MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2011

=Proposed additions=

allvoices.com


This is a "citizen journalism" site similar to examiner.com or associatedcontent.com (or similar sites such as ehow, etc.) It:


 * Allows anyone to sign up and contribute without providing more than an email address or even a twitter account (see  to verify)
 * Allows posting any material without independent editorial review
 * Compensates participating content authors on a pay-per-impression model

As such, it has all of the usual problems with such sites. In addition, a review of where it's being used in article space shows that it's commonly used to support POV statements with an unreliable source. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with blacklisting it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked for a COIBot report, though the sentence "Share in our success by earning cash rewards through our incentive program" on http://www.allvoices.com/help/signup seems to make this a good candidate already. Lets see if this got abused for this reason already.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 200 or so Wikipedia articles contain links to this place. Mostly as external links rather than references, as far as I can tell from a quick look at a random sampling. Many of the links have embedded videos, and it appears some videos have been removed as copyright violations. Authors of articles have a sort of internally-generated "credibility" score, which seems not much different than a popularity rating. No independent editorial oversight that I can tell. I agree, blacklist this. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com


spam by. --viniciusmc 20:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Moved this to the right place from the bottom of the page. Viniciusmc, I see that this is present on a lot of talk pages, but not in any article at the moment. Can you point out some addition of this site to any page that is clearly abusive? It's definitely not a reliable source, but that's not enough reason to blacklist it. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

rock-interviews.com


Links to this website have been repeatedly added to multiple pages by many IPs. Some of the IPs can be seen by looking at the long list of IP talk pages in the linksummary link above. Perhaps this is not a clear case of spamming - the website may be of marginal utility/interest to the project because of its content, but I'm not that knowledgeable in this area to really know. But there is no doubt that there are IPs whose only contributions here are to repeatedly spam this link to multiple pages despite many warnings and XLinkBot reverts over the course of several months (see User talk:82.67.45.194, for example). Some of the IPs have been involved in cross-wiki spamming as well (see English, French or German, English). Deli nk (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say the content is useful for quotations from various musicians to use in their respective articles, but not terribly spammy. XLinkBot will allow addition of these links only be established editors. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * cross wiki fr:Special:Contributions/62.147.148.61 fr:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.137 fr:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.81 fr:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.55 fr:Special:Contributions/82.67.45.194 fr:Special:Contributions/193.34.100.34 it:Special:Contributions/89.156.100.131 fr:Special:Contributions/82.67.45.194 fr:Special:Contributions/89.156.103.172 fr:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.150 de:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.150 es:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.150 es:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.150 nl:Special:Contributions/213.245.238.150 fr:Special:Contributions/89.156.101.13 sv:Special:Contributions/89.156.101.13 de:Special:Contributions/89.156.101.13 it:Special:Contributions/89.156.100.131 de:Special:Contributions/89.156.100.131
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

visionsofjoy.com
This has been repeatedly added to Bates method and is a spam link for a related vision treatment. Here are the five most recent diffs:, , , , and. It is also discussed 6 times in the talk page archives and on the current Talk:Bates method page. There are several SPA / spammer accounts that keep adding this. Ruhrfisch ><> ° ° 23:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So looking at the Talk:Bates method archives, this spam link was discussed and removed in 2007, and discussed and removed again in Apirl 2008 and August 2008. The link was discussed as not being able to be added in May 2009 and was discussed and found to not meet WP:RS again June 2010. The Reliable SOurces noticeboard discussion is here. Ruhrfisch  ><> ° ° 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I protest this. First of all, the 2007 discussion appears to have been about whether visionsofjoy was appropriate to include in the External Links section, which is not the issue here. The other discussions linked by Ruhrfisch contain mixed opinions. WP:RS allows questionable sources to be used as sources of information about themselves. I would further note that it took a month for this request to be responded to. Could that be because others who looked at this weren't sure what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BremenTownMusician (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's because this page is constantly backlogged, and many admins are busy taking care of more immediate disruption over at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:ANI, etc.
 * As to your protest: Including a link in an external links section is an issue here. The fact that this link was added repeatedly to an article for which it doesn't qualify as a WP:RS is grounds for blacklisting. As a not-reliable-source, there is no reason to state in any article what the source says about itself, except in an article about that source — and we have no Visions of Joy article where such a link would be appropriate. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

fluoridealert.org


This website that fails WP:EL and is not a RS is often spammed by anti-fluoridation activists, commonly linked to User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips. See also current ban discussion at AN/I. Also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freedom5000 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freedom5000

I see that it is listed as blacklisted but it's still being spammed. Here's a recent one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=403253233

Here's an old discussion from then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Dec_1#fluoridealert.org_-_blacklisting_problem.3F

It needs to be made effective and permanent.

Brangifer (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ already. It is in the list and working. The recent example cited above was posted 19 December, and the entry was placed in the blacklist the following day. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

nobleherb.com

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/218.58.181.110
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/218.58.181.110
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/218.58.181.110
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/218.58.181.110

Commercial site selling strange "herbal" products with zero information about how the products are supposed to work and what they actually contain. Several articles have been repeatedly spammed and it is extremely unlikely there will ever be a legit reason to link to this site. Richiez (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Another user, apparent sockpuppie and an IP continuing this work. Richiez (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

From a separate request


Continued sockpuppetry + spamming of site with no value to Wikipedia. . MER-C 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Combined two requests to blacklist the same URL into one. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This site has been blacklisted globally. MER-C 11:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

