MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2010

=Proposed additions=

http://www.jackass3d.net


Looking at the page histories, for the last few months someone keeps spamming http://www.jackass3d.net to Jackass 3D and Jackass (TV series) to promote their ebay auctions. The IP keeps change one days its the next its  and then its another one.
 * - not ongoing, appears to have stopped in February --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

hotelsinrishikesh.in


Serious block evasion. MER-C 03:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * - appears to have taken place in Jan/Feb, with no current additions of the links. Will blacklist if it begins again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

nfldraftdepot.com


MER-C 09:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can nbadraftdepot.com be reviewed? Several articles use the same link - does that one need to be whitelisted once the primary blacklisting is done? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All were added by another bunch of sockpuppets demonstrating the importance of a quick blacklisting:




 * Cleaned. MER-C 08:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

globusz.com
globusz.com - hitler spam. Don't know who put in The Tale of Genji yet.


 * Site changed content. Original ~5-year-old link, so not vandalism. Site still "not encyclopedic". (Forgot to sign.)  Saintrain (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weird. First time I followed the external link, the site was definitely as described above. Site's contents have changed twice since then and now self-described as 'content no longer available'. Saintrain (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * - site seems to be shut down and no current activity. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

touring-talkies.com
MER-C 08:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Requesting a refreshed COIBot report. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

e-castig.com
Seen this being added by. Typical "spam your link to earn points for prizes" site according to a quick google search. O Fenian (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * - all activity restricted to two weeks in early March. If it resumes, may be a good candidate for meta. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

be-the-healthiest.com
MER-C 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

lookatperu.com

 * links

NOTE: the above URL redirects to: www.247rep.com/machu_picchu/index.html




 * accounts


 * see also:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
 * Talk:Machu Picchu/Archive 1

Multiple SPA accounts have been adding the link over more than a year, with no discussion or even edit summary despite warnings. Current IP is edit warring over the addition of the link, inserting a claim that it was sponsored by the government - however, the site is over-run with tourism spam with multiple adverts and links to travel recommendations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * - no current activity, will blacklist if it starts again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

youlay.net
MER-C 11:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

sites.google.com/site/australianresourcewars/
This is related to the sites.google.com/site/nswcnn/ and sites.google.com/site/nswcnn/ issue with one anon editor (under the IP range of 123.3.xx.xx) adding their personal website which has their POV. Today this (sites.google.com/site/australianresourcewars/) was added by in the War on Terror, Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Military history of Oceania and Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War. Bidgee (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The IP editor has readded this link into the same articles, this link clearly violates, WP:BLP, WP:EL and WP:NPOV. Bidgee (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All additions were within a 2-3 day period and has not resumed, indicating the user has likely moved-on to other forums. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

sites.google.com/site/cnnnow/
See the discussions above listed above this section. Bidgee (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * All additions were within a 2-3 day period and has not resumed, indicating the user has likely moved-on to other forums. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

drugandalcoholtest.us

 * links


 * account

Related domains were blacklisted in January 2008.  Them From  Space  05:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also:
 * MER-C 02:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears to have stopped for now - ongoing? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They have been spamming for three years... I wouldn't expect them to stop. MER-C 01:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

4yousoft.com


MER-C 08:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears to have stopped for now; but if it occurs again, post here and I'll blacklist it at that point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Last spamming was from on the 22nd. MER-C 01:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

yesterday MER-C 04:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

maxabout.com
MER-C 09:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears to be in use on a handful of articles - are better sources available for where it is used as a ref? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This looks like just another Made for AdSense Indian site. Blacklisting does not affect existing links, so you do not have to remove them. MER-C 01:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In theory, that's true - but I've run into problems with that recently on other links/articles, so I prefer reviewing the existing usage to see if whitelisting of some is appropriate.
 * I went through the remaining links, and removed those where it was used as a ref yet the link did not support the stated text. Can you glance at the remaining links and let me know your opinion on whitelisting them as exceptions? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the remaining two links. MER-C 08:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

songfacts.com
It's already on over a thousand pages, but a user believes that it is a reliable source even though users contribute to it. In addition, some pages on there have facts attributed to other sources, thus making the site redundant. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See discussion above. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Chinese costume spam


MER-C 10:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Russianzio spam
Accounts:
 * Listed on multiple lists as a spam source and possible open proxy or zombie PC
 * Listed on multiple lists as a spam source and possible open proxy or zombie PC
 * Listed on multiple lists as a spam source and possible open proxy or zombie PC
 * Listed on multiple lists as a spam source and possible open proxy or zombie PC
 * Listed on multiple lists as a spam source and possible open proxy or zombie PC
 * Listed on multiple lists as a spam source and possible open proxy or zombie PC
 * Listed on multiple lists as a spam source and possible open proxy or zombie PC


 * Listed on multiple lists as a spam source and possible open proxy or zombie PC
 * Listed on multiple lists as a spam source and possible open proxy or zombie PC



Spam domains:

Related domains: Google AdSense ID: 2407138955677159

Deleted articles:
 * Colosseum pub crawl
 * Pub Crawls in Rome

Reference: — A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Apr 1


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

africanmeccasafaris.com
Link was in several articles such as Lake Nakuru, Keekorok, Bamburi, Daphne Sheldrick. --21:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there current activity? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ongoing for 2.5 years. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * related sites:
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

bestofchatroulette.com at Chatroulette
This site has been actively spamming article Chatroulette, esp.: Including most recently: By its very parasitic nature, this site has no current or future value by itself for any encyclopedic article, has an obvious personal interest in repeatedly spamming Chatroulette against any rule in order to ride its current popularity for profit, and has done so. I see no reason NOT to block it one way or another. 62.147.25.111 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 times by warned spam-only account
 * then today by
 * Readded 23 February
 * Removed 3 March along a buncha spam
 * Readded 5 March
 * Removed 5 March 2010
 * Readded 6 March
 * Removed 6 March, this time with antispam comment and user warning at User talk:Tag 33
 * Readded 7 March via an undo (so we know the guy is aware he's breaking the rules and doesn't care)
 * - page was semi-protected, which seems to have discouraged various sites from posting links. Can re-evaluate if it resumes following expiration of page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

americansmokeless.com


Being abused on Vaporizer article and talk page, as well as several unrelated talk pages. Alternate url for the already blacklisted theubie.com. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, Timothy Sheridan again. He was blocked last year for relentless spamming of The Twelve Days of Christmas. If you can view deleted pages, here is a telling post. ✅ OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

geoplus.com

 * User creating new articles and adding subsections to others about products of geoplus.com. Also, user's user page seems to be a promotional piece for the company.  Am adding this at the suggestion of sockpuppet-report admin MuZemike here.

