MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2007

= Proposed Additions =

Zemg Network spam

 * References:
 * meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/04
 * Already blacklisted one domain -- did not seem to stop him from spamming since
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct 2
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link) Removal request


 * Spammers


 * Blacklist request:
 * automotiveoilchange.net
 * bulldog-designs.com
 * buymenscologne.com
 * buymp3musiconline.net
 * candlemakingshop.com
 * carracinggame.net
 * crexweb.com
 * dmozkiller.com
 * dotcomwill.com
 * downloadyoutube.net
 * eymt.com
 * hottdating.com
 * howtopickalock.blogspot.com
 * kennelpage.com
 * lockpickingstore.com
 * monopolystamp.com
 * myspacefeen.com
 * pitbull.wordpress.com
 * pitoogle.com
 * profileslayouts.com
 * robinsonoutfit.com
 * soulja-boy.net
 * spywaretoolbox.com
 * stuntdevils.com
 * turnkeyarcade.com
 * wwwking.biz


 * Supporting data:

-- A. B. (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ad commission IDs:
 * Google Adsense: 3171671439017964
 * Yahoo ad ID: USYPN0028
 * ✅ these --BozMo talk 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Moisesxyz


Not SPAM, but a long term IP hopping edit warrior, who's efforts currently have Mousepad and Mouse (computing) (and their talk pages) on extended semi-protection, but who continues his campaign on other pages. Full writeup here. As he almost always includes the above link(s), I'm hoping that blacklisting the link(s) will be one more step in convincing him to take his campaign elsewhere. - TexasAndroid 15:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently handled by a bot - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AntiSpamBot/Blacklist_requests&oldid=164274277 --Sigma 7 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. We went after similar goals in different ways.  Sic-ing an anti-vandalism bot on him based on his link is not a bad alternative to blacklisting the link.  And since noone has acted to accept or deny my blacklist request, I'm guessing people are not certain whether they should accept or deny it.  So, for now, I'll withdraw this request, and we'll see what effect, if any, the anti-vandalism bot brings to the situation.  I may make this request again at a future date, but for now, I withdraw it. - TexasAndroid 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn so ❌ -- Herby talk thyme 13:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

itdatahouse.com


Spamming and vandalism, see WT:WPSPAM. Adding that many links to a page cries out for blacklisting. MER-C 11:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ agree--Hu12 01:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

2-clicks-stamps.com 2-clicks-outdoorfurniture.com all-about-seashells.com


Defying blacklisting on AntiSpamBot ( previous incident). See WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 10:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Given this history this should be listed -- Herby talk thyme 08:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

✅--Hu12 01:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

discusswelding.com
Info copied from Talk:Spam_blacklist#discusswelding.com sums the issue up:

Numerous anonymous and new editors are repeatedly adding links to discusswelding.com on English Wikipedia articles welding, shielded metal arc welding, arc welding, and others. Users include:
 * en:Special:Contributions/Craighill2006
 * en:Special:Contributions/72.172.42.104
 * en:Special:Contributions/12.171.187.11
 * en:Special:Contributions/75.88.204.192

The site itself is simply a forum with moderate traffic; nothing exceptional and not something that needs to be linked. Thanks! --Spangineerwp ws (háblame)  17:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied fron spam_blacklist by V5005 11:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest this one should be listed here (per my comment on Meta) -- Herby talk thyme 08:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

✅ per discussion--Hu12 01:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

largepenis.thumblogger.com
Repeated spamming on Penis enlargement. Someone wants to use WP to help sell penis extenders. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be listed, of no benefit to the project -- Herby talk thyme 08:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

✅ agreed--Hu12 01:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

worldwidealbums.net
I made a previous report proposing worldwidealbums.tk as spam, which was successful. I'm just posting an update because worldwidealbums.tk have changed their address to worldwidealbums.net. It's still a self-published website run by the same group. Spellcast 05:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

✅ thanks for the follow up.--Hu12 01:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Osmanseo spam
Spammer has ignored 5 warnings and 2 blocks. I recommend blacklisting all these domains:


 * Domains spammed to date:
 * airticketsonline.blogspot.com
 * buyairtickets.blogspot.com
 * makkahmadina.blogspot.com
 * herbspro.blogspot.com
 * katrina-kaif-pics.blogspot.com
 * websitemarketingstrategy.net


 * Related domains:
 * chicagoinusa.blogspot.com
 * dzines.blogspot.com
 * extendedstayushotels.blogspot.com
 * forex-foreignexchange.blogspot.com
 * free-auto-insurance.blogspot.com
 * freeinvestmentguide.blogspot.com
 * fubaohealthstore.blogspot.com
 * fullsoftwarez.blogspot.com
 * giftscircle.com
 * herbalhealthpro.blogspot.com
 * herbalremedies1.blogspot.com
 * herbspro.com
 * i-herb.blogspot.com
 * jennajamesonpics.blogspot.com
 * laptopzstore.blogspot.com
 * lovedatingplace.blogspot.com
 * mesothelusa.blogspot.com
 * onlinewebmarketing.blogspot.com
 * semguide.blogspot.com
 * vitacost1.blogspot.com
 * vitaminshoppe1.blogspot.com


 * Supporting details:

-- A. B. (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Account:


 * I support blacklisting this collection -- Herby talk thyme 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Bl'd--Hu12 01:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

becomingapua.com, bapua.com
Request blacklisting Protecting articles and blocking accounts havent stopped this link spam because the source is a dynamic IP address. The domain bapua.com, which recently has started to be used as well, is just a redirect to becomingapua.com.





dissolve talk  08:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

choosehelp.com

 * Related, but no evidence of spamming
 * Related, but no evidence of spamming



Spammer adds from one IP on day, the links get deleted and s/he comes back under another. Multiple IPs, multiple articles. Requesting blacklisting. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 20:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

✅ added choosehelp.com, kep an eye on the other.--Hu12 01:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

shannon-miller.com
Not spam per se, but an attack site that keeps being added to an article on Shannon_Miller. The site is run by a stalker of the subject. --Rocksanddirt 19:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Add spamlink template. MER-C 09:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

seems to have stopped--Hu12 01:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

My Jewelry Box
The Penton Media article was moved to My Jewelry Box and turned into a spam article. Given the real harm this does to Wikipedia, I see no reason to mess around with multiple warnings before blacklisting -- who knows what other little-watched article may be moved next and blacklisting may deter more moves. This request also includes other domains spammed by this user:
 * Blaklisting request:
 * mvpejecutivo.blogspot.com
 * myjewelrybox.com
 * mvpsworld.blogspot.com
 * mapsinsurance.blogspot.com


 * Supporting data:

-- A. B. (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Accounts:


 * Related domains (note spelling variations)
 * myjewellrybox.com
 * myjewelrybox-affiliates.com
 * thejewellrybox.com
 * thejewlrybox.com


 * Supporting data:
 * note that correct spelling variant, thejewl e rybox.com is not related
 * -- A. B. (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * note that correct spelling variant, thejewl e rybox.com is not related
 * -- A. B. (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * note that correct spelling variant, thejewl e rybox.com is not related
 * -- A. B. (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This should be blacklisted here in my opinion, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 10:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

✅ --Hu12 01:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

microglobe.co.uk
Someone seems to be determined to link to this site from many articles, mostly related to photographic gear. The stupid spammer is linking in many disambiguation pages. Edits from a number of Pakistani IPs as well as a user account. The site is an online store, so it probably isn't an appropriate site to link to anyway.