✅ - tagging section for completeness. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

bep-hiphop.blogspot.com


Contains serious copyright violations, repeatedly spammed by the above user, and in any case it's a Blogspot blog. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * . While I see no need for blogspot links to appear anywhere on Wikipedia either, that link doesn't appear in article space, the user hasn't returned since being blocked 24 hours on 1 January, and we typically don't need to expand the blacklist due to the activity from a single account; it's better just to indef block the user if the problem repeats. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive661
 * Asside from Linking to copyrighted works, A closer look reviels there may be a case for meta listing. Seems there is quite a bit of multiple wiki spamming
 * http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/41.237.162.228
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/41.237.162.228
 * http://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tota1056
 * http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tota1056
 * http://yi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tota1056
 * http://ms.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tota1056
 * http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tota1056
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tota1056
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tota1056
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tota1056
 * http://ckb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tota1056
 * http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tota1056
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Meta--Hu12 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Meta--Hu12 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

iranBattery.ir




Persistent spam until blocked, then hop to another IP. (My first report here. Please advise whether or not I should learn the procedure and add to blacklist myself) Materialscientist (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite minimal, but XWiki (see the upcoming m:User:COIBot/XWiki/iranbattery.com - as it is quite spammy, lets do it there... --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This site has been blacklisted globally. MER-C 09:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ per above--Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

earthwaterfireair.com
Using roaming IPs to add links to videos. --Nlu (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Related
 * ---> redirects to earthwaterfireair.com
 * www.amazon.com/Zhao-An-Xin/e/B003YC08EE/
 * Extensive, sneeky long term multi article spamming of related sites. 3--Hu12 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * www.amazon.com/Zhao-An-Xin/e/B003YC08EE/
 * Extensive, sneeky long term multi article spamming of related sites. 3--Hu12 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

hacktolive.org/wiki/Window_Clippings

 * hacktolive.org/wiki/Window_Clippings
 * hacktolive.org/wiki/Window_Clippings

Links to illigal copy of Windows Clippings. And the zip file contains a keygen detected as malware by Norton SONAR -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)  Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

yiser.com


MER-C 01:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

silahgalerisi.com
Repeat spam vandal who is willing to overstamp any existing links with his own coming in from multiple IPs...please see my removals:
 * Removal 1
 * Removal 2
 * Removal 3
 * Removal 4 with other trash spam
 * Removal 5
 * Removal 6



⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He's right back. He evaded his block and spammed all of these articles this morning.
 * ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 13:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He was also reported with this at AIV adding another 23 spammings.


 * <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 17:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * . Thanks Berean Hunter--Hu12 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I owe you the thanks. :) <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 20:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

kenyanlyrics.com


MER-C 10:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Continued, hence recycled. MER-C 12:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

hollywoodphotographs.com
Retroactively marking here, the IP was adding it to a non-insignificant number of pages. Would appreciate comments on its addition. tedder (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Examples:, ,
 * Examples:, ,
 * Examples:, ,


 * The site pretends to be an archive of photographs but exists to sell prints. It has been spammed and reverted dozens of times, and not just on the English Wikipedia. I'd say go ahead and add it to the list. I just finished cleaning up the remaining articles that contain this link (one of which was a blatant advertisement). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, nothing more than a e-comerce site selling prints and digital images. "The fee to print each 8X10 photograph is $20. This fee is in addition to the personal use photo charge of $50 or the commercial use photo charge of $75. "(hollywoodphotographs.com/types-of-use/ & hollywoodphotographs.com/types-of-images/). --Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Already ✅. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

datingsites247.com




Affiliate sites linked from blacklisted domain datingsites247.com. . MER-C 09:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * by Beetstra. MER-C 09:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

allkpop.com & tokyohive.com


I linked both sites as they're related. They're Asian pop news blog that basically translates news and gossip articles into English (allkpop is Korean, tokyohive is Japanese). it's just run by a small group of...staff, I guess, that just post translated news (with some "exclusives" once in a while). At best, it's questionable and/or biased due to possible translation issues (there's been controversy over their translations in the Korean media), and at worst it's just untrue (see this article they retracted). I tried my best to remove it under WP:RS, but it just gets re-inserted frequently due to the low number of English sources on Korean pop. If this can't or won't be blacklisted, can someone direct me as to where to go? Thanks in advance. SKS (talk) 07:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are ownd by 6Theory Media and allkpop.com has aprox 267 links the other has 39 or so. I'd first see what they say @ the  Reliable sources Noticeboard and / or External links Noticeboard. We can then consider . Last resort, in a case like this, would be blackliting, but evidence of abuse and spamming would need to be shown.  --Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

absolutechinatours.com


Top up request, has continued spamming since blacklisting 2.5 years ago and a 1 year block. MER-C 02:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

halalmarkets.net
see. → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 00:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that user has been blocked, with an expiry time of indefinite. Since there is little evidence that this is anything other than an isolated, single account incident, I'll mark this as  for now. However if this issue re surfaces, please feel free to re-report. Thanks Gƒoley.--Hu12 (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay; my first Spam-blacklist request. :-) → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hidden wiki


kpvz7ki2v5agwt35.onion/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

This is a Tor link and it's required to install Tor on your computer to view it. Sorry I can't use the LinkSummary template with this (I don't think) and (since there is no www. prefix) I included the entire link; I hope this is OK.