Diffs, , ,. CliffC (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Any subsequent abuse following user block, or did that resolve this one? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * - does not appear to have continued following user block. Can re-evaluate for possible blacklisting if it resumes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

absoluteastronomy.com and economicexpert.com
Links to these wikipedia mirrors get added constantly. They are mirrors of articles on wikipedia and people think they are valid sources of information to cite to. Nightkey (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Inst' absoluteastronomy already blacklisted? Amazing... Not only is it, as a Wikipedia mirror, an unreliable and unwanted source, but it is the site of one of the more persisting Wikipedia vandals/sockpuppets. Blacklist please. Fram (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with this listing. I haven't noticed anyone spam the links, but they are always being added, and are of zero interest to us. I've cleaned out several hundred of these links before, but there's still several hundred left. It's probably worth removing them before or in conjunction with blacklisting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I've gone on mirror-removal sprees before, and agree we should almost never be linking to them. If there's an interest in blacklisting mirrors generally, I have a list of several more, including some that are just minimal transformations of Wikipedia article text. Many of these are being used to link someone's preferred "archival" version of an article, which is six kinds of bad idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Added LinkSummary for easier review / reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say put them on XLinkBot override or similar with a custom warning. MER-C 08:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * - I'm not seeing evidence of active/on-going abuse. If the only issue is reliability and good-faith additions of a non-reliable source, then I agree that submitting a request to XLinkBot would be a better method for addressing the use of these sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say put them on XLinkBot override or similar with a custom warning. MER-C 08:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * - I'm not seeing evidence of active/on-going abuse. If the only issue is reliability and good-faith additions of a non-reliable source, then I agree that submitting a request to XLinkBot would be a better method for addressing the use of these sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Indian travel citation spam


MER-C 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * by A. B.. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

vgchartz.com


Notoriously unreliable; listed on WP:VG/S as an unreliable source. However, it's common that people use the source, and since the merits of the web site are limited to sales which are definitively unreliable and never allowed to be used, I feel protection is in order. The only exception should be made is on VG Chartz, where it should be linked to. But other than that, it is of no use and allowing it to be used will only cause a spread of misinformation and confusion that may make the GA/FA process bothersome; for example, The World Ends with You, in spite of being a GA, used VG Chartz, which shows the ineffectiveness of merely listing it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As the only reason given is reliability, which by itself is not reason for blacklisting. If abuse of the linking is found later, it should be re-reported; otherwise, XLinkBot may be a better tool to monitor and revert usage of the link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

umarikadu.in


MER-C 07:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * by  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

costabrava-rentals.co.uk


MER-C 05:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * costabrava-rentals.co.uk is currently listed with XLinkBot; the most recent addition that I could find was resolved by the bot.
 * The other site is not currently listed with the bot, but no recent additions that I can find. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now blacklisted on Meta with 2 other domains; see meta:User:COIBot/Local/costabrava-rentals.co.uk.


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

sites.google.com/site/artbatiks/home


Daily adding above site in last few days to Matara, Sri Lanka, and Culture of Sri Lanka. Please see my reports in WP:RSPAM and another older report. Immediate remedy is needed here.-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 04:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * by --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

tv-memories.com
The site offers bootleg content of archive British television for sale. It is a direct violation of WP:COPYVIO. The articles are often relatively obscure, so blacklisting is necessary to ensure that this spam to illegal practices is identified quickly and removed by a bot. The JPS talk to me  15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this still ongoing? COIBot came up empty - perhaps XLinkBot would be a better fit? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * - not ongoing, suggest added to XLinkBot if it resumes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

pbsmodular.com

 * link

Note: the URL http://216.144.168.210/ is the same site, so obvious COI issue.
 * account


 * previous report
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Jan 1

Activity restarted today. Ongoing spamming to the Modular building article, dating back to November 2009. Request blacklisting due to persistent spamming behavior, replacing links, and above mentioned self-promotional COI nature of the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * - COI editor given a final warning. Can re-evaluate if it begins again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Russian art spam


MER-C 08:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

tomakemoneyat-home.blogspot.com
Domain:

Related:
 * Note unusual spelling
 * Note unusual spelling

Accounts:
 * Note unusual spelling
 * Note unusual spelling
 * Note unusual spelling

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * - all activity seems to have been restricted to a two-day period and does not appear to have continued since then. If it begins again, could blacklist at that point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

www.WoodlandFairyAcres.com
Diffs:

Long-term spamming by a few accounts which essentially do nothing but add these links. Mangoe (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

britishhitsongwriters.com


User:Jasperhunt got up to a level-4 warning for adding trivial and inaccurate "this artist is the 67th/42nd/87th/etc most successful songwriter in UK recording history" details to a wide range of articles, citing this same source despite multiple editors pointing out that it was unreliable and subjective (it's a list of UK chart statistics compiled second-hand by a single person). He's returned since as User:213.105.216.112 and User:81.138.213.60 to add the same information in the same "94th most successful songwriter" format.--McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

makecashguides.com


Spamming, recreation of deleted articles, multiple SPA accounts.