--Imroy 20:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

✅ not of use on this project--Hu12 02:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

overvoice.com and others


At first I thought it was just an actor pushing his personal page, but turns out his real job seems to be blackhat SEO and there are a number of domains being spammed over a long period of time. See WikiProject Spam report permanent link -- SiobhanHansa 12:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the blacklisting of these -- Herby talk thyme 12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅--Hu12 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Digital World Solutions (India) spam on Wikipedia
Multiple warnings and today s/he deleted the related archive records for the third time -- it's time. Please blacklist all domains below.


 * Spam domains:
 * amishaworld.com
 * amitbhawani.com
 * downloadheart.us
 * gii.in
 * hansikamotwaniwow.com
 * seomeeting.com


 * Related domains:
 * aamnashariffwow.com
 * adultdirectory.cc
 * alessandraambrosiowow.com
 * alleybaggettwow.com
 * allfreesoftwares.com
 * allseasons.us
 * alysonmichalkawow.com
 * ambatchdotcomseocontest.us
 * amitpatel.info
 * amrutapatkiwow.com
 * annabensonwow.com
 * ashleymassarowow.com
 * autumnreeserwow.com
 * ayeshaworld.com
 * babyscare.info
 * bangalorewow.com
 * bestreceipes.info
 * bibianajulianwow.com
 * biddingwebdirectory.com
 * bipasabasu.info
 * bloggerspoint.com
 * bollywoodnews.us
 * bridgetmarquardtwow.com
 * britneyworld.info
 * bugtest.info
 * celebrityrealname.com
 * celebtalk.info
 * celebtalk.us
 * chennaiwow.com
 * chinna.info
 * chiranjeeviwow.com
 * chirulife.blogspot.com
 * classifiedswow.com
 * creepdirectory.com
 * cristinaaguilera.info
 * daniellelloydwow.com
 * deepalshaw.info
 * deepikapadukone.in
 * delhiwow.com
 * digitalworldsolutions.com
 * digitalworldsolutions.in
 * directorylover.com
 * earn123.info
 * elingrindemyrwow.com
 * emilydeschanelwow.com
 * emmawatsonworld.info
 * emranhashmiwow.com
 * ericadurancewow.com
 * evagreenworld.info
 * f1r.us
 * funecards.info
 * giselebundchenwow.com
 * giulianamarinowow.com
 * globaluniversities.info
 * greatstories.info
 * haydenpanettierewow.com
 * hifilive.com
 * hiifii.com
 * hiifiiwebhosting.com
 * hitechclassifieds.com
 * hostboard.org
 * hostbrains.com
 * hotactresswallpapers.com
 * hyderabadforums.com
 * hyderabadtoday.info
 * hyderabadwow.com
 * ileanadcruz.info
 * imageshosting.us
 * indiantelevisionnews.com
 * interviewquestion.us
 * ishakopikar.info
 * jenniferworld.org
 * jennstergerwow.com
 * jiahkhanwow.com
 * jokerdir.info
 * kanganaranautwow.com
 * kareenaworld.com
 * karishmakotakwow.com
 * karisweetswow.com
 * katrinakaifworld.info
 * keeleyhazellwow.com
 * kendrawilkinsonwow.com
 * kidzkingdom.info
 * kingofdir.info
 * koenamitra.info
 * kunalkhemuwow.com
 * laceychabertwow.com
 * laetitiacastawow.com
 * laradatta.info
 * letzgoonline.com
 * lindsaymoultonwow.com
 * malaikaarorakhan.info
 * mallikasherawat.us
 * mandymoorewow.com
 * megastarfamily.com
 * mercedesterrellwow.com
 * milakuniswow.com
 * minisshalambawow.com
 * mobilephoneworld.info
 * namithakapoor.info
 * natashasuriwow.com
 * nayantarasahgal.info
 * negarkhan.info
 * newspoint.us
 * nobledirectory.com
 * onebp.com
 * onlineclickjobs.com
 * parishiltonworld.info
 * playboyplaymates.us
 * preityzinta.info
 * priyamanidoll.blogspot.com
 * qualitywebdirectory.com
 * rahul-dravid.info
 * rajnikantwow.com
 * rakhisawantwow.com
 * rhonamitrawow.com
 * rimisenwow.com
 * roselynsanchezwow.com
 * samanthamumbawow.com
 * sarapaxtonwow.com
 * seekjava.info
 * seka.us
 * seohyd.com
 * seophotos.com
 * sherlynchoprawow.com
 * sluze.org
 * sofiavergarawow.com
 * sohaalikhan.info
 * souravgangulyworld.com
 * srivazrala.info client
 * tamarasky.info
 * tanishamukherjeewow.com
 * technicalinterview.info
 * templetown.info
 * thebposervices.com
 * theseoworld.com
 * tollywoodnews.info
 * tollywoodtalk.info
 * top9webhostings.com
 * tourguideworld.info
 * triciahelferwow.com
 * trishakrishnanwow.info
 * tulipjoshiwow.com
 * tussharkapoorwow.com
 * tyrabankswow.com
 * uditagoswamiwow.com
 * urdir.info
 * vidyamalvadewow.com
 * websitebidding.com
 * willahollandwow.com
 * wordpresswow.com
 * worldranking.info
 * worldsbiggestdirectory.com
 * worldsportspoint.info
 * wowbollywood.com
 * wowgreetingcards.com
 * wowhollywood.net
 * wowindianfilms.info
 * wowtollywood.com
 * wowvidyabalan.info
 * yogaforpeople.info
 * yokomatsuganewow.com
 * zooeydeschanelwow.com
 * zuleykariverawow.com


 * Supporting data:

Additional data:
 * Adsense pub-1333359665928869
 * Adsense pub-6292042514317285
 * Spam Article (deleted) GII
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Sep
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Sep

-- A. B. (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Vandalism - Attempted deletion in archive
 * Vandalism - Attempted deletion in archive
 * Vandalism - Attempted deletion in archive
 * Vandalism - Attempted deletion in archive
 * Vandalism - Attempted deletion in archive
 * Vandalism - Attempted deletion in archive
 * Vandalism - Attempted deletion in archive
 * Vandalism - Attempted deletion in archive


 * ✅ uugh.. added--Hu12 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Referral linkspam on Moola (game)
Please add this regular expression to the blacklist: \bmoola\.com:80\/moopubs\/b2b\/exc\/join\.jsp

It will prevent the repeated addition of referral linkspam to Moola (game) (as seen in the page history).

I've tested this regular expression and verified that it will in fact block any attempt to add a URL containing a referral ID (such as www.moola.com:80/moopubs/b2b/exc/join.jsp?sid=4d544d744f5445354d6a553d-2 )

The page is currently semi-protected for 7 days to prevent IP's from edit-warring over which referral number is included.. and discussion on the talk page indicates that this sort of thing is likely to continue. -- Versa  geek  14:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been done, thanks. -- Versa geek  16:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * sigh - can someone please also add..