The discussion at External links/Noticeboard explains the situation. To summarize, this link
 * 1) is not a good link, since users get a deadlink message (unless they have installed Tor).
 * 2) is not a good link, since it's to a wiki (no editorial oversight).
 * 3) is not a good link, since it contains highly inflammatory material (child porn, suborning of felonies, etc.).
 * 4) is (probably because of point 3) a favorite of trolls and general longterm headache. For instance, see []. Herostratus (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would blacklist all of .onion as having no legitimate linking reason anywhere. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with blacklisting all .onion links. They should be treated in same way we treat links to Rich Media, in that we avoid them and favor links that can be viewed without any additional software. This does not mean however that we need to blacklist it. The External links policy clearly show how this particular situation should be handled and I see no reason why we should divert from the policy and blacklist everything. The Wiki is a separate matter altogether and should be treated like that, since it has links in it which people claim is linking to criminal information like child porn, and this is the only point relevant in adding it to the blacklist, in which I dont have a opinion one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belorn (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I disagree with adding the wiki to the blacklist on the simple basis that we should follow the guidelines in WP:BLACKLIST and try the conventional methods first. The blacklist should not be used as a way to bypass WP:Consensus, it should be used as a last resort against spammers. Herostratus arguments is good arguments against the link, and thus belong on the talk page as way to create consensu, and maybe now consensus can be reached with the additional people who commented here and in External links/Noticeboard. The reason this link has in the past been added and removed so much is that there has not been a clear consensus on the issue to keep the link. As for real spammers, in the last half year there had been exact 3 trolls doing 1-4 edits each. Are we really saying that normal methods cant handle this and we need to apply blacklisting to handle the situation?Belorn (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the problems are too grave, Belorn, so I would not be against blacklisting. Note that for copyright violations or other emergencies we immediately bypass that per WP:IAR etc. However, I have for now revertlisted onion on XLinkBot (the use that I saw is .. not appropriate, and that this is a wiki does not help). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding to this. If I go through the additions of .onion sites, I see that most of it is being pushed - hard. Several established editors (including now me) have removed these links, over and over, as inappropriate. In several cases there are, arbitrary, linkfarms containing a handful of .onion links, unencyclopaedic, and unnecessary. These removals are undone, over and over, by a large number of SPA's (mainly hit and run IPs). That is the type of abuse that gets links onto blacklists, especially since the proper use of these links is minimal. Whitelisting these specific links, which have a reasoned and reasonable use, can take care of the few links that are of interest, keeping the (slowly getting massive) abuse low .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that Dirk's proposal of blacklisting the majority and whitelisting whenever appropriate is a reasonable response to the situation we've got (e.g., massively inappropriate links that are being added by (apparently) a variety of users). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It would if that was the situation in regards to .onion links, but I see no such indications in the history at Tor (anonymity network). The only actively disputed link has been the wiki. All the other .onion links added in the past was the result of consensus, thus not the result of spamers and trolls. Maybe as a preempt action could this be called for, but we would then have to invoke WP:IAR again so we can ignore WP:NO-PREEMPT. I propose instead that the better action here would be to deal with the wiki link in question, using WP:IAR and blacklist it, or following the guidelines in WP:BLACKLIST and give it time to see if that resolve the issue. And then in regard to any other .onion link, we use normal procedure with consensus and watching the article until there is clear indication that those methods is failing in maintaining quality of the article.Belorn (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we already know that you have staunchly support the inclusion of these links in every discussion. We have heard you.  However, we are not agreeing with you. Your arguments in favor of these links (e.g., the consensus of a couple of editors at one article should trump all other considerations) are weaker than the arguments against these links (e.g., that the Wikimedia Foundation has a mandatory policy against linking to child porn).  It's not necessary to repeat your view:  we know what it is.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "comment on content, not on the contributor". I have not argued those things, or made claims like that.
 * I have made no argument that claim consensus of a couple of editors should trump all other considerations. My argument has always been, in each post that mention it, that we should apply the least amount of force to deal with the issue as marked down my Wikimedia Foundation own policies. Just because a policy says we should avoid a type of link, does not mean we should throw all policies out the window in regards to unknown number of sites which content is also unknown.
 * To support that we follow Wikimedia Foundation own policies in using the least amount of force is not the same as saying lets use a link, 'or that I am in support of the wiki link.
 * I am of the belief that not all onion links point to child porn, which is the same as my belief that not all normal web links point to child porn. If the facts being claimed is that everything is child porn, then there was no point discussing this as there is no argument against a belief like that.
 * So Im just going to drop this now and apply WP:DEADHORSE. When the arguments start to end on the contributor and facts are thrown out of the window, then its time to leave this and simply hope that any result wont be too much damage on the article.Belorn (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support blacklisting all .onion -- if such links indeed require the user to have Tor installed, then such links violate External links #8, which says to avoid direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content. Wikipedia need not allow linking to places that are useless to the majority of users. When an entire top-level domain has the characteristic of requiring special software, that's seems a valid reason to blacklist it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The technical aspect is easy to verify: No matter what you type into your browser, if it ends in , you'll get an error message.  "google.onion", for example produces "Server not found  Firefox can't find the server at google.onion" on this computer.  The entire .onion domain just doesn't exist in any official name server.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support blacklisting all .onion per Herostratus, Stifle, & Amatulic. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 18:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose blacklisting all .onion, support blacklisting the Hidden Wiki As Belorn said, the blacklist shouldn't be used to trump wp:consensus, and I tend to be of the mind that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"... It's highly unlikely that there will be RS material available solely through a .onion site, so we already have plenty of rules and guidelines to manage that.  Obviously, instability is also a big concern with .onion sites, beyond the need for additional software.  Nevertheless, in the (however unlikely) case that there is useful info available only via a .onion site, the blacklist would have a negative impact on all our goals.  Blanket bans are not the solution here, esp. since there appears to be very little spamming activity coming via .onion sites other than the Hidden Wiki (which doesn't meet any criteria for a good source anyway). DigitalHoodoo (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ for Hidden Wiki. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ for Hidden Wiki. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