See also WT:WPSPAM report. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

resellerwebhost.org

 * Google AdSense ID: 6031413263643516
 * Google AdSense ID: 6031413263643516
 * Google AdSense ID: 6031413263643516


 * Previously blacklisted
 * Previously blacklisted

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

r.fm


See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbsdy lives (talk • contribs)


 * I've had a closer look at this, the results are horrific. . Also:




 * Not sure if this should go to meta. MER-C 10:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Requesting a refreshed COIBot report. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll blacklist this soon - just waiting for the COIBot reports for chromalite.com and bestvideosonline.info. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * r.fm; the related domains are currently showing as parked domains, and COIBot is clean, so were not included at this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

cutedeadguys.net
I haven't gone to the link to find out, but I'm under the impression that this is a shock site, which has been repeatedly added to the ogrish.com article. It's not currently used anywhere else in Wikipedia, so collateral damage from blocking would be minimal. See the recent history of Ogrish (ever other diff for months) for details. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

twocircles.net
Some anonymous users have been inserting news-items from Two Circles Network in the External-Links-section of several India-themed articles. See for examples Aligarh Muslim University, Asghar Ali Engineer and Syed Ahmed Khan. My questions are: a) Could we see TCN News as a reliable source? and b) if so, do these news-articles have added value in the External links-section? I should say we should delete them as for WP:NOTLINK; after all, Wikipedia is not meant to draw attention to the Two Circles-website. Jeff5102 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Investigating, submitted to COIBot for a report. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * currently has 150+ links. Based on the questions included with this post, I suspect this should be addressed first at WP:ELN instead of here.
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Adsense pub-6153640473971053




MER-C 08:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump MER-C 06:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Mobile phone spam


MER-C 09:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

experthealthtips.info


MER-C 09:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: the spamming continues, including link hijacking of ELs to government sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

qdultfiendfinder.com

 * links


 * accounts

Repeated link hijacking, some with misleading edit summaries to attmpt to hide the behavior, , ,. See also report at WT:WPSPAM. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Added IP 125.236.130.86, which hijacked the official link with this one again today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sunroom spam

 * Contact data redirects to:
 * Contact data redirects to:

Same server:
 * Related domains:


 * Previously blacklisted domains:


 * Spam accounts:

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2009
 * User talk:Vsmith/archive14
 * User talk:Patioman3
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

2iventures.com
MER-C 08:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

webs.com
AOL IP's have been spamming this website into the pages of celebrities. There might be more AOL IP's, This IP is the newest one

Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5, Diff 6, and Diff 7. Please add it to the blacklist. Momo san Gespräch 05:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This concerns at the moment only:



And the users:



--Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More charmed80048436282250.webs.com
 * X-Wiki
 * de:Special:Contributions/172.130.189.254
 * cs:Special:Contributions/172.130.189.254
 * --Hu12 (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Userpage spamming;
 * Spamming Tommy's Pet Paradise adsense pub-4763110844767107
 * Spamming csi80048436282250.webs.com
 * Spamming eurodance4life.webs.com
 * Spamming freedomsudan.webs.com
 * Spamming related webs.com sub-domains
 * Spamming csi80048436282250.webs.com
 * Spamming eurodance4life.webs.com
 * Spamming freedomsudan.webs.com
 * Spamming related webs.com sub-domains
 * Spamming eurodance4life.webs.com
 * Spamming freedomsudan.webs.com
 * Spamming related webs.com sub-domains
 * Spamming freedomsudan.webs.com
 * Spamming related webs.com sub-domains
 * Spamming related webs.com sub-domains
 * Spamming related webs.com sub-domains


 * --Hu12 (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * webs.com appears to be a shared hosting site (sometimes free, sometimes paid); hosted sites appear to be pretty widely linked from existing articles (judging by linksearch), so blocking the entire domain would have a significant impact on existing articles. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt cleanup is needed, however blacklisting would have minimal impact on articles in which existing webs.com links reside. Blacklisting prevents editors from adding a hyperlink to a blacklisted site. Any revision that already contains a blacklisted link or a reference, is infact not prevented from being saved or edited.--Hu12 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah - I seem to recall blacklisted links used to prevent an article from being edited unless the links were removed. Good to hear that's been corrected. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Spamming of teennick80048436282250.webs.com
 * --Hu12 (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * only the 17 subdomains identified above. The broader question of what to do with the other thousands of webs.com links we have must be decided by the broader community and will be best handled using instruments less blunt than the blacklist. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

sites.google.com/site/nswcnn/
which has been added by a two of IP's (Latest IP was 123.3.170.133and the oldest 123.3.79.155), possibly the work of an individual who has a hatered or POV against the police. Bidgee (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * and readded the links again, this site needs to be blacklisted. Bidgee (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * and another . 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also
 * MER-C 08:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * . Bidgee (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Editor has readded the link again into the Victoria Police article. This external link clearly violates WP:EL and the editor is also clearly a POV spammer. Bidgee (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Editor has now moved readded the spam link to New South Wales Police Force. Bidgee (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

sites.google.com/site/dnapolice/
per above though this link was added to the New South Wales Police Force article by one of 123.3.79.155. Bidgee (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:BLP violation, a blacklist for this site would be protective. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, also this is a WP:NPOV and WP:EL violation. 123.3.183.55 has readded the link, blacklisting this and the other site is a start but I'm feeling a blacklisting of sites.google.com/site maybe needed. Bidgee (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

potatoricer.org.uk
MER-C 08:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this still ongoing? It appears to have stopped for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also submitted at User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Revertlisted. MER-C 11:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

pakmelody.com


MER-C 08:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

gcreddy.com
. Whitelisting of the remaining link (a good faith ref) should be considered. MER-C 14:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Abercrombie and Fitch variations
From a week-long spam campaign at the talk page of Stonewall riots from multiple IPs.