 * \bmoola\.com\/moopubs\/b2b\/exc\/join\.jsp


 * or work out a single regex that will catch it with or without a port.. thanks, -- Versa geek  01:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

✅ added--Hu12 01:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

netteyiz.biz
WT:WPSPAM report is here. Pure copyvio site, non-English (though curiously, not spammed cross-wiki so far as I can tell). Being added by more than one IP/account, all SPAs. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Any evidence this one is continuing to place links? Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 08:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing heard and no sign of recent links so ❌. Come back if the issues re-occurs - cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 15:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

al-moharer.net
The editor has been adding ref links to the article Ahwaz territory that link to al-moharer.net. See diff,. ['''Note added by Sarah: Guys, please be careful with these links. Admin Gnangarra said his antivirus and firewall went off when he followed one of the links.''' Sarah 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)]

This website is particularly disturbing and promotes terrorist activity against the US government and the Iraqi government: "The organization basically represents Iraq and comprises all the Iraqi people and its legitimate and bona fide resistance forces which the occupation wants to destroy, with the Iraqi national armed forces as a high-priority target." al-moharer.net/mohhtm/mukhtar262en.htm

Again, "Rise up Iraqis! United like the fingers of one hand! Expel these US' swindlers, crooks and rogues! These who fled their countries of origins to loot others or to escape their pariah conditions.. Reject their mentally sick local puppets who lived on welfare that the Western countries grant to handicapped, and mentally ill. Aren't these who claimed to be mad are nothing but mad!" and "Bloodthirsty US rapacious and debased rogues.. You will pay dearly for your crimes!" al-moharer.net/mohhtm/abu_assur262.htm

Among other things, this website contends that there are "more similarities between Post-9/11 America and Third Reich Germany than just over-reliance on Blitzkrieg tactics. We finally determined that the two nations were following parallel political courses." The author of that articles is, supposedly, a US military officer. al-moharer.net/mohhtm/guenther262.htm

Another quote from a different article, "October 2nd, 2007, will be a milestone date in the history of the Movement for the Liberation of Iraq from American and Iranian Imperialism. On that day, the Supreme leadership of the Jihad liberation struggle, which is comprised of 22 fighting factions of the Armed Iraqi National Resistance, was founded." al-moharer.net/mohhtm/mukhtar262en.htm

There are more, you can find them for yourself. I don't find any mention of Ahwaz anything on the site. I suggest that this site should be blacklisted, but I don't know who to take that to. I do not know if this individual is dangerous or where he is editing from. Note, I am unsure as to how secure this website is regarding viruses, etc.

Note: I am transferring this from ANI as per admin suggestion. --Strothra 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just picked up on this one - given firewall/AV issues I would suggest this is listable as a security concern for now? -- Herby talk thyme 11:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ as a security concern as much as anything - may need reviewing from a content perspective - thanks -- Herby talk thyme 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

youareanidiot.org
This site is known to be infected with a virus, and used to vandalize links on User:Jimbo Wales. &mdash; Coasterge ekperson 04 ' s talk  08:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

✅--Hu12 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

searchthesearch.googlepages.com



 * Spammers

Returning spammer, 59.95.178.186 has already been blocked for adding links. See WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 12:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

✅--Hu12 12:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

chitramala.com



 * Spammers

Has the balls to come back and add ~20 links after I pulled it over two days ago. See WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 11:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * IP is blocked. MER-C gave the user a final warning.  Next placement gets a block then blacklisting as far as I am concerned - thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 15:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

picshik.com

 * Spammers

Another returning spammer, blocked twice in August for adding the same spamlink. See WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 11:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Give me an hour or so :) -- Herby talk thyme 12:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

✅ -- Herby talk thyme 15:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

cceia.org and policyinnovations.org
See also - Long term COI spamming
 * Accounts

Long term prsistant spammer since November 2005 --Hu12 09:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

✅ thanks -- Herby talk thyme 09:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To be complete:
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

china-opportunities.atspace.com
Mostly likely same user hopping around. The IP range is 78.154.52.



Highly persisent in advertising this company. Only thing this user is doing. Taking a lot of time and energy for me to get rid off. Warned several times on talk page. Hadoooookin 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * let's monitor. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed - if they come back it might even be worth a short range block - 24 hours or so - to see if that made them realise? -- Herby talk thyme 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (Added another one above.) Is there a set number of times for the link to be blocked? Hadoooookin 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (Added another one above.) Is there a set number of times for the link to be blocked? Hadoooookin 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That number :) Blacklisted but I think we should review the options.  Offline now so will log & review tomorrow.  Thanks for the update & reporting, cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 20:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Given this was a changing IP I blacklisted it yesterday. If anyone disagrees feel free to say so - otherwise ✅ -- Herby  talk thyme 09:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

taopage.org
I am posting this request because I believe this site has extremely long term abuse of external links in several tao related articles. They primarily have very little information or simple information that is already included in wikipedia but provide "initiation" online courses for a fee and etc. like books. The addition of this site is almost always done by ip and dates back further than 2004. In this case maybe I am the spammer but since I've added the nomorelinks tag for that external links section and it was added anyway just recently in the taoism article. I believe this is first added and been numerous removals since but always added by anonymous ip. 96.224.101.132 08:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also add that after some study realize this is the same user that creates additional but not so creative other sites that offer the same like freudfile.org in the Psychoanalysis article and related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.101.132 (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some links to differences on the pages they post too and some of the IPs responsible please so that we can evaluate the request - thanks -- Herby talk thyme 09:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the below but I'll post the information. It apparently started with keahapana adding it in taoism page but appears to be linked to two additional sites like fruedfile.org and carl-jung.net

Hope I did it right
 * Put in spamlink template, let COIBot tell it's use. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Put in spamlink template, let COIBot tell it's use. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

per discussion--Hu12 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Commercial linkspam on Kim Kardashian
Repeated addition of a link to a commercial site to purchase the Kardashian porn tape. Clicking on the link takes the reader to a site that has already been blacklisted. Article was semi-protected because of IPs adding the link; now a couple of long-dormant users have suddenly returned, apparently just to add this link to the article. One of these users has now been indefinitely blocked. The link to the website is: http:// truecelebz.com/KimKardashian/SexTape.wmv

Diffs:

Risker 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of no value to the project - should be listed -- Herby talk thyme 13:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

✅ also added the page it redirects to kim1.vivid.com--Hu12 04:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)



Add spamlink template to make COIBot trace future additions (also cross-wiki). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

france-photos.site.voila.fr
Special:Contributions/89.224.158.44--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 02:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Added spamlink template. MER-C 09:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to not do this one for now. If they return I suggest a block straightaway if the same IP is used then review?  Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 11:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

.blogpost.com
I propose the following links be blacklisted. I came across them while browsing the history of these albums: Saturday Nights, Sunday Mornings, Her Name Is Nicole, American Gangster (album), I-Empire, and In Rainbows.



The above URLs link to a virus (as reported here) and the following blocked accounts and IPs disguise it as a link where they falsely claim the album was leaked.