helium.com


helium.com/content/whatishelium : Looks like another content farm (e.g. examiner.com) where users are paid on page views, anyone can contribute, there is no editorial oversight and whose content is essentially self-published. MER-C 03:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lack of editorial oversight and the paid per view issues are valid concerns. Concur with blacklisting it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ""What is Helium? Write. Get Published. Get Paid"" . Helium.com links:
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * Offers Affiliate Programs / affiliate earnings
 * Offers its Affiliates financial incentives to Link / increase page views
 * ""At Helium, we believe that everyone can contribute what they know to share with millions of readers around the globe.""
 * ""Helium’s publishing partners in Marketplace are paying $20 to $200 for selected articles right now. "
 * ""Helium’s best writers earn cash through ..Upfront Payments for contributed work ..Daily revenue share ..
 * Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * I would tend to agree also.--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Further investigation shows in addition to failing Wikipedia's core content policies, clear, Long term abuse has been demonstrated;
 * {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

! style="background-color: #efefef;" | Sample Spam abuse
 * Including userpage spamming and clear consensus in various discussions by multiple wikipedians, that this is not a RS and inapropriate for use on Wikipedia..
 * Including userpage spamming and clear consensus in various discussions by multiple wikipedians, that this is not a RS and inapropriate for use on Wikipedia..
 * Including userpage spamming and clear consensus in various discussions by multiple wikipedians, that this is not a RS and inapropriate for use on Wikipedia..


 * }
 * Helium.com links Also fail:
 * SPAM
 * External link spamming
 * External links policy
 * Links normally to be avoided
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikipedia is not a repository for links
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
 * Persistent spamming
 * There are more than 600 links currently. I sugesst a cleanup of these links begin, prior to any blacklisting.--Hu12 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(Groan)... Isn't there a bot that can do this? I just went through the last 120 links on LinkSearch, and removed links from 47 articles. Slightly more than 50% of the Linksearch results were in archives, talk pages, user space, etc. and I left those alone. I left Helium.com alone as well as a bio in which the subject has his own space on helium.com. 500 more links to go through.... isn't there a bot? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Δ/Sandbox 4 is the list you where looking for. ΔT The only constant 19:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant, is there a bot that can remove these links, or at least some sort of automated tool? I've made a big dent in that list, by the way. The first 235 links on linksearch still need checking. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅. I think cleaned them all up, except for a handful of articles that seem to have a legitimate use for some helium.com links; those can be added to the whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

careerkey.org
The following account is a single use account used by the Vice President of Career Key to promote the company, see her talk page for details -
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

For the record, other related domains which have not been spammed on English Wikipedia are :
 * careerkey.biz
 * morshed.org
 * vcpkorea.com
 * choicesmagazine.com
 * choicesonlinejm.com
 * careerkey-ca.org

-- John <span class="plainlinks" style="font-family: Verdana; font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 9px; text-align: center;">(Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User has been Blocked as a Spam / advertising-only account. Marking this as . If new accounts, or spamming continue, please re-report. --Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User has been Blocked as a Spam / advertising-only account. Marking this as . If new accounts, or spamming continue, please re-report. --Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User has been Blocked as a Spam / advertising-only account. Marking this as . If new accounts, or spamming continue, please re-report. --Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

kavkazcenter.com

 * www.kavkazcenter.com/en
 * www.kavkazcenter.com/en

This is a "radical islamic website" providing disinformation about the cacasus region/world. I've also made a request here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kavkaz_Center_.28everyone_can_help.21.29 to get other opinions/experience with this page. Please take a look, thanks in advance! --84.168.101.210 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please start cleaning up the mainspace articles containing this. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.kavkazcenter.com ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

advocatekhoj.com
Well over one hundred links to this site - apparently a legal portal that charges lawyers for referrals - have been added as "references" is recent weeks, by a series of IPs in the 123.201.*.* range. The IPs have also been replacing existing ref links with this URL. It appears to be spam, just thought I'd get a second opinion before removing them and blacklisting. --Ckatz chatspy  08:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: this thread was blanked by . --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Seems clear it's a spam issue, as I'm now seeing SPA accounts reverting/adding the links. I've added it to the blacklist and will continue cleaning it up later this evening. --Ckatz chatspy  06:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

sikhkaras.com


Repeatedly using anonymous IPs to add link (which, while I do not understand the language used, appears plain to be a commercial site for selling various religious items) to Sikhism, and, while my memory is not fresh on this, I believe to other Sikhism-related articles. --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not much activity with this link. I see it was added by and  to Sikhism in December, and in late January it was added by  to Guru Gobind Singh, which I have just removed. There doesn't seem to be a push to spam this link, and the first two seem to be the same person. The last one, based on the editsummary, may be a good faith attempt to include a quotation.


 * COIbot, oddly, doesn't report any activity with this link. What's up with that? ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * COIBot was triggered by this;
 * Also;
 * --->redirects to sikhkaras.com
 * Worth noting, Sikhkaras.net is unrelated to the .COM of the same name, however, was added by .--Hu12 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Worth noting, Sikhkaras.net is unrelated to the .COM of the same name, however, was added by .--Hu12 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

sunbizar-technologies.com


Vandalistic SEO spamming. MER-C 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Continued spamming related renovations.co.nz also this report vandalized
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

supportdock.com
has been adding spam links to this site to various articles despite multiple requests to stop doing so. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Spammed related,
 * Article Spam
 * Accounts
 * supportdock.com/iyogi.html. Seems a multi account/IP Spam effort by this company. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Report vandalized by Alenaross07.--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Article Spam
 * Accounts
 * supportdock.com/iyogi.html. Seems a multi account/IP Spam effort by this company. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Report vandalized by Alenaross07.--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * supportdock.com/iyogi.html. Seems a multi account/IP Spam effort by this company. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Report vandalized by Alenaross07.--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Report vandalized by Alenaross07.--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

picdix.com
Added by the following IPs: Report at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Feb 1 claims cross-wiki spamming although I see just one instance of that happening. See also "We are not spammers" message posted by the site owner to by 213.150.228.38 in response to MER-C removing 25 links.