 * www.abercrombieandfitchuk.com ,
 * www.abercrombie-usa.com, , , ,
 * www.abercrombieandfitchusa.com ,

First request for blacklist per this suggestion. Let me know if I should be doing something different. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Created LinkSummary entries, for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on COIbot reports on these. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, they have also spammed on Talk:Main page at least once . — Gavia immer (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Created LinkSummary entries, for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on COIbot reports on these. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, they have also spammed on Talk:Main page at least once . — Gavia immer (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Abercrombie & Fitch



Spam sections added to Talk:Stonewall riots (example 1, example 2) and Talk:Main Page (example) by various IPs. TFOWRpropaganda 10:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note:Combined two duplicate requests. — Gavia immer (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I will add \babercrombie[-|andfitch][uk|usa]\.com\b, which is slightly wider than what is actually added. If it really catches something it should not, please adapt the rule. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The addition doesn't appear to have succeeded - see this new spam edit, which inserted "(http://) www.abercrombie-usa.com" at 06:38, 26 May. (The leading "\b" doesn't seem right?) AV3000 (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I fixed them. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

=Proposed removals=

wikigender.org
I recently created the WP article Wikigender, and was shocked to find that its official website wikigender.org was blacklisted. Now I have learned a little about spamming and blacklisting and whitelisting (much more than I want to know, honestly).

How would this website's inclusion benefit Wikipedia (WP)? (Very little, in the short-term.)
 * In the long-term, all of humankind will benefit from people's access to knowledge, knowledge both on WP and on Wikigender. Wikigender will be helped by increased exposure for its website, whose goal at least coincides with WP's own goal. And if Wikigender is successful then WP and Wikigender can coexist long-term in a complementary fashion.
 * This Wikigender website was initiated by and is supported by the OECD Development Centre with the altruistic aim of helping us humans by improving our gender equality and thus, our productivity. Long-term, the latter will directly help both WP and the rest of humankind.
 * WP's linking to wikigender.org, increasing this website's exposure, cannot possibly provide financial benefit to this website, its user/editors, its staff or its OECD sponsor above – exactly the same as links to WP cannot financially benefit WP.

If, however, in the early days after its March2008 launch some Wikigender users did make way-too-many links from WP directly to their own articles on Wikigender, then the links to articles perhaps should remain blocked. (I'm just guessing – I am totally ignorant about why this website was blacklisted by Hu12 on 13May2008.) If so, can you unblock the main website but leave all links to its articles blocked?

Do whatever is the "right thing" to do. Also please remove the message I already left on Hu12's talk page, if that is appropriate. I'll try to check back every few days, to reluctantly learn more than I wanted to know... For7thGen (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to receive, presumably from a "spam-knowledgable admin", some understanding of why WP blacklists this home website itself?

I am an ordinary citizen of both Wikipedia and Wikigender, somewhat familiar with both, and I simply can't believe the blacklisting of this homepage (wikigender.org) is needed. I posted my proposal for removal two days ago on 7Apr, which you can no doubt still find if desired. Even if blacklisting of links to individual articles on the above website is needed for some reason such as excessive linking, don't you have the technology to simultaneously allow a link to the homepage (wikigender.org) itself? Please do me (an ordinary WP user/editor) the courtesy of explaining WP's mysterious-to-me behavior. For7thGen (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)



I'll look into this, see what I can find. It was presumably blacklisted because most of the domain was spammed, but I'll have a look. Note that linking to wikis is discouraged per our external links guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

mystery solved. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, it is not .. I should get some sleep. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blacklisting discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_May_1
 * Delisting request: User_talk:Hu12/Archive7

It was blacklisted due to editors who are highly involved in the website (e.g. User:Maulwofer helped launching the site, user:wikigender) tried to promote the site on-wiki. This included sending spam-emails to other wikipedia editors, apparently using multiple accounts, etc. etc. That type of 'abuse' is indeed a good reason to blacklist such site.

As I said a bit before, it seems to be a wiki, and wikis generally fail our external links guideline. Do you think that the site is going to have widescale use in Wikipedia, or is it 'just' one link on the wikigender page. If the latter is the case, I'd suggest to whitelist e.g. the about.htm or something similar (so ). Otherwise this needs to be discussed further. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dirk, Many thanks for your excellent reply. (I've been away from contact with WP, is why I am this slow in expressing my pleasure at reading your friendly and thoughtful response and very-very helpful information.) It is a real joy to be on the same team with you!

I'd agree that the WP:EL guideline is against linking even to the wikigender.org homepage -- at least until they've been stable for a few more years and hopefully have a much larger group of registered users. I need to find time to learn from your two bullets above and also to learn more about whitelisting. I'm really looking forward to all three, as well as to more of my own WP contributions. Gratefully, and appreciating your good work, For7thGen (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * per above. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Marc Warren Online

 * I wished to add a link to the Marc Warren (actor) wikipedia page for the unofficial fansite, Marc Warren Online, but was notified that it was blacklisted.


 * I believe that it should be removed from this list because it provides a comprehensive source of information relating to Marc Warren's work and that it would be of interest to many of the people that would want to find out more about him and his work.


 * This is the website- s7.invisionfree.com/Marc_Warren_Online/index.php


 * Many thanks, --Roseofbelfast (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What is his official website, without that information I have no clue which site you are talking about. If you leave the http:// off, you can save it here.  Alternatively, put the domain into a LinkSummary template, or with nowiki-tags around it.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh .. I see that you said already. My mistake, sorry.