 * Special:Contributions/Europebound2007
 * Special:Contributions/Crykeymate
 * Special:Contributions/Jimroot138
 * Special:Contributions/Brettlink
 * Special:Contributions/67.55.2.247
 * Special:Contributions/139.57.13.181

I see there are other reports on this talk page and on the actual blacklist relating to ".blogspot.com" addresses. Perhaps the whole ".blogspot.com" domain can be blacklisted. Spellcast 23:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone got pointers to general policy on blog stuff? -- Herby talk thyme 11:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I was told some blogspot accounts are legit such as Robert Reich's robertreich.blogspot.com. So it's probably not a good idea to block the whole site. But the ones above should definitely be blacklisted though. Spellcast 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be blacklisted at the root domain. There are a very limmited few that are legitimate per policy and those should be treated/included on a case by case basis via whitelisting.--Hu12 20:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I support that. But I wouldn't be surprised if there's a future rise in whitelisting requests. Spellcast 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, then even:
 * Let's see how it gets used. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see how it gets used. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

brighthub.com


The spammer, using the IP 121.246.26.90 was blocked on Friday for spamming this link, but the spammer has returned with the IP 121.246.25.140 today. See WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 08:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

✅--Hu12 (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html
This link was brought to meta, but they suggested listing it here and posting the meta conversation. Here it is:


 * Hate site solely exists to discredit one person, spammed across Wikipedia on various pages to do the same. No redeeming value. --Let You2 23:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Should this one not be listed at en wp rather than globally? I see the disruption for sure but I'd get that in the local blacklist asap personally. See if you can get some action from an admin on en wp, if not maybe nudge me again but it is outside what should be on Meta in my opinion, cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Herby, I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the process and don't know any admins on en wp. I agree with you about the disruption, though. Could you help? Perhaps you know an admin or something. --Let You2 21:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to list this request here (maybe copy what is here almost - ie A. B.'s bit) that should get you somewhere I hope, cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

--You and Me3 17:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the information I posted on meta in response to this request; it's what Herby alludes to in his post quoted above:


 * Jason Gastrich has a long history on en.wikipedia:
 * List of en.wikipedia Wikipedia-space pages linked to User:Jason Gastrich (over 160 pages)
 * List of en.wikipedia Wikipedia talk-space pages linked to User:Jason Gastrich (15 pages)
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich (49 verified sockpuppets)
 * Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich (136 of these)


 * There are unrelated durangobill.com links on other wikipedias, but only en.wikipedia has links to the durangobill.com page criticizing Gastrich. None are in article space; here they are:
 * Talk:Farrell Till
 * Talk:List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning
 * Talk:Louisiana Baptist University/Archive 1
 * User talk:WarriorScribe Archive1
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive52
 * Articles for deletion/Jason Gastrich
 * Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 14


 * Also see this list of domains owned by Jason Gastrich; some of them have been blacklisted on meta:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct
 * -- A. B. (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this one still a current issue? Thanks -- Herby talk thyme 08:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Was wondering the same, probably could be archived if issue has ceased or been resolved elswhere..imho--Hu12 (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

bressimarkets.com
Persistent spammer (now indef-blocked) has been adding commercial links to the website for what appears to be his or his family's chain of supermarkets to various articles on cured meats (Salami, Sopressata, etc.) Has also edited as:

A link to this website has no place on Wikipedia, and the user has been warned and blocked repeatedly. android 79  22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * yep - no question to me & ✅, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 07:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

amityisland.net

 * see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam
 * Accounts

site owner →cross wiki de.wikipedia.org   →cross wiki de.wikipedia.org   agressivly spammed "Tribute site", using differing ips and WP:SPA spam only accounts. several x-wiki additions, appears to be focusing on en. for now--Hu12 (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'll log it a bit later. If it is cross wiki let me know and I'll go to Meta with it - cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam from vandal Wayne Smith AKA Universe Daily

 * www.robertgbarrett.com
 * www.myspace.com/wendimurdoch
 * www.opinion.com.au/5201_is_wayne_smith_who_bought_bindiirwin.com_a_cybersq.htm

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily

Yale s (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Monitor it. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Monitor it. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Monitor it. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Monitor it. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Both those sites belong to Wayne Smith and he has repeatedly posted them on pages. His Long Term Abuse page has this notation:

Instructions: Block on sight and revert Yale s (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

Infodriveindia.com (removal)
Pls revert Infodriveindia.com links, and take infodriveindia.com of the blacklist.

Hello, I am Rakesh Saraf , Director InfodriveIndia. InfodriveIndia is a free International Trade Resource with huge statistical and database driven content of around 200,000 pages. Our website has been reported as spam. [4]. I and my colleagues have added few links of main categories of our content in the most appropriate and related categories of wikipedia. I admit we are just learning how to use wikipedia and may not be very familiar with wikipedia technical terms, but we have certainly added value to wikipedia in a ethical manner.

a) Links added meet the guidelines in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#What_should_be_linked.

b) links added don't have links on similar subject almost all the time.

c) The content we have on our website is the most comprehensive and upto date then even the Govt sources.

d) Any user with exposure in International trade is welcome to check the above.

e) We have been warned only Once, and it was very technical warning. We didn't knew terms like "socks puppets" and that "creating a External Links section is not allowed". I still don't understand what is wrong in my colleagues adding a link , as long as it is related and adds value to the page ?

f) I have read in talk pages about Wikipedia not being a linkfarm and I appreciate the idea, however our content cannot be added directly in Wikipedia as a article ..as it is database driven and voluminous and WP:EL point 3.1.3 mentions that such links "Should be added". Can anybody guide us ..? In case we have done any technical mistakes ...can somebody advise what we need to do ?

g) I could not find any Wiki Project related to International Trade to ask others to judge this.

h) What is the criteria of judging such issues ? basis of "links being added" or " value being added" ??

i) Whom should I contact in Wikipedia, who can check our links and content and certify that they do "ADD VALUE " to the Wikipedia article where they were added and confirm to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#What_should_be_linked

More details of this discussion could be had here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WT:WPSPAM#infodriveindia.com

Thanks & Rgds, RakeshRakesh999991 08:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will reply to each of the points:
 * a) as an example, the link http://www dot infodriveindia dot com/India-Exports-Trade-Data.aspx got added to Balance of trade, the added link gives access to India specific data, for some companies, over 2004 only. That is certainly WP:EL (point 14, not directly linked to subject; otherwise we could also add links for all other countries over all other years).  Seen the specificity of the data, it is better used to make a point (and the link used as a reference, see WP:CITE, and intro WP:EL) about a company's trade in 2004, but I expect the data to bee too specific for that.  Same things can be said about some other link additions.
 * b) As point a, the specific trade of India is not directly linked to business of trade, it would be to Trade of India, but this data may be too specific even for that page. Moreover, we are not a linkfarm.
 * c) The page in the above example is 2004. Would not call that up-to-date.  And again, it is then better as a reference.
 * d) I will leave that to an expert, indeed.
 * e) You were indeed warned only once, for a pretty blatant addition. Blacklisting occured after user:Jon007 ignored a uw-spam4im (final warning) for 5 days, and was given 3 other warnings in the meantime.  As Jon007 has not reacted until now, it is difficult to ask him why he ignored the warnings.
 * f) Well, as I said above, I disagree. This data (over a previous, closed year) is certainly suitable as a reference, or can be used to write content which can be attributed by the data.
 * g) see WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society, guess that should be a more specific search point.
 * h) If there are concerns they are expressed by contacting people on talkpages. If people continuously ignore these warnings, it is either put on autorevert (see User:AntiSpamBot) or blacklisted here.  The wikipedia is a cooperative project, and when there are concerns then it is best to first discuss on talkpages or with a wikiproject.  Unfortunately, Jon007 ignored these warnings completely.
 * i) I guess, some established editors. You can try talkpages of pages where you want the links added, posting there, or see if there are editors who are frequently editing the documents and contacting them on their talkpages.
 * Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are the warnings:
 * User talk:Vikram infodrive -- 2 warnings
 * User talk:Rakesh999991 -- 1 warning
 * User talk:Jon007 -- 6 warnings


 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.


 * Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
 * Regards, -- A. B. (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

per A. B. -- Herby talk thyme 08:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Health N Insurance
I request you to remove the link healthninsurance.net from the blacklist.

I had come to know about my blacklist status just now. I'm certainly not aware of the reasons behind this inclusion in the Wiki's Blacklist. I'm not aware of the reasons for this blacklisting, But one thing I surely say is that this site is a very good resource about the health insurance in US. It provides very useful information for the individuals.

So, I think the Wiki Admins should surely see into this matter as to how this link got entangled into the Wiki's Blacklist filters at all.

Thanx. - Avi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avintechno (talk • contribs) 17:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Avi, see these links:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (permanent link)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Aug
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist


 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.


 * Avi, 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, Markus, 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/. -- A. B. (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

per A. B. -- Herby talk thyme 08:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Invisionfree (removal)
I request InvisionFree be taken of the blacklist. -King SweaterHead 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been some postings on the talk page of the Meta blacklist related to invisionfree.com links. Could you please remove or strip the links if you are going to keep it blacklisted? There seems to be quite many articles with invisionfree links in them here, and editors gets problems when the links are blocked.


 * Reference:
 * Special:Linksearch&target=%2A.invisionfree.com&namespace=&limit=500&offset=0


 * meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#invisionfree.com
 * meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#www.invisionfree.com.2FMorpaga_RPG
 * meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Problem_with_spam_filter_at_Wikipedia:Talk:_Green_building
 * meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Can.27t_save
 * --Jorunn 09:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to have been added last week by User:JzG, quoting "WikiProject:Spam Investigation" (see ). However I cannot find any discussion on WikiProject:Spam in the July, August or September archives.


 * There appear to be about a hundred links on article pages. I've checked out 15 instances  and only one of those (the actual InvisionFree article) seems to be appropriate.    Given that our guidelines consider forums to be external links to be avoided, I don't know that the one article where it is appropriate is significant reason to remove if it has been spammed.  Worryingly links to these forums are even being used as citations.  Blacklisting may even have the side effect of lifting the quality of some articles slightly.  -- SiobhanHansa 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually. The ZetaBoards article's HOMEPAGE is invisionfree. Why exactly do they have an article about something that is blacklisted exacly? -King SweaterHead 14:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I've done a little more research since unfortunately JzG appears to have retired. I looked through JzG's contributions around the time he made the addition. I couldn't find any explanation documented but he did remove a bunch of the links just after he listed it and he edited the ZetaBoard article. I looked into several of the links he removed, and while I can't fault their removal (they were all either inappropriate external links or inappropriate references), when I looked at the history of who added each link I didn't find anything I would consider to be evidence of a spam campaign, it looked more like individual enthusiasts making good faith but poor judgement additions (see a selection of the additions:. However, I still tend to think the link should stay blacklisted with maybe the homepage only white listed for the ZetaBoards article. -- SiobhanHansa 18:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Do people here not understand what Invisionfree forums are? I run one for a small football club that does not have a website and it's therefore the only on-line presence for the football club that I support. I take great exception to your assumption that me trying to define it as an External Link on the Wikipedia page THAT I CREATED is spam! No, actually it's a Link to a web page that is about the subject. Can I please request that this global Blacklist on all Invisionfree forums be removed? Elvisgresley 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Invisionfree is then still not the only online presence. There will be items in newspapers (right?).  The site itself does not assert the notability of the football club, that is governed by other sources.  The link is useful as an external link (but it is not a must), and maybe for some parts as a reference (but then the specific link can be whitelisted).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In your opinion. However seeing as I am unable to even post a link from this page to my forum, you're actually unable to make an informed decision on this matter, are you?  Could you please be so kind as to let me know how to request a whitelisting?  Thanks so much, xxx Elvisgresley 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help - much appreciated. Isn't blacklisting invisionfree forums something of a futile exercise based upon dogma more than anything constructive?  1.  They are not spam as they do not sell anything (in fact they actually cost money to run and most of them aren't begging for donations every 5 minutes - if you get my drift!).  2. They can be linked to by setting up a redirect link to another non-blacklisted url. Elvisgresley 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I indeed can not see the link, but if it is really the only link providing information, then the football club may not be notable .. indeed, we can not check, but then, everyone can create a forum on invisionfree, and then write a wikipedia page about it.
 * If it is your forum, then also our conflict of interest guideline may be of interest. Spamming is not about what is linked to, it is about how it gets linked.  Invisionfree is self-published, and people certainly add the links to their own websites (again, see our conflict of interest guideline and our spam guideline).  Forums do not comply with our reliable sources guideline, and as such, for now, blacklisting of such links is quite appropriate.
 * By the way, redirect sites should immediately be reported to the meta spam-blacklist, these are a general way of going around blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgot, MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist is the whitelisting, the accompanying talkpage is where you can request whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to request that Invision forums be un-blacklisted. I don't see why there's any need to block *all* invision forums when it's probably only one or two that have been linked to in a spammy way.

I'm requesting this because I would like to restore the link to the "Different Worlds" forum in the Wikipedia Alternate History article. It was previously linked to in the Interactive Forums section of that article, because it's an active alternate history forum. That is, it's not a source but an on-topic link. It's not right to allow other forums to be linked to from Wikipedia, but not Invision forums. Akiyama 01:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ___ XLNT point Akiyama: are we now going to block all links to all forums? 'Cuz isn't it POV to decide to block the one? I've been forced into this situation by circumstance working on the [Louis "Red" Deutsch] Discussion Page. An earlier editor linked to __z4.invisionfree.com at z4.invisionfree.com/Bum_Bar_Bastards/index.php?showtopic=345&view=findpost&p=10945699__  .... This link's cool: a citation useful to our discussion and editing of the article and a citation that has stood since 29January2007. Now because of the lack of headers, I cannot save any changes to this page without deleting this other editor's contribution. Are there no grandfather provisions?! Hilarleo 14:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't support the idea of using the spam blacklist to enforce WP:EL, but I will say that any and all forum links should be removed from articles per WP:EL.--Isotope23 talk 15:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I removed the link and commented in the # from that page.--Isotope23 talk 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, I expect that the link was spammed, and hence it was put onto the spam blacklist. It is not the case that we use the spam blacklist to enforce guidelines (or policies; except maybe for WP:SPAM, but that is what this was designed for), but that is a secondary effect (it may be worth a discussion).  Forum links do not comply with WP:EL and WP:RS, even if they may make excellent references, how do you know the information in the link is true (it is a forum, anyone can post there)?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As nothing else has been heard for a while - closed as ❌ -- Herby talk thyme 20:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

www.elliottgann.com
please can you reconsider this entry ? 217.167.252.201 10:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As you have already appealed against this listing on Meta (where the blacklisting is) you would need to look at the whitelist here if you require a listing solely on en wp. The original meta request is here -- Herby  talk thyme 10:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.