The site consists of line drawings of various things (a "picture dictionary") some of which would serve Wikipedia better if they were uploaded to Commons and used directly in articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we can get away with not listing this one for now - the latest post on my talk page gives me the feel that they will add no more links for now, although the user did not answer my question. MER-C 08:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We'll hold off on this one for now, clearly if the additions return, this should be added. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

healthsystemcanada.com



 * Related domains


 * Spammers

MER-C 07:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

xtremegapyear.co.uk


Repeated addition of identical low-quality, otherwise unsourced, section to Gap year containing this spam link. The perpetrator uses changing anonymous IPs geolocated all over the place: While low intensity, no indication this is going to stop. Perps cannot be warned off and blocked by conventional means. --Lambiam 09:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 03:05, February 18, 2011
 * 14:21, February 21, 2011
 * 12:18, February 27, 2011
 * 00:12, March 3, 2011


 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)



All three already added. The spammers continued with the former of these three after the original one was blacklisted. Many IPs spamming the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

spectrumscandal.com


Anonymous amateur POV blog about the ongoing 2G cellular spectrum auction investigation in India. Repeated addition to related articles by and sock-puppet : Sockmaster has been 72-hour banned and puppet is indef-banned. I propose that the domain be blacklisted to avoid the need for ongoing supervision. - Pointillist (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Added to 2G spectrum scam article by Mahalaxmanan and by Spectrumraja
 * Added to M. K. Kanimozhi article by Mahalaxmanan and by Spectrumraja
 * Added to A. Raja article by Mahalaxmanan and by Spectrumraja.
 * Update: another account is adding the same link to the same articles. I've filed this new SPI case, but it would be better to blacklist the site for good rather than have to keep detecting and blocking sock accounts that seem to be created just for the purpose of adding links to spectrumscandal.com - Pointillist (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Mahalaxmanan
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Niraradia
 * . Thanks for reporting, Pointillist. --Hu12 (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for reporting, Pointillist. --Hu12 (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

marvelousessays.com




MER-C 11:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * --Hu12 (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

dvdrare.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 07:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

potatoricer.org.uk


Continued again today (see ), ongoing for over a year. See prior reports at: --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2010
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Apr 1
 * User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList/archives/July 2010
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

reflectionsindia.org





 * Sock farm adding links across several articles. Also see Sockpuppet_investigations/Hinduismispeace/Archive - MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

=Proposed removals=

Adversus
Adversus.it is a well established online magazine, there were several references to articles and interviews on Wikipedia before it appeared in the spamlist. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorry None (talk • contribs) 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * . Adversus.it is not blacklisted here. Looks like it was listed on the Meta blacklist for spamming the Italian Wikipedia 14 times in 5 days. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

biblewalks.com
My site biblewalks.com was placed on the blacklist in 2007. Since then it has grown into one of the leading web site on Biblical places. One of our readers wrote today: "Hi, Do you have any idea why your site is blacklisted on Wikipedia? I have often tried to use it as a source for various articles, but I get a spam message and a blacklist notification. Perhaps you should write to Wikipedia and get this sorted out. You have a lot of very good information, and it's a pity it can't be used. Best, Gila" Please reconsider removing it from the blacklist. The site reviews over 270 biblical places in the Holy Land and has over 5,000 original photos. Biblewalks (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We do not generally remove sites from the blacklist at the request of the site owner. Instead, blacklisting is undone when trusted, high-volume users request it in order to use the links on a page where they'll improve Wikipedia. If such a user makes such a request in the future, I am sure it will be considered carefully. This request, however, is . Stifle (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This restriction makes no sense. BibleWalks is a very useful, informative, professional website containing firsthand, high-quality, original photos & textual content.  I currently have a link on a page I created several years ago for Khirbet Sharta because there were (and as far as I know still are) no other sources available.  Tonight when I attempted to add an external link to another page I made major contributions to several years ago for Ketef Hinnom, it was blocked.  Jerusalem is a densely populated area, & this site provides firsthand photos of a major compass point for the KH excavations--a landmark church.  There are many other sites pertaining to the Bible on Wikipedia that would benefit readers if links to BibleWalks were allowed.  It is not a spam site.  Please consider removing it from blacklist status.--Funhistory (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6 accounts have done nothing but add this external link to articles. That fact alone shows that the link needed to be blacklisted in the first place. Since one of the most blatant abusers of this link has just requested it to be taken off the blacklist, spamming of this link would likely resume if this was done.  If you have any particular cases where you either need the link for referencing (and it meets our criteria for reliable sources) or need it for an external link (if it meets our external link guidelines, you can request whitelisting a particular link for use in a particular article.  That can be done on this page.  Them  From  Space  03:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wholsale removal of the domain would not be in the best interest of the project. As demonstrated here, Biblewalks only contributions are to promote his own adgenda, not wikipedias. Clearly the likelyhood of continued abuse and disruption is present. I agree with the other admins in that 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 reliable and verifyable source. X3--Hu12 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

caymac.com
i humbly request that the above website be removed from the blacklist because it is not malicious. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.214.184 (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no reason or logging I could find for this addition, so it is likely to be removed unless someone objects. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This one was heavily spammed by multiple IPs earlier this year (in fact, mostly IPs from the same range as that of the blacklist removal requester); apparently I missed adding a log entry or it was lost in an edit conflict. Log has been backfilled with link to LinkReport. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For those reasons and previous ones, I'll mark this as --Hu12 (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For those reasons and previous ones, I'll mark this as --Hu12 (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

pulau-pangkor.com
I would ask to remove this site from the blacklist.