You want to link to a forum, forums are generally discouraged. Moreover, you say it is the unofficial fansite, which is also discouraged (even official ones ..). Hence,. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Lulu.com
Lulu.com is an online print-on-demand service, and has an article at Lulu (company). I'm not sure why it's been added to this blacklist, and can't see any reason on the discussion page. Both www.lulu.com and support.lulu.com are apparently blacklisted, which means any references to the website on that page, including home page links, references, information about licensing etc can't be saved. With the blacklist, this article contains lots of broken links of the form www lulu com and so on. Is there any information why it was added to the list, if any reasons were given at the time? Perhaps this could be reviewed? (Interestingly the german wikipedia page on the same company _can_ contain such links) Thrapper (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are previous discussions:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2008


 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2009
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2008
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2008
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/04
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/06
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/09
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/11
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/01
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/03
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your links. Apologies if those links should have been findable :)  Seems like there has already been plenty of discussion on this already.  I wanted to link to the root url / but it seems linking to /en/index.php instead does work.  I just removed the other references to help pages, licensing etc as I think it's more confusing with broken links.
 * Perhaps the root url could be whitelisted, perhaps the blacklist could be restricted to product pages, but as it is I guess it's ok. Thrapper (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You sort of have to know how to look for these old records. As for blacklisting product pages and unlisting the root URL, that could be tricky, but I'm not an expert on regex. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't advocate that. Most links to lulu historically have been people spamming their own stuff, and few of them pass the test of reliability (else they would be with a proper publisher). We should not need to link more than one or two lulu pages in the article on the company, we should be using secondary sources, as usual. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

VBS.TV
This is Vice Magazine's documentary channel. There are some fascinating documentaries and travel series on here, which are relevant for a number of articles. I just tried to post an external link to the Colombian Devil's Breath article about a hallucinogenic drug and found out it's blacklisted. Ridiculous. check www.vbs.tv Markeilz (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)




 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2009
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/08


 * Ridiculous, you say. See specifically Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1 .. massive cross-wiki long term abuse using many accounts.  If you need a specific link, I would suggest to, but delisting the domain is  (actually, why was this not blacklisted globally anyway, it seems to be cross-wiki, and besides en.wikipedia also ar.wikipedia have the whole domain blacklisted).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Uptight ban-happy admins will be the death of wikipedia. Or not, what do i know? Pretty obnoxious though. I clicked on a few of the "spam" examples you posted and they looked legit to me (interviews, documentaries, etc.).  I'll take your word for it that there have been abuses in the past but it's a crime to ban such a quality site.Markeilz (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yikes, Markeilz! Don't shoot.


 * There are several types of sites that get blacklisted. Aside from a few obvious no-brainers (malware-infected sites, for example), most are low-value, commercially driven domains driven by get-rich-quick schemes or content-light, ad-heavy junk pages.


 * Then there are the occasionally useful sites spammed for profit and Google page-rank. VBS fits in the second category. If our regular editors can't control the addition of links, relevantl or not, to our articles by spam-only editors, then we have to blacklist them. Then, as regular editors find individual pages they want to use, we whitelist them as needed at WP:WHITELIST. You're certainly an established editor here -- if you have a particular page you need to cite as a reference that meets our Reliable Source Guideline and Verifiability Policy, list it on the whitelisting page for discussion.


 * As for removing the entire domain from the blacklist, I think that would be a bad idea, given its history here.


 * Regards,
 * A. B. (talk • contribs) ("uptight admin") 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Boo-urns!  But fair enough.Markeilz (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Zen Technologies ltd
Specifically: www.zentechnologies.com Zen Technologies Ltd is leading Training Simulators provider in world. It was blocked due to some unknown user might be used link in the unfamiliar stories. I am the webmaster of the company requesting you unblock the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.243.133.227 (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "due to some unknown user"... Nope! . In particular:
 * Goutham Reddy is "SEO at zen technologies ltd" [sic].
 * MER-C 08:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MER-C 08:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * This domain may be related to a broad swath of domains first reported in January 2008 and eventually blacklisted in October 2008:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jan 1.5
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2008
 * Mgouthamreddy (see above) edited a link to asianhhm.com, one of the domains later blacklisted.


 * Other discussions:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2009
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2009
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * . Please let us know if you have any other domains to review.


 * Mr. Reddy, you were right -- this domain should not have been blacklisted here since this blacklist only applies to the English language Wikipedia and your link was also spammed elsewhere. I will list it on the global blacklist at Meta-Wiki.


 * The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.


 * 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/.


 * There have been rumours in various black hat search engine optimization forums that Google and other big search engines may be referring to our global blacklist when compiling their own black lists of search engine spam domains. Since these companies' decisions are beyond our control and are made independently of us, we assume no responsibility for them. Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting there, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. If they're using our blacklist, it's purely on their own initiative.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now moved to the meta blacklist. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems our Mr Reddy has just received an object lesson in the law of unintended consequences. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OUCH! Stifle (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Future Human Evolution
i tried pasting the URL, but wiki wont let me, so I added a DASH between the two words.

Specifically: http://www.humans-future.org/ take the dash out from the URL so humans and future are one word

I'm shocked this is blacklisted, its an excellent resource for information on Post humanism, and would make an excellent addition to the external links on the post human article. Machn (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)




 * See:


 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2009 (listing)
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2009 (de-listing)


 * Sockpuppetry and inappropriate spamming. Moreover, the 'domain' .co.cc got blacklisted partially due to these editors (see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2009), as they used that redirect service to circumvent the blacklisting.  The second discussion I linked here is of interest, and shows the persistence of the editor(s).  I looked at some links in the de-listing request, and they seemed to be copies of other documents.


 * Could I ask you if:


 * The document(s) that you want to link are really the originals?
 * Consider whitelisting of the specific links you would need?


 * Or do you see such widescale use that the link is better off removed from the list? Seen the edits and the persistence, I am hesitant to remove the blacklisting, as I am afraid spamming will resume.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "The information provided on this web site is of a general nature only and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual or entity. The information is not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date. " The site has no identified authority and is not a reliable source. It has been spammed and is riddled with adverts. The words "hell no" seem to me to cover this one nicely :-) Guy (Help!) 22:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone should probably blacklist the .com version of the URL as well. - MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added the .com site to the list. We'll probably have to watch out for more redirects, if their previous behaviour is any indication. --Ckatz chat spy  23:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Voobly.com
It was black listed because someone spammed the link. This person does not represent us, he infact represents our main competitor. We are a volinteer run site and when I tried to add our site to a page I even included our competitors link to remain unbias, only to find out we were blocked.