 * 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/.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course but the goal is not to make links in wikipedia for elliottgann.com, I have totally left this idea deep in a hole. I'm already in DMOZ but I think that Google use the wikipedia blacklist and it's really annoying for a little website like mine. Of course I did bad when I put some links in wikipedia but now what is the goal to let my website in the blacklist since I was the only "spammer". Should I regret all my life ? Please can you reconsider ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.167.252.222 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's entirely possible, but you should then request removal from the global blacklist where it was added. We don't have the power to do it here. -- lucasbfr talk 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

mapsofworld.com
mapsofworld.com is being used as a referances @ Olympic_Games, while trying to remove other spam that was added the blacklist filter prevents editing citing www.mapsofworld.com as the reason ▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡ Talk 11:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There was significant and nd ongoing spamming of this link (see this and this). Are there other sites that are just as good?   Alternatively we could put in a whitelist request for all the links being used as references I could help develop that if it's needed - let me know.


 * In the meantime, so you don't loose information, links can be commented out or, if you're using footnotes, left as a non-hyperlinked url (www.mapsofworld.com/....). -- SiobhanHansa 15:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The links were removed outright by another user, I'll see if I can find an alternative source for the references, thank you for the explanation▪◦▪ ≡ЅiREX≡ Talk 18:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

www.belarussolidaritycampaign.co.uk
This was blacklisted form the Alexander Lukashenko page by an administrator, who termed the site as 'having no content' It clearly does. Now, if the link is deemed to be unsuitable then it ought to be discussed on the talk page. In my opinion the link in question, whilst granted is still a site under construction, is still a site that has relevance to the discussion of Lukashenko and Belarus. I propose that it be removed from the blacklist, so it may be linked to in the future if agreed in discussion on the talk page, but its dismissal by one administrator (zscout370) is at least a stifling of debate and objectivity, and at worse is censorship.
 * The website was just established and it has "Under construction" notices on the main page. The links that work are stating the goals for the group and begging people to join. This is pure linkspam, thus why I added it to the black list. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! The point I'm making is that the site is being updated and now does have information too. I concede that at the moment the site is not complete and as such is not worthy being a part of the current external links, however the blacklisting means that when that changes, or if wikipedia wishes to link to an article there in the future this will not be possible. I politely ask that the site be removed from the blacklist, (and also promise to refrain from adding it to the current list of external links).

--Belaruski 14:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The blacklist isn't permanent and I don't intend for this link to stay here forever. But right now, I think it should stay. I will go back to the site, lets say, weekly and look at it. But we get so many external links about Belarus and we got so many campaign sites from the UK, Poland that me and others just remove them all. I am starting to clear out other Belarusian links too, so your site isn't the only one seeing removal. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Any chance the link can be un blacklisted now? We recently held a demo in London, are a legally recognised body with international members and would like to set up a page of our own. A bit embarrasing when we can't link to ourselves! Thanks.--Belaruski 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

per Zscout370--Hu12 15:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why not?--79.65.196.5 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reference data:
 * Domain:


 * Accounts adding these links:


 * Relevant Wikipedia Guidelines:
 * External Links Guideline
 * Conflict of Interest Guideline
 * Reliable Sources Guideline
 * Notability Guideline -- Organizations
 * -- A. B. (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting guidelines if they are applied accross the board. However if you will look at the site in question and argue that none of the articles are relevant, or may in the future be relevant as external links then you are in effect allowing censorship on wikipedia. I agree that it is very easy for just anyone to link to themselves on Wikipedia, but the site in question is clearly not spam. --79.65.244.108 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it from the blacklist, but I still do not think the site should be added to Wikipedia. We get many Belarusian campaign sites and this is just one out of many that look and feel the same. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears A.B. was correct and they only wanted it removed so they could spam it again. See. Perhaps it could be added back. This isn't just spam, it's POV pushing spam. -- SiobhanHansa 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well rest assured it won't be added again. Wikipedia is clearly only as good as the individual with the biggest axe to grind and the most time on their hands. The link I posted is no less or more POV than the article or links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Day_of_Solidarity_with_Belarus But clearly objectivity is not what you're after. I would propose that the "not to be confused with" bit be reapplied as it's a point of clarification. But feel free to keep the argument one sided if that makes life easier for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belaruski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 Nov 2007

Per the comments above - closed as ❌ -- Herby talk thyme 19:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The link has already been removed by Zscout370 in September (see ), it possibly needs adding back. Though perhaps we could take Belaruski's word that the organization won't be promoted on Wikipedia again, and simply monitor the link.  -- SiobhanHansa 13:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly be in favour of monitoring this I think, call it "closed" anyway but with eyes open I guess, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql.htm
This website is used by countless people who use SQL. This is a Tutorial for those who are beginner's to SQL and a reference to the experts in SQL. This tutorial explains the SQL concepts in detail with appropriate examples in a simple manner.

Adding this website in the SQL sections of the Wikipedia, will help the programmers to learn SQL better and write better sql queries. Please remove this website from the list of blacklisted websites and help this website to be reached by more programmers who visit Wikipedia.