Reason for removal is that, in my humble believe this is one of the most extensive and informative sites about Pangkor island on the west coast of Malaysia. The site talks not only about the usual tourist stuff as hotels, transport etc. but tries to place Pangkor in context of Malaysia's history. The further relevance, again in my opinion is that it gives decent information about the surrounding area with Lumut (having the ferry to Pangkor) as focal point.

I am not sure why it was in the first place blacklisted but I am quite sure it was not based on the content of the site. Please remove from your blacklist. Thank you very much

Personally I would add this site as reference to your Pangkor article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangkor

With regards, Peter from Pangkor Island
 * This was blacklisted on meta for spamming, see ; removal can be requested there. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

FilmIndustryNetwork.biz
I have received a message from Knox387 who is currently writing a page for Wikipedia that Filmindustrynetwork.biz appears to be on the Wikipedia spam blacklist. I am currently doing research to find out why this was caused and whether someone used the filmindustrynetwork.biz domain to spam a certain page. I have not found anything so far. Filmindustrynetwork.biz is a respectable website with five journalists (www.filmindustrynetwork.biz/staff) and several contributors. Everything needs to be pre-approved by the editor in chief. I hope to find a solution to get the site delisted from the black list. (Gordonhx3 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC))


 * What is your association with filmindustrynetwork.biz?
 * Generally we don't remove remove sites from the blacklist at the request a new account (like yours) created for the purpose of requesting removal. If a trusted, high-volume user requests removal for the purpose of using the links on a page where they'll improve Wikipedia, then we consider it.


 * As to the reason for blacklisting: filmindustrynetworks.biz and onefatcigar.com were added to the blacklist on 16 June 2010 due to spamming by multiple single purpose accounts, all of whom are blocked indefinitely:
 * Special:Contributions/OneFatCigar - created page to promote onefatcigar.com
 * Special:Contributions/Celebrityworld - spammed filmindustrynetworks.biz 8 times and onefatcigar.com 2 times
 * Special:Contributions/Frank Kep - also spammed both sites (twice and once, respectively), as well as adding other spam links
 * Furthermore, the discussion at Articles for deletion/Bloginity suggests that filmindustrynetworks.biz is not an acceptable source (at least for that article).


 * Given the information above, this request is . I would for specific links after discussion on WP:RSN agrees that the links are acceptable reliable sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Amatulić, Thanks for your excellent and detailed feedback on this issue. I am the editor in Chief for Film Industry Network. In regards to Onefatcigar.com I found a press release in our archives from 2010 but was not aware that any page had been created to promote this release as we are monitoring google alerts. The OneFatCigar webmaster in this case has used blackhat spam methods on wikipedia using our domain and their domain which causes our website to be on this blacklist. Film Industry Network does not create links on Wikipedia for commercial gain. In fact, this is exactly the kind of thing that makes us want to contribute further and help Wikipedia have accurate information. Articles published on Film Industry Network are never promoted on Wikipedia and these user names should be permanently banned for using our name. However the filmindustrynetwork.biz domain should not be banned, as Knox387, for example, was having trouble qualifying a source. In regards to improving Wikipedia, we choose to interview people in the entertainment industry that inspire others and always try to provide an educational benefit to the reader. If users choose to put filmindustrynetwork.biz links to show that we recognize them, this should not be a reason for it being blacklisted. In terms of trust, this user was created to find out why the site had been blacklisted because there are many people who benefit from our educational resources and interviews and want to link to us. If our intentions were promotional, this account would be used to create a page for filmindustrynetwork.biz. This is not the case, nor has one ever been created. (Gordonhx3 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)).


 * "If our intentions were promotional, this account would be used to create a page for filmindustrynetwork.biz."
 * One can hardly make a convincing argument that because your account hasn't "created a page for filmindustrynetwork.biz", your intentions aren't promotional. The very nature of this request is to promote your own outside interests (filmindustrynetwork.biz) over the interests of Wikipedia.
 * "this user was created to find out why the site had been blacklisted "
 * Now having a better understanding of the circumstance why your site has been blacklisted, I think we can close this request. As stated previously and for further clarification, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to "editor in Chiefs'", "employees" or "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 such an editor asks to use your blacklisted links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed. closing as .--Hu12 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

goo.gl
Google link shortener, now used automatically by google maps/books/news. Not sure what it was before that caused it to be blocked. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 04:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't blacklisted locally, it's done on the global meta blacklist at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist that applies to all mediawiki sites. There's a long-standing policy of blocking all url shortening sites as they have proven repeatedly to be abused by those who use them to bypass legitimate blacklistings. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * , use the full URL instead please. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, how do I do that when (if you read what I posted) google is automatically creating urls using this service now in Google Maps, Google Books, Google News, and anything else where you click "link" to get a url.
 * Also, only google links can be shortened with it, not url's in general. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The former, maybe it is a setting somewhere? It must be something like that, since I do not get the auto-shortening (link just gave me http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=duitsland&aq=&sll=51.44102,5.524515&sspn=0.009055,0.01929&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Germany&t=h&z=6) ...
 * Well, that does not make much of a difference, parts of google.com are also blacklisted as they can be abused - but also, you may see that goo.gl/hBFpB is actually a redirect to Wikipedia's mainpage, so it does not only google.com links.
 * Sorry, redirect sites of any form are not to be used. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The goo.gl domain is most certainly a general-use URL shortener, which can be seen by going to the main webpage. I entered the full URL for this thread, and it provided goo.gl/IBfaf - which can be used now to link directly to this discussion.
 * I also attempted to generate a link at both Google maps and Google books - and in both cases it provided the full URL, not a goo.gl version ... so there must be a setting someplace that you've set in your google account that is causing that. --- Barek (talk) - 17:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

