "blacklist" (ie: does inclusion on the Wiki blacklist have the potential to do harm to a website??) Can this potential harm put the entire wikipedia project at risk for legal action (ie: slander???)?Newtowiki2 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So there are a few issues you bring up - The one about admin actions being unilateral and not really open to review is one that is brought up in many different contexts on Wikipedia, and the same situation applies here as to any admin action. It's not as though non-admins like you and me are without recourse, the same avenues are available to get review of actions on this page as are available for any admin action. If you need help with something specific please feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll try and assist you in taking the right steps, but the broader issue is not something I'm interested in discussing in any depth personally.


 * On the fair and unbiased issue - a) The blacklist's role isn't really to be "fair and unbiased" it's to help us make building the encyclopedia easier. But if by unbiased you mean that the list has a tendency to keep out links of a certain POV and that that POV is one that our NPOV policy dictates we should cover - that would be a significant issue.  Many eyes would appear to be a good defense against this, so if you've noticed something please bring it up.  b) Openness is important to help with review and to that extent there is inbuilt "fairness".  We have process to make this easier (such as all additions being logged with reasons).  In cases where that process isn't followed, a request for delisting is granted when reason for an addition can't be found, or when its continued presence on the blacklist can no longer be justified.


 * The unreliable source comment may have been taken out of context - a site that is spammed but can also be a reliable source (we've had several library sites spammed for example) is one where we might think twice about adding it to the list (or be more inclined to delist), since editors might need it as a citation and it could be otherwise useful to the project. A site that isn't a reliable source doesn't really need to be considered as carefully since it's not of the same potential benefit to the encyclopedia.  I believe there have been a few sites in the past where additions of totally inappropriate sources (non-notable blogs for instance) have been used so much that a listing has been considered, but there isn't a general acceptance for admins to simply add any URL they know of that isn't a reliable source to the blacklist, and I don't think that's done.


 * As to broader negative associations - we don't promote this page for anything other than use on the English Wikipedia. The meta blacklist is used by some broader spam-fighting engines, and it's possible they also look at this one, but I haven't seen anyone confirm that.   We have a number of sites on meta that aren't even spam as such but get used by spammers (such as redirect sites) and there aren't any concerns about law suits there so I don't think we're worried here.  We are concerned about the impact a listing might have on a site, but not to the extent we're prepared to allow Wikipedia to be spammed.  If a site could show they were damaged by inclusion on the list and provide believable assurances that they would not spam again, there would probably be some consideration for delisting.  It's not the intent of the blacklist to harm businesses or people just because their sites have been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, the only point of the blacklist is to help with building the encyclopedia. -- SiobhanHansa 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "The blacklist's role isn't really to be "fair and unbiased" it's to help us make building the encyclopedia easier" -- according to who? This is a spam blacklist - and it would seem the original intent was to prevent spam/vandalism.  I think that it is routinely being used in a much broader way... and that is why I am surprised.  The guidelines on the top of this page relate to spam, and its prevention.  Do the guidelines need to be revisited?


 * "The unreliable source comment may have been taken out of context " take a look at the table on my talk page... just a review of a small sample.  Is this sample out of context?  It seems to be more of a pattern to me... a pattern where it is easy to be put on the blacklist, and very difficult to come off of it - even if there is no threat of spam??


 * "A site that isn't a reliable source doesn't really need to be considered as carefully since it's not of the same potential benefit to the encyclopedia." but is that the job of the blacklist admins to decide? or the specialty admins on a given article?  If a site is being disruptive... it should go to the talk page of the article.  If the site is still being disruptive, then it qualifies for this or other spam prevention.  But this does not seem to be the history of many domains.


 * "The meta blacklist is used by some broader spam-fighting engines, and it's possible they also look at this one" - That is serious. You do not need to intend to do harm to do harm... and if a website ends up on this black list there are several ways in which they may suffer.  For example, their e-mails to subscribers may end up in spam filters, for example.  They may not realize this for months... or longer... and I bet would not even know how or why their domain became listed as a spam domain.  If they look and see a history here of spam, with attempts to stop the spam, and the black list used as a last resort to prevent spam - I think that there is no problem.  If the guidelines above have not been followed, I do see a potential problem for the wiki community.  This could be a difficult, expensive, and possibly impossible problem for a domain to fix.  And they may be fixing it because a random visitor to their website listed the domain... and an admin here thought that the source wasn't reliable?  That just doesn't seem fair.  Newtowiki2 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of everything on Wikipedia is to build a GFDL encyclopedia. The spam blacklist helps us do that and nothing you say above actually shows harm that current practice does to that end.  Your comments about how these processes ought to be handled don't seem to be grounded in an acceptance (or even solid understanding of) community practice; this could be because you're a new user who has not yet added much to the project.  You may find a lot of this more understandable if you spend more time editing articles and come back to this after you've experienced the impact in the field.