Here is the report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.173.108 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * . Sites are not usually removed by request of their owners, and you have not suggested any encyclopaedic utility for these links. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see two different articles have been spammed today with links to Voobly.com again.  .  Was this removed from the blacklist?  Is there an error somewhere that allowed them back in again?   D r e a m Focus  13:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

professays.com
We use wikipedia as a most valuable source for essay writing and we like to add our essays to contribute wikipedia as a source for research and writing. Today I found that all articles we placed are disappeared and we cannot contribute to wikipedia any more because we are in a blacklist. We never placed any ad and we never tried to use wikipedia for any commertial purposes but we placed only useful and original informational for wikipedia readers who use wikipedia like we do. Take a look at some our links added to wikipedia please. We ask you to put our website out of the blacklist please because we are not spammers and we believe our essays are informative, good for readers and contribute wikipedia pages in many ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union professays.com/essay-samples-on-american-history/union-vs-non-union/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_governance professays.com/essay-samples-on-business/essay-on-entrepreneurship-and-corporate-governance/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dell professays.com/essay-samples-on-management/dell-inc-business-analysis/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropping_out professays.com/essay-samples-on-education/school-dropout-rates/

Sincerely, Dim Zboryk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.126.25 (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm to essays about subjects. Moreover, this was spammed and you admit to have a conflict of interest.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm to essays about subjects. Moreover, this was spammed and you admit to have a conflict of interest.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

justtollywood.com
I added some actor profile links in their wiki pages and this site got blacklisted. But, this website is something like IMDB Of Telugu Cinema (Region: Andhra Pradesh, India). This has more useful data of telugu cinema and I request it to be removed from the blacklist. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.153.32.138 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As one of the spammers, you have been sufficiently warned, but I'll repeat some key facts again for clarity:
 * We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm.
 * You were warned to stop spamming, including being blocked for that.
 * Your links fail our external links guideline.
 * Moreover, after being blocked and this blacklisting, you continue to .. add external links.
 * Hence:, and if you want further websites not blacklisted, I really suggest you start reading the cited policies and guidelines, and contribute content in stead of links. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence:, and if you want further websites not blacklisted, I really suggest you start reading the cited policies and guidelines, and contribute content in stead of links. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, blanking reports is also not the way forward. But at least we know that you are fully aware of the issues.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you going to blacklist this new domain?
 * It redirects to justtollywood.com via a frameset. MER-C 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It redirects to justtollywood.com via a frameset. MER-C 02:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * nice catch,  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

sitekreator.bg
It's a place for many people who wants to make a own website. I have there a personal website and it's the same place like sitekreator.com It's just bulgarian version,which propose more space for pictures,information and other. I am just wondering why this place is in black list? Please fix this. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.42.102.109 (talk • contribs)


 * One of such sites was push quite hard (together with a lot of other, similar links), upon which the whole domain was blacklisted. Hmm.  Generally, many of such sites fail our external links guidelines and our reliable sources guideline, though there may be good info.  On the other hand, much will be in Bulgarian which may then be unsuitable otherwise.  If you can make a case for one specific link which is of use then that would be a case for whitelisting (see ), but if this is of general use, I'd suggest that the blacklisting rule '\bsitekreator\.bg\b' should be changed in '\bsitekreator\.bg\/barabbas\b'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check this collector's web site,and you will see that it's a normal and clear. And please remove from the black list Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.42.102.109 (talk • contribs)


 * Look, now we are getting somewhere. Why should we remove this specific domain, as this was the domain that was originally spammed.  Please read my previous post, and comment.  In this form, .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No,it's no true and may be you have wrong information.This site is crystal clear and no spaming.Please,be kind and check again. The site of barabbas is now in wiki too.But old version on sitekreator.com.We are going in sitekreator.bg to see this good collection but first we are tracing the link from old site.Please hold the domain in sitekreator.bg and it will be easy for all collectors to see this collection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.219.218 (talk • contribs)


 * Sure, I believe that, and they look nice, but we are not a linkfarm, we are writing an encyclopedia here. This link fails our external links guideline, and can certainly not be used as a reference .. so still .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

postchronicle.com
The Post Chronicle requests to be removed from the blacklist. Much of what we have been accused of isn't accurate. Post Chronicle Corp is an established and respected news source by Bing News, Google News, Yahoo News & AOL News. We syndicate Reuters and UPI content along with original pieces. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.41.154 (talk • contribs)
 * ❌ Per MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May_2008. The syndicated articles can be linked from better sources, and if there is a particular original story that a regular contributor needs, a request for that individual page can be made at the whitelist. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

davidpan.co.cc
This website has a great random walk applet, but I can't put in on because co.cc is on the spam blacklist. This site is genuine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.179.205 (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To allow one or a few links from a blacklisted site, please place your request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

indianservers.com
its a genuine site but placed in blacklist.pls remove it No valid reason given for removal. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

siver.org.ua
I added some historical info to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster from siver.org.ua/?p=226&lang=en and wanted to make an external link to it. The site has turned out to be blacklisted. It is strange as there are still links to it in Ukrainian and English Wikipedia. Of course the articles are written in journalistic style but they are on the basis of verified information checked by specialists. It's a humanitarian project supported by regional administration. I wonder which reasons coused it to be in the blacklist and if it is possible to remove it from Wikipedia's filters? —Preceding --[[User:Herasimenko|Herasimenko (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)unsigned]] comment added by 178.92.6.99 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is blocked on meta; requests to remove should go to m:talk:spam blacklist and requests to use one or a few specific pages should go to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Russianzio