anusthanokarehasya.com
This website contains all the information regarding Dus Mahavidyas. This website was only added to the pages which belongs to Hinduism and their deities. This website contains very good information on Bagalamukhi and all the other mahavidyas and must be included at least in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.96.240 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * . If a trusted, high-volume editor makes a de-listing request, it might be considered more seriously. For now, specific pages can be whitelisted as needed, but I'd be wary event of that, considering that my Peerblock installation here tags that site as "Malware". Also, the relevant information on it doesn't appear to be in English. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, spamming of this domain continues with redirect sites. MER-C 13:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

songsofthebeatles.com


This is a web site that gives detailed information about the Beatles band that does not exist on Wiki. So it is good to give that information via entering the external link to one or at most 3-4 WIKI pages. I entered the link to the page about "Lists of the Beatles" and in a few songs that it was erased, thinking that I made some typos and therefore entered it again. So this type of behavior is regarded as "spam". If this link can be delisted, I can assure you that I won't be abusing at all. Sorry, my mistake.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.46.174 (talk • contribs)


 * Adsense pub-6232557366897383
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. additionaly it seems to be an Adsense scrapper site which appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright --Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. additionaly it seems to be an Adsense scrapper site which appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright --Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

www.suite101.com


Greetings, I would like to request to remove this website from the spam blacklist. I am trying to use the site (Suite.com) + content/three-periods-of-ancient-greek-art-a5827 for little information on the article " the Hellenistic Period ". Please.--Corusant (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We've had problems with this site before, and it's not generally a reliable source, so there's no reason to remove it from the blacklist just for one citation. If you believe that whitelisting one or a very small number of pages would improve the encyclopedia, please make a request at the whitelist instead. That will allow us to maintain blacklisting of most of the site. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

fractalcompression.co.cc
The site is on the black list, but it is devoted to fractal image compression and shoud be allowed to add the link in the corresponding section. — 92.243.99.58 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Unfortunatly Blogs fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy.--Hu12 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add that this site isn't specifically listed here or on meta. However, all of *.co.cc is blacklisted here, so if you want to list a specific page, please request it at the whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are valid uses for blogs, both as references at external links. I am prepared to selectively whitelist any site being blocked merely for that reason unless there is some other problem, unless someone can show me a reason that does not contradict our actual policy at {{WP:EXTERNAL]], which says they are normally to be avoided, but with exceptions--it specifies we have include external links to blogs by recognized authorities--we also have links to blogs if the blog is the subject of the article, or if it is in practice the official site of the subject of an article, & I could probably think of a few dozen justifications. Merely being a blog is no reason for a site to be blacklisted.  Additionally,  co.,cc is a site offering paid and free domain registration/ Undoubtedly some of the sites on it may be bad, but I do not consider this as necessarily a  reason for the entire range of their sites to me blocked.  DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

movies.bollysite.com
Again, your call, but a reasonable rationale for completely blocking an index of Indian film professionals would be appreciated. Anarchangel (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Blacklisted in 2007 as part of a large group of Bollywood-related spam. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition, links to this site, "Search Indian Cinema", are Link normally to be avoided and do fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy.--Hu12 (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

r.fm
Underground Evolved home page. Imo that article was improperly deleted because of the link blockage; the site and thus the organization was believed to be defunct at the 2nd AfD. Very professional-looking multimedia page. I don't know much about spam, but got no alerts from Comodo Firewall.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchangel (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 February 2011


 * First the article mentioned no longer exists. Second it failed 2 of 3 AFD's (one with no consensus). thirdly, a "live-link" to r.fm would not have had any affect, nor is it relevant to wikipedias notability criteria. In addition to being Bot spammed by mass sockpuppet accounts, its a Link normaly to be avoided and fails our external links policy.
 * "We are collectors of carefully selected club music recordings from around the world ...With a unique artist network of leading producers and DJs, R.fm always stay relevant - a place where you can connect to the uncompromising love for the club music movement"
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Articles for deletion/Underground Evolved (3rd nomination) discusses the flawed second AfD but the consensus was still to delete. This isn't the venue for requesting undeletion of articles anyway. See Deletion review for that. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

chriscomerradio.com
Chriscomerradio.com was removed in January 2011 (repeated spam links) by Ckatz. Chris Comer was linking to radio interviews he has had with various celebrities and was flagged because of his site being listed in multiple articles. His site generates no revenue and is entirely for information sake. Please review this and hopefully remove the domain or implement some whitelisting. Thank you very much. 75.6.24.224 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Sean-Der
 * ❌ We generally only unblacklist sites that have a history of spamming when an experienced, trusted user makes the request. In such cases, individual whitelisting would be more appropriate. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It just seems a very heavy handed ban and it can't be classified, as there is no money to be made. We can request white listing but it is very time consuming instead of unlisting a staticly created website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.24.224 (talk • contribs) 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't waste your time submitting a whitelisting request if it's coming from a single purpose account. Also see WP:ELNO and WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So your saying that the interviews he recorded are less valuable than say rolling stones? I understand cautioning self promotion but direct links to interviews on a site he has no commercial interest does not seem very self serving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.24.224 (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what's more the concern is that the site was being spammed on Wikipedia, not what content is on the site. -- œ ™ 13:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any way I could hear the original case for why the site is (spammy). He was posting relevant links and he was not destroying the flow of the article. I really strongly believe the site was shuffled into the blacklist without Ckatz looking into the content of the site. I am not saying he did the wrong thing the sheer volume you guys work with is incomprehendable so there can be mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.24.224 (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such, Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site. 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 an appropriate source (in an appropriate context) when there are no other reasonable alternatives available. --Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