 * In terms of harm to website owners - given that we do nothing to suggest other organizations/people should use this list for their filtering purposes I don't think we're going to change our practices unless we had evidence that it is actually being harmful. Introducing more bureaucracy or opportunity for wikilawyering is not something we are likely to consider without a very clear motive. -- SiobhanHansa 00:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Your comments about how these processes ought to be handled don't seem to be grounded in an acceptance (or even solid understanding of) community practice" - You are right... I am new here... but please do not bite the newcomers. When I read the guidelines above this wiki spam list... I find more examples of their disregard than their utility.  (see comments on my talk page) As a communal set of guidelines, they should both be helpful - and offer some degree of unification and protection as they have been (theoretically) agreed upon.  I also understand that long and leangthy guidelines serve no purpose here... so I am not suggesting that we make these guidelines more complex.  I'm just not understanding why they are not being followed.


 * I am a newcommer, who is unweathered, and has been in no "wiki fights" or "spam wars".  The Admins have been here much longer and work very hard, and closely to this project.  I know that these admins have all of the best intentions - but in their efforts to do good and make wikipedia better that (at least in this forum) I rarely see my rolemodels assuming good faith, and sometimes may not follow  wikipedia etiquette.


 * Please understand that I am not a lawyer, and it is not my intent to offer spurious legalisms. I offer these links only to better illustrate my concern with this spam list and the guidelines above.  Some decisions to blacklist a site may be considered reckless. Decisions here are managed by Admins only... who would not be able to claim innocent dissemination.   Ignorance is not a defence.  Clear disregard of this blacklist guidlines may be interpreted as intent for libel.  After all, if someone is an Admin active here, it would be assumed that they known that SPAM engines may use dsn blacklists.


 * Clearlly this list is very important to the work that is being done here. But from my limited review, it seems to be used for purpose broader than it's intent.  I also quesiton if comming off this list is unfairly difficult... with a suggestion to  the knee jerk reply.Newtowiki2 (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I had no intent to come across as bitey and I'm very sorry that I did. My point is simply that you have made virtually no additions to the encyclopedia but you are immersing yourself in a policy and guidelines discussion.  Since Wikipedia is not a philosophical entity and its policies are grounded entirely in a pragmatic desire to make them work on the ground, with a strong prejudice towards ignoring things that aren't actually causing problems, this is not a particular effective way to understand them.  So far you haven't demonstrated any way in which the actions you suggest are inappropriate actually harm the encyclopedia and that's a pretty critical issue for suggesting significant change.
 * Claims that the list is a legal risk should be made to the Foundation. While many Wikipedian's love to get involved in unqualified legal speculation (including me from time to time) there's no way for us to make such a determination without proper legal council.  Such a discussion in this forum is pointless.  I would certainly support a change of name for the list from spam black list to link block list or the like.  I've never been a fan of the spam word being splashed around too liberally because it riles users up when we can achieve more by using other words.  But that's just a cosmetic change from my perspective.
 * I would say defer to whitelist is the default rather than a knee jerk reaction. assume good faith should be extended to the admins on this page too.   -- SiobhanHansa 14:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird
According to the spam filter, the below contains all of or a portion of s6.invisionfree.com:

Image:Revamped Flareon.png is being used in the 'revamping' section of this artcle. The image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why it would be constituting fair use if used in this Wikipedia article.

This image was originally made by Nintendo and modified by me. I uploaded it specifically for its use in this article, as an example of a 'revamped' sprite. I do not think it is replaceable by a free alternative because revamped sprites almost always need an existing, non-free sprite to begin with. -- 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing a match when I test the regex, nor when I try to test it on Wikipedia directly. Perhaps it was just a fluke? I blame cosmic rays.  ~Kylu (u|t)  22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, the talk page I intended to put it on had it originally. I just didn't look carefully enough. -- 05:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove an item
\bcairns1st\.blogspot\.com\b was added as a result of a mistaken ANI report I posted. This site is fine, it's the blog of some politician. Could someone please remove it? Thanks.  Equazcion •✗/C • 15:39, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone just did it. Thanks.  Equazcion •✗/C • 15:40, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ per request. However blogspot links fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then maybe *.blogspot should be blocked?  Equazcion •✗/C • 15:45, 20 Mar 2008 (UTC)