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I appeal for removing these sites from the blacklist as they don't have anything to do with SPAM. My stupid link adding for the past 5 years resulted in this blacklist report, which were mostly my constant readding as i was not a user of wiki, so i did not see any warnings until now. All the IPs but 1 shown here do not correspond to mine and i am not using any proxy servers, thats for sure. Please blacklist my current IP and all the rest of the IPs present in this report. I haven't added any links since i read the first notice from A.B. I regret that i was profane not to look at the previous warnings. I was hoping that some resources were helpful to Wikipedia users as some of them stayed live on some top spam-guarded pages for more than a year until recently removed, which means they were approved by the administrators. I had my bad experience with this issue and believe me i've learned the lesson, so why punishing me more and so much as tracking all the related domains and throwing them to garbage? These domains will never appear on wiki pages, i just wanted to clean them up from this black scary list. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russianzio (talk • contribs)
 * See alse listing discussion
 * The sites were spammed, that is what they have in common. Whether it was you or not is not the question, the point is that they were added in violation of our policies and guidelines, by multiple accounts.  That means that blocking the IPs alone is not enough (there are likely to be other ones, and later genuine editors may use the same IP), and that blacklisting is the only option to protect Wikipedia from further additions.
 * The IPs who were adding them, were aware that they were adding them in violation of policy, see e.g. warning 1, warning 2, answer (to a question in a readdition, which are followed by a question and more of such remarks. In the meantime the edits go on to e.g. Fashion, which clearly contains a warning in itself 'DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF LINKS. If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here, but put it on this article's discussion page first or submit your link  to the appropriate category at the Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org) and link back to that category using the dmoz template.'.  A similar sequence can be drawn for Special:Contributions/205.233.77.220 who was also aware of the situation and still continued, plus that there are many re-insertions, which might have given a clue that other editors did not agree with inclusion, and that discussion was maybe necessary.  Those IPs continue, and continue.  So editors a) were aware, b) use multiple accounts/IPs to circumvent blocks etc., so blacklisting is the only option to enforce discussion before inclusion.  Hence, .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Fashion? Please see when the links were added there, the year 2005!!! You are mistaken that the editors were aware as the main editor was me! I was not seing the warnings as i didn't know wiki editing structure and the communicative possibilities. You can also go ahead and remove the microscopy site from DMOZ. I see you guys are not satisfied with what you did. You kill violently, torture the dead body endlessly and when its burried, continue to throw dirt on it. Even the bad criminals are pardoned, in this case you are treating those sites as forever spammed sites.. Please, open your eyes, what are you doing, don't you have any humane feelings? Are you Robots.txt files.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russianzio (talk • contribs)
 * User has been blocked 31 hours for repeat personal attacks. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I clearly see you don't know the Wiki communicative possibilities, but the big, big orange banner should be clear, and seen that you answered to warnings then diff of answer ON THE IP TALKPAGE on 10:15, 29 March 2007 and a subsequent edit to Fashion 2 minutes later (10:17, 29 March 2007) re-re-re-(..-)inserting the links for which you were warned, warned and warned, SHOWS clearly that you saw your talkpage, knew what the issues were, but still added the link. Now, 3 years later, you are back, and are surprised that, with another link, you quickly get reverted, warned, and shortly after that all your domains get blacklisted.
 * Threatening does not help. You could now have chosen to a) explain why you think your links are of interest, b) why your links are useful, c) gone to a suitable WikiProject to find editors who agree with you, etc. etc.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that i clearly didn't see the red banner in 2007. You can see what i did when i first saw it a month ago, i opened a discussion after which i was allowed to repost the links of the travel site. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:205.233.77.220 I did repost them and the other user threw the site to the spam report. I continued the discussion until now and never tried to post any links again.

You know that i realise what i have done wrong in 2007 and now, i can see how Wiki works now, as i'ts been one month of convincing that i am a human being with a baby and wife. I put these sites to the blacklist and apart from wiki admins my co-workers are very mad at me. I am afraid i lost everything here and you can't do more to punish me again, i am devastated already. If you still don't believe me, you can block those IP and the sites from appearing on Wiki pages, but please remove them from the open pages that all the world could see. I don't know what else i can do to recover from the mess i put myself in.
 * If your links are never going to appear on Wikipedia, it is absolutely irrelevant whether they appear on the blacklist or not. If a trusted, high-volume editor requests removal of some site(s) from the blacklist, or whitelisting of certain links, that request will be given full consideration. Until then, this request is.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

cafepress.com
I needed to link to cafepress.com - but was prohibited. Ban spammers not sites. --IceHunter (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You could post a request to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist, but it's likely to be denied unless there's a good reason for including it. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We do, but a ban won't prevent them from reappearing and spamming again. In such circumstances, domains are blacklisted. — Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 23:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(for a specific link, not for the whole domain!), the domain was seriously abused, sometimes blocking editors is not enough (e.g. if they are on a large, generally used range where they can easily circumvent blocks). Spamming pays, and that results in persistence of the spammers which is not stopped by blocking. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

dwaparayuga.com


I just tried to add a link to the non profit, non partisan Dwapara Yuga research site dwaparayuga.com and was informed that it was "blacklisted".

The site has some of the most comprehensive information related to Yuga research on the web - timelines, discussions, references and so forth.

I would like to think that this is simply an over-zealous algorithm and not a misguided follower of one of the various Kriya Yoga Groups, or militant Hindu traditionalist that cannot stand to see information from any source other than his/her own organization.

The site has 'no dog in this fight' and reports information from all groups, all sources and should not be censored since it is informative, non partisan and non commercial.

It was our understanding that Wiki was meant to be both neutral and comprehensive and this 'blacklisting' serves neither goal, or worse partisanship casting into question even the most neutral article since no ordinary reader could know what information the censors had chosen to remove with a device and vocabulary reminiscent of dictatorship and the worst excesses of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaparayuga (talk • contribs) 13:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, it is not blacklisted. But while you are here, please do not use tinyurl.com to circumvent blacklisting or whatever, those links are not allowed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The site isn't technically blacklisted; but the edit filter log does show that you tripped a filter labeled "User adds link containing username" on May 2nd.
 * Please review WP:COI, as a common cause of that filter activating is by a user who has a vested interest in promoting the site being linked. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline can help guide you on how to edit if you have a conflict. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=52463


This link was blacklisted without cause, even though the link contained the reason for it being acceptable by Gosgood - "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". This site was banned by someone at the Reid Stowe article. The site contains ongoing commentary, both positive and negative, about his long term voyage at sea. It is relevant, timely and not at all spam.