rickroll.com
The site has now been changed to the official movie site of an upcoming movie The Chronicles of Rick Roll and should be removed from spam blacklist. []MarlinMr (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * . It's blacklisted there, not here.
 * "Now been changed"? What was it before? And why should it be removed for an article that doesn't even exist? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What was it before: Rick rolling is what it was, ànd why this was abused, ànd why it was blacklisted. No reason to remove for an article that does not exist, ❌.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ehow.com
I am requesting that eHow be unblocked because I edited Monterey Bay Aquarium and came upon the message that it was blocked. I am working hard to promote it to GA status. Also, if information is added to an article that regards how to do a task, I would certainly use this link to cite such info. Thank you. Bulldog73 (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ehow.com is a content farm to whom anyone can contribute, which pays its writers based on page views, exercises little editorial oversight and whose content is essentially self-published. See also . If you really want to use a specific link for the article, then . MER-C 09:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

educationupdate.com
"Education Update" is a 14-year-old, award-winning newspaper with 100,000 readers and 2 million monthly hits on the web. Our readership includes parents, teachers, students, guidance counselors in NY and NJ, principals, superintendents, librarians, college presidents, college deans, foundation heads, politicians, business leaders and medical school deans. Education Update is mailed to over 1600 public schools in NYC, 170 schools in NJ, 207 public libraries, 150 private schools. Qwerty200075 (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * . "Our readership"? We generally don't remove listings at the request of a site owner, editor, employee, or anyone otherwise connected to the site, especially for a site as heavily spammed on Wikipedia as this one. If a trusted, high-volume editor requests removal, we may consider it seriously. For now, you can request specific pages to be whitelisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

no problem I understand, but just to let you know, I'm not related at all with them, just tried to use one page of their site as a source Qwerty200075 (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

KoolMuzone.com


A quick run through the logs reveal that the domain was blocked due to the actions of a possible vandal. The site otherwise is one of the best and most respected blogs of Pakistan and has won the best Music Blog of Pakistan Award last year. They are regularly breaking news, and launching artists by partnering with national radio stations here. I request that its inclusion in the blacklist be reconsidered. Thanks.  U z E E  02:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this was plainly spammed, and it is blacklisted on 3 different wikis (I am actually wondering why it is not meta-blacklisted). If the blog is notable enough for an own article on en.wikipedia, I would suggust to whitelist an about.htm or the index.htm for use on that article.  Blogs generally make bad external links and are often also not really suitable as references .. and seen the multi-IP, multi-article, multi-wiki spamming, I would say,  for specific links which are suitable here or there.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

NingboGuide.com


Requesting removal of spam status for following reasons: Ningboguide.com is a directory/travel site rated #3 on Google and top 5 of most search engines irrespective of country. Site represents a city of apprx 5 million residents and has a mission statement of providing complete info from medical care to nightlife. In addition the site is the only link to the city's only English magazine. Site content written by company staff/contributing authors as well as contributed by other entities such as press releases from local government, consulates, 5 star hotels etc. Have read previous logs pertaining to why site was black listed. To my knowledge, as owner of company, this was done between individuals not related to company/site/magazine.The site is truly an informational tool used by many prior to and during their business, tourist, or residences in Ningbo, China...which matches the goals of Wikipedia in my opinion. Thx for taking time to read an consider. Thaneningbo (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Thane

A bit perennial, this. This was requested earlier by editors clearly involved in the site. This site, and sites related to it, were aggressively added throughout Wikipedia, and also on other wikipedia's. In fact, this specific site is blacklisted on three different wikis (which makes it almost suitable for global blacklisting). Many edits of removing other links in favour of these, many additions, mainly by IPs and editors who seem to have a big interest in this site.

Thaneningbo - that this site is rated #3 on Google and top 5 on other search engines may tell about the efficiency of SEO of this site (that ranking would likely be higher when Wikipedia was also involved ..). We hardly ever, if ever, de-list on the request of someone involved in the site, so just as earlier: - if uninvolved, high volume editors come to request this, then de-listing may be considered (though seen the history of additions of this domain and related domains, I would then suggest to defer this to the whitelist for a specific link to be used on one, specific article.

Some further statistics:


 * users
 * Renamed to NingboExpat, see also page history
 * See user talk of 216.131.115.106, mentioned below; and diff
 * Likely the sockmaster, see accounts below (see User:jovialman.
 * Aggresive undo-er, see contribs
 * Even more agressive undo-er: contribs - continued where sock Jovialman2 stopped.
 * Renamed from Eckhard Goessl
 * Declares also to be the site owner, see diff
 * Even more agressive undo-er: contribs - continued where sock Jovialman2 stopped.
 * Renamed from Eckhard Goessl
 * Declares also to be the site owner, see diff
 * Renamed from Eckhard Goessl
 * Declares also to be the site owner, see diff
 * Declares also to be the site owner, see diff


 * links

--Dirk Beetstra T C 11:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)