Few of the pages I want to use this link are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sql http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insert_(SQL) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_SQL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join_SQL --206.218.218.57 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who added it... if anyone can confirm that the malicious scripting problem effecting beginner-sql-tutorial.com has been addressed, I've no objection to removing it. It was blacklisted due to a virus issue and if that has not been cleared up I'm not comfortable having it linked here.--Isotope23 talk 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See the discussion below about the blacklisting of this site due to malicious code. -- A. B. (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm not overstepping the bounds here, but I just confirmed the continued malicious script execution attempts on that site with a colleague. It should not be delisted at this time and if the Anon is a good faith editor who isn't trying to infect other people's machines I suggest they do a virus scan on their machine.--Isotope23 talk 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case, the site should also be blacklisted at meta ASAP to protect the rest of Wikimedia + other MediaWiki projects. I've got to run -- can someone else get this going? Thanks, -- A. B. (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ on Meta but could do with a "request" in due course! Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, I just got done adding a request.--Isotope23 talk 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it does mean that you can remove it from here if you want. No idea what the view/policy is on dupe entries tho?  Thanks for the "request" I'll go log it shortly and if you bump into anything else like that you know where I am if I can help.  Sorry I missed it before - been tidying up! cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there is no policy on that (though AB may know something I don't). Might be worth having a discussion on that.--Isotope23 talk 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think exploring the possibilities would be good. On Meta we are covering 700+ wikis and (I think) 2/3000 other sites using Mediawiki so "dangerous sites" would be appropriate there (IMO).  (There is a sense in which I prefer to avoid the word "spam" in favour of external links as the usual spammer external link placer rarely see the links they place as spam.)
 * "Dual" listing is safe but the page gets long (& slow to load!) -- Herby talk thyme 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"***IMPORTANT REQUEST*** The problem with the webpage was without my knowledge. I have fixed it now. Please check the website and remove from blacklisting. Thanks, administrator"206.218.218.57 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At present the answer is definitely no. That is twice the site has been compromised.  If you are unable to properly control the content and security of your site then we will not remove it from the list I'm afraid.  Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 16:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. While I believe this is not the work of the site owner, I think that we need to see some more detailed information about how this will be avoided in the future as it has already been fixed and happened again.--Isotope23 talk 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I deleted the infected page and added a new page for the website. No idea why the problem still exists. Please let me know what was the problem with the website. Is the problem with the technical content or is it IFrame - Exploit problem, please let me know what would be a possible solution. Rest of my webpages are good expect for the index page. I am trying to find a solution for it, so that i can provide a good website to wiki visitors. Thanks, administrator--206.218.208.57 (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was the same malicious scripting as before (i.e. IFrame exploit). link scanner shows you've cleaned it, but given that you've cleaned it once and it was exploited again, I'm not comfortable removing the blacklisting quite yet... especially considering that it appears to me you don't know the root cause of why this is happening yet. It has nothing to do with the content of the site, I think we'd just like some evidence it won't happen again.--Isotope23 talk 18:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have fixed the problem with my website. Now the default link of my site is /sql.htm, i have updated the link above. I had a chat with my service provider and got the workspace cleaned up and i have uploaded new pages. i checked all the pages in link scanner and found none of the pages are infected now. Earlier i was using index.htm as the default page which was infected, now i have removed it and i am using sql.htm as the default page. Please check the link and whitelist it. i will be using /sql.htm while adding the links in the wiki pages. Thanks,administrator.--65.215.113.131 (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are the founder administrator. Unfortunately you have a conflict of interest.--Hu12 (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

. I'm not comfortable removing this from the blacklist. Its been demonstrated that this is too much risk to wikipedia and its users. Sorry--Hu12 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Carnegie Council www.cceia.org
See meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist for original request. I just found this link in Raphael Lemkin, and the referenced article (www.cceia.org/resources/publications/dialogue/2_12/section_1/5139.html) seems quite reliable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This item was blacklisted after long-term COI spamming. See report and folowing posts on this item in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam.  It is suggested there that it should be removed.  I will go forward and remove it.  ✅  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Squidoo.com
Hi all,

The website squidoo.com seems to be blacklisted, which I think is a shame - there's plenty of good material there. I was hoping to add this link: www.squidoo.com/ledzep_mothership/ to the Mothership (album) article, as I think it's a decent enough resource. I'm aware that some of the subdomains are blocked on the wikimedia-wide blacklist, so it seems a pity to block the site totally. Especially when there's an article about the site, that can't link to it!

Annihilatenow (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hum - the request is here. Given the major spamming I'm not that surprised it was blacklisted frankly -- Herby  talk thyme 09:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Far too much abuse and evidence of abuse on this project to even consider de-listing it. Did a google search, there are plenty of resources on this album more suitable for inclusion than that lense page created by a press and promotions agency --Hu12 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I really think there's a lot of useful content on the site - plenty of lenses with good information. As a solution, could individual subdomains be blacklisted (as on the MediaWiki blacklist)? That would block the spammy lens creators, and allow useful content through. Here are three examples (none created by me) of lenses that I think could be useful links:
 * www.squidoo.com/parrot-training/
 * www.squidoo.com/japanesetattoos/
 * www.squidoo.com/cubanmissilecrisis/
 * Annihilatenow (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

. Far too much abuse and evidence of spamming on this project to more than justification for the blacklisting. I strongly suspect that mass spaming will resume if we do, given past behaviour.--Hu12 (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse, the statement on the squidoo main-page says "Everyone’s an expert on something!

Share your knowledge and passion with the world. Click here to start.", self published information, and therefore people are very happy to add links to their site to Wikipedia (see the spam and the conflict of interest guidelines). Site therefore also fails the reliable sources guideline (self-published information).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you're saying about users spamming links, but it feels like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer - does the entire domain need to be blocked? I've provided links to several subdomains that I feel are useful, and I'll happily agree that some others are spammers. Wouldn't the best solution therefore be to just blacklist the worst repeat spam subdomains as they arise, as I suggested above, and remove other inappropriate links from articles individually? There are some valid links to be had from Squidoo, and I'm sure the majority of people trying to add them to articles are doing it in good faith... Annihilatenow (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Still, it is self published. Is the information not available on reliable sites as well (and if not, is it then suitable for inclusion into the wikipedia.  I still believe it is a shame that there is a lot of information on wikipedia which has not a reliable sourse to back it up.  It gets spammed quite a lot, and it is not a reliable site anyway.  For the rest the whitelist may be a solution.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to 'is the info available elsewhere', then yes, it almost certainly is, but the question is "is the information available elsewhere all in one place?" - and I suspect the answer to that might be "no" in a lot of cases. I agree that unreliable information is worse than reliable information, but is it worse than no information at all?
 * In my mind, the whitelist isn't really that great a solution unless the editor in question is particularly dedicated to getting a particular lens onto a page. I imagine most will just see the spamblock, erroneously assume that it's Wikipedia trying to block Squidoo because there is a certain amount of similar purpose, between the two, and give up on the edit. I'm uneasy about the full site-block because it feels a bit "guilty until proven innocent". On the other hand, I appreciate that it makes your job easier as a spam-fighter. Hmm. A tough one. Annihilatenow (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dirk. The site as a whole should be blacklisted because of the behaviour - if any established editor was to request a specific page to be whitelisted I would certainly not reject it out of hand. -- Herby  talk thyme 13:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

→ See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam Annihilatenow, It appears you have a Conflict of interest with www.squidoo.com/ledzep_mothership/. as mentioned above its self published by (and I'll quote)"Way to Blue is the UK's leading digital press and promotions agency". When you requested over on meta asking this site be removed, you used IP 81.149.176.198, problem is that IP has been adding "Way to Blue" (ukpress.waytoblue.com) links to wikipedia. in fact you have several WP:SPA accounts you have been using to break Wikipedia policy; Please stop, I have removed the waytoblue.com links, and suggest you read WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:COI. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith first before making accusations... I created that lens, sure, but if my sole motivation was to get a link to the lens on the mothership page, then I'd be asking you to add it to the whitelist. I'm not - I'm trying to work out the best way to get useful info on Wikipedia. The other users you mentioned are probably colleagues from my office - Annihilatenow is the only ID that I personally use, and if you look back, you'll find that I've edited from loads of IPs in the past, and my edit history is perfectly valid (I think...). The waytoblue.com links are (as far as I'm aware) mostly links to film trailers. Annihilatenow (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is strong evidence to the contrary, . I'm sure I can't be the only one to find irony in the attempt to de-blacklist one of the most prolificly spammed sites on wikipedia, in order to be able to "add" your companies self published link, from its domain.--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't dispute the conflict of interest right now, but I do dispute that the edit I was trying to make was useless spam - which is the crucial point. I think it had useful info that people might have wanted to see relating to thr Led Zep album. I also dispute that the waytoblue.com links you removed were useless to the articles you removed them from - I think film trailers are useful to a film article.
 * I also hope you'll take into account that I've attempted to go through the correct channels to de-list Squidoo. I genuinely feel it's a useful resource - and I don't work for them - I'm just a user. I'm not interested in circumventing wikipedia's rules - like you, I want it to be the best resource possible. Annihilatenow (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm looking at this now and three of us appear to have declined your request giving various reasons for doing so all of which look valid to me. If you wish to discuss waytoblue.com links then this is not the place.  I see absolutely no reason to remove the whole domian and so I am now closing as  thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 15:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