 * Not blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * tried to reinsert link and was informed it is still blacklisted. Link in original form without "[http://" - *forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=52463 Sailing Anarchy, A discussion forum critical of the expedition.]  Regatta dog (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The site is still coming up as blacklisted every time I've tried to reinstate the link. Any other ideas on how I might approach this? Regatta dog (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, it was the specific link., though the reason it was blacklisted was the continuous pushing before discussion.  The page is now protected, please, discuss and get to consensus.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

1000daysofhell.blogspot.com


Link was blacklisted without cause. No spam at the site. Site lampoons the subject of an article and offers contrary opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)




 * Several warnings, link is blacklisted, and blogspot is revertlisted. I see plenty of reason.  You seem to edit the same page as the others, undoing edits without discussion.  How do you think to use this site?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)



Consider. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This site is contains critical commentary of the subject's current voyage as well as lampooning of the subjects voyage. The link will fall under the "External Links" section of the article to provide a humorous balance to the site maintained by the subject's support team. Regatta dog (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No it won't. Wikipedia is not a humor site. There is no conceivable use for this link on the project. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Examiner
I was trying to add a source to DGUSA Open the Freedom Gate Championship with a link from the pro wrestling part of the Examiner, but that site is blacklisted. Now the same link was previously added to the Dragon Gate USA article. Was this a new addition to the blacklist within the last six months or so? Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been here already for some time, and these de-listing requests are frequent. Basically, Examiner.com was abused, and as it offers money for page-views it is a huge spam-incentive (giving that power to the 'man in the street', and not only to the people working especially for examiner.com; removals/whitelisting has been requested because an editor wanted to earn money with it).  Moreover, most of the information is either unreliable (as there is no editorial overview) and/or scraped (so one can find it also on reliable sites).  Therefore, delisting is, but specific documents can certainly be of interest, and hence be whitelisted (hence, .  I hope this explains a bit the situation.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

BioHealthChip.com
I wanted to make an objective wiki about the biohealthchips sold by the same named company. Of course the business is a scam, but I need to be able to reference to their site to show the claims they make. I'd really like to know the original reason why this site was blocked, is selling not widely acknowledged medicine a reason for removal? I'd like to enlighten the wiki readers and that can't be done without the references to the site in question.
 * The site was blacklisted for spamming. Suggest requesting the main page or about page be whitelisted at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

DyingScene.com
I run the music news website DyingScene.com. The site is a punk music news site, which employs a team of 10+ editors to publish 15 to 20 stories per day. We only publish stories from valid sources (ie. bands, labels, management, publicists, etc). When I first launched the site my editors and I used the Wiki account DyingSceneMusic to update band pages with relevant information as it came to us which we ignorantly sourced back to ourselves. At the time, I didn't realize that was a violation and now that I know, I do not intend to use this account (or any account) to update Wikipedia ever again. I have also made it clear to all contributors and editors of DyingScene to under no circumstances ever update a wikipedia page and use dyingscene.com as the source. Unfortunately it looks like dyingscene.com had been blacklisted before I could notify everybody to stop self-sourcing.

As our site grows, however (now up to 40,000 monthly uniques - not bad, for a niche punk news site), I would like wikipedia contributors to be able to use our site as a source if it is valid to do so, which brings me to the point of this message; Is it possible to have the blacklisting reversed?

I do not intend to use the DyingSceneMusic account ever again so it is fine if it remains blocked. Please let me know what can be done to undo the blacklisting (if anything).

Sincerely,

Dave (DyingSceneMusic)
 * As the original blacklister, I'm recommending against this. Site was spammed by numerous IPs and accounts, all of which were warned.  There is no shortage of notable music sites for references. I seem to recall that most of the original spammers of this link used it for simple things like tour and album release dates, information that is readily available from primary or other reliable sources. Furthermore, nearly all content on dyingscene appears to be user-submitted.OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope whoever reviews this page will make their own judgment. As I mentioned, we have a staff of over 10 editors to curate and write the stories which must account for the multiple IPs. As far as I know, we only received one warning (unless a warning went to a random user not associated with our staff) and its possible one or two editors updated wikipedia before I could relay the warning message to them. We pride ourselves on the accuracy of our stories and nothing is published unless it originates or is verified by a legitimate source (bands, labels, etc.). I'm positive that if you research any of the contributions made during the time we unwittingly violated wiki terms you will find the information was always relevant and accurate and did not solely pertain to tour and release dates. A good portion of our stories come directly from band members or label contacts either through interviews or direct relationships and is often original though you will often see the information reposted LATER on other websites. We are a rapidly growing site, and one of very few who represent many of the bands in the niche punk genres. PLEASE, look for yourself at the website, our past contributions, our competitors, etc to make your own call - I believe our site (dyingscene.com) provides a great resource of punk genre information that is not readily available elsewhere. Again, none of my staff will ever post to wikipedia now that we know of the violations. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information to aid in your decision making (traffic #s, examples of original/accurate content, lists of past/present editor IPs, etc.) Thank you for your evaluation. Dave (DyingSceneMusic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.104.243.131 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that if a trusted, high-volume editor requests that the site be removed from the blacklist, that request will be considered favourably. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Gosun.co.cc
I run a PC Tips and Tricks website at www.gosun.co.cc

I found that my website is blacklisted in the Wikipedia Blacklist.

I request this website to be whitelisted so that other users may add a reference to my website which can aid furthur to the readers of topics related to Computers and IT.

Thank You,

Amol Bhave

www.gosun.co.cc
 * First, I'd like you to read the conflict of interest guideline. Secondly, I am sorry, but we can not de-blacklist gosun.co.cc, as the whole of .co.cc is blacklisted for continuous abuse and its possibilities.  However, we can whitelist specific links, but for that you need to go to the whitelist page.  Hence,  and .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)