= Discussion =

guidelines?
It may be worth being pro-active and outlining how this will be used locally, e.g. what modifications are needed to m:Spam blacklist/About? Does someone who pays attention to how this works on meta have an opinion? - BanyanTree 09:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First we should make this talk page look a little more like m:Talk:Spam blacklist I think. I will work on that. :) Fun  Pika  17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to change Spam blacklist from a soft redirect to a page similar to Spam blacklist/About. Fun  Pika  18:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One guideline that immediately jumps to mind is Do not add an entry without discussing it on the talk page first. It's one thing if an admin accidentally adds a catch-all regex to MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist; it is another when an admin adds it here. Another possible guidelines: entries added without discussion may be removed (unless it's a Foundation action), not only because the admin adding them may not know what he/she is doing, but because each entry should ideally require consensus (not the silent kind). An exception for this should possibly be set up for tentative entries due to link spamming. One more guideline to consider is, The burden of proof is on the person who suggests the addition. These do seem a bit restrictive, but a blacklist is not something to be taken lightly. Grace notes T § 05:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me point out one thing to you folks from my experiance with the meta blacklist. If you don't know regex, please don't modify this list, as even simple formatting screwups have a nasty tendency to a) enable the blacklist for all links or b) disable the blacklist for this site. (on meta its disabled for everyone). That is why you see the nice header on the blacklist page. I will be working to get our blacklist on meta caught back up, and I would advise that spam be brought there *first*. This list is great for en wiki only attack sites, ect, things that we don't need to blacklist across all wikis. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 03:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, if you guys format the archives for this blacklist like the archives on meta, I already have a script that does the archiving, drop me a message if you would like me to file a bot request to run that archive script on this page as well. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 03:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I highly suggest that you guys have a spam blacklist log, so that you know what happened 3 months down the road. see the WP:WHITELIST for an example of what a log looks like. The log should contain why the admin blacklisted a site, (preferably with a link to a permanent version of the discussion on this page). From that you can tell why a link was added 3 months later when the original admin might not be around. I'm sorry if I keep posting here, but I've had plenty of experience with this :) ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 03:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (outdent) MediaWiki:Bad image list put a restriction on the use of certain images. Is that where Spam-blacklist is going? --  Jreferee  (Talk) 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding entry without discussion
I note that User:JzG has just added a Wikipedia-criticism site to the spam blacklist without discussion, despite the general guideline that such things need to be discussed. This seems to be yet another of the many attempts to get some spawn of WP:BADSITES to be treated as policy regardless of failure to ever get consensus for it. *Dan T.* 17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's been some discussion on the mailing list about this. Having had a look over the site, I for one think it most certainly belongs on the spam blacklist and I can't see any reason why anyone would want to link to it. Whether the process was appropriate, the result is correct. Sam Blacketer 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The mailing list is not onsite, and doesn't allow everyone to say their piece - especially because it is moderated. I have removed it until such time as a proper discussion has taken place. Especially because there is an outstanding arbcom request involving links to this site. Viridae Talk 02:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * General comments based on lessons learned the hard way at meta:Spam blacklist:
 * There should be a log for this list such as there is at meta:Spam blacklist/Log. (Spam_blacklist/Log is currently a red link but maybe I'm missing something). If we're not logging stuff now, we're going to really regret it in a few weeks or months. Whitelist requests come in now at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist or at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist about older stuff on the meta blacklist and nobody knows how a particular domain got on the list. Look at the older entries on the meta log to see what I mean about confusion. Every blacklist entry should have a blacklist log entry linking to an explanation of the blacklisting.
 * The intended audience for a spam blacklist log are the admins of 2012 that have to understand why stuff's blacklisted. Believe it or not, today's hot spam topics may be curiously passé by then: Viagra may be off the market and current wikidrama sites may have gone the way of beanie babies and lava lamps.
 * After just 3 years, requests to whitelist stuff at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist seem to default to whitelisting if there's not an adequate explanation in the meta log. Today's admins and editors must fully document their reasons if they want blacklisted stuff to stay blacklisted in the future.
 * Terse, generic log entries like "WP:NOT" or "WP:EL" are insufficient.
 * Stepping through histories of several hundred edits/month to figure out 3-year old entries is an enormous pain in the neck. (I've done it before). Please don't just rely on edit summaries or future editors and admins will hate you when they finally find your entry.
 * I think off-wiki mailing lists, IRC, etc are not very transparent and make for poor documentation. This is true even of official and semi-official channels. There doesn't necessarily need to be a discussion here on this talk page, but spam blacklist log entries should permalink to some explanation of the blacklisting decision on en.wikipedia.org, for example WP:AN/I.
 * These comments are not directed at JzG or any other editor or admin in particular.
 * -- A. B. (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

beginner-sql-tutorial
I blacklisted this per a discussion on WP:ANI. It appears the site has been compromised, so I've temporarily added it here until this is resolved. If anyone notices the site no longer tries to load a trojan on viewing, feel free to boldly remove this entry at will and undo my recent removals from articles. Thanks!--Isotope23 talk 19:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Urioste.eu / Urioste.wordpress.com must be removed from Spam-blacklist
http://www.Urioste.eu is the blog of Diego Urioste, writter of the National-revolutionary political wave and president of the asotation Tercera Vía in Spain ( http://3via.eu ), so I don´t undertand why his url has been blocked. For example here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nacional_revolucionario. I have used the Urioste´s articles to write this definition so the blocking is absurd.

Thanks and sorry for muy poor english.

Rodamiento 89.131.201.43 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you were able to link it above would suggest it isn't blacklisted here on en.wiki and I don't see it in the list.--Isotope23 talk 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, is in the spanish version, I don´t know if there´s an blacklist discussion on spanish version. ROdamiento 89.131.201.43 01:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem... To be honest, I don't know either; I don't use es.wiki. This page is strictly for the English version of Wikipedia.  It doesn't effect es.wiki in any way.  Maybe someone on the Spanish language Admin noticeboard can help you?  By the way, your English is much better than my Spanish  :) --Isotope23 talk 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The link you need is es:MediaWiki Discusión:Spam-blacklist athough there is nothing there yet but there are listings on their blacklist -- Herby talk thyme 12:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)