MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2009

= Proposed Additions =

Scanlation websites


These websites are distribution channels for copyright violating materials known as scanlations. Editors have attempted to sneak these links into the external links sections, user pages, or use them as pseudo-references. In a few cases, images from these copyvio websites have been uploaded to Wikipedia. Some of these links are preemptive as when the main sites are blacklisted, edits will attempt to switch to other sites. Even with that in mind, this list is hardly expansive and is only from the first three pages of Google hits using the search term "read manga online" along with a few other known scanlation websites. --Farix (Talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should be adding preemptive ones without any serious reason. I think such measures should be reserved for things like virus threats otherwise that sets a high president for blacklisting which would go against WP:CENSOR's spirit, if not word. For the non-pre-emitive ones, I do agree with Farix. 陣 内 Jinnai 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOTCENSORED: Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed.


 * Since linking to external websites that contain material that is in violation of the creator's copyright is a violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:COPYLINK), this would not be covered by Wikipedia's anti-censorship policy. --Farix (Talk) 19:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of those do indeed host copyviolating manga scanlations, either as a scanlation group's website or (more often) by hosting scanlations done by same, but I know of two of them that do not: Manganews.net hosts a fair amount of (non-reliable) reviews of manga and well as news items in addition to indexing scanlators, but is not itself a distribution channel; mangaupdates.com is mostly a scanlation tracker, but again, is not itself a distribution channel. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Both site actually do link to torrent for scanlations when they are available as well as the scanlation's homepage here where the scanlation can be obtained. anidb.info is already on the blacklist for similar reasons relating to fansubs, though they have changed their url to anidb.net. --Farix (Talk) 12:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of sites link to copyrighted material, lots of unreliable and sometimes reliable: blogs, search engines, news sites, etc. 陣 内 Jinnai 16:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And? While we can't blacklist every website/blog/forum that links to copyright violation material, at the very least we should blacklist the major hubs of such links. --Farix (Talk) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral while those websites give access or help to access contents protected by copyright doing a such list is difficult to maintain and is somewhat shouting a statement like "Wikipedia censors scanlation". --KrebMarkt 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already has a policy against linking to websites with material that is in violation of the creator's copyright. Adding these to the blacklist is just a method to enforce a pre-existing ban. --Farix (Talk) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Read that policy. First it only pertains to sites that host the copyright material itself (it even spells it out explicititly). Sites containing links do not fall under that. Second, it still provides for context, such as for an article on the site itself or a section which directly relates to that. However, in the latter I can't see that as being likely as most news outlets do not talk about anything specifically for scantalations (a few talk about specific fansub groups). So I could give you the latter part given I doubt any of these are notable, but the former is not covered by policy. And I also don't believe in pre-banning excpet when it deals with Wikipedia's system integrity. 陣 内 Jinnai 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

--Hu12 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

tampa4u.com
Please see WPSPAM report here:  Triplestop   x3  02:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

propertyzote.com
Diffs:     Brgds, --R.Schuster (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Adsense pub-2286515848043797
 * Also Fails our External Links policy and is a Link normally to be avoided. I'm not convinced this could ever be used as as a citation so it fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. nothing more than real estate spam. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

homedesigndirectory.com.au

 * Each time I remove these links to a commercial website from a number of home design articles, a different sock account puts them back. Clearly this is an experienced and relentless spammer. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Adsense pub-4446228375381513
 * addthis_pub = 'alan_bron';
 * A DesignTek Pty Ltd (ABN 77 064 276 473)


 * From homedesigndirectory.com.au/links.shtml
 * "Alan Bron, co-owner of A&A DesignTek Pty Ltd, is the editor of this web site and is responsible for the search engine optimisation (SEO) that has successfully put this web site on page one of Google's search results for numerous search terms (click here for details links to aadt.biz/it-consulting.html#references)."
 * redirect site to homedesigndirectory.com.au
 * Accounts
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

plevris.homo.com (NSFW)

 * This very not-safe-for-work link was just added to several pages by a vandal. Clearly serves no encyclopedic purpose and its presense here will only be as vandalism.  Them From  Space  02:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Root domain . thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Root domain . thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-AVGN.tk (MALWARE / NSFW )

 * Don't click the link casually as it will open innumerable windows with NSFW content and try to download malware on your computer. Link was being added by who I blocked. There is absolutely no foreseeable reason for wikipedia to link to this site and therefore I propose that it be added to the blacklist. Abecedare (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Good catch. Thanks for reporting.--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just for the record, caught this and reported it at AIV. Abecedare (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just for the record, caught this and reported it at AIV. Abecedare (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

vk.com



 * accounts adding the link

Persistent spamming of link to multiple articles. IPs ignore all warnings, and do not engage in discussion about the links. The link at Vkontakte to http://vk.com/index.php is appropriate and should be whitelisted - but all other additions (that also seem to include a ref id) should be blacklisted as there's no encyclopedic value to any other article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Cross wiki spam


 * en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/vk.com


 * ru:Special:Contributions/92.246.179.253
 * ru:Special:Contributions/Sniok
 * de:Special:Contributions/188.17.75.160
 * en:Special:Contributions/195.238.112.36
 * de:Special:Contributions/195.238.112.36
 * es:Special:Contributions/195.238.112.36
 * pl:Special:Contributions/195.238.112.36
 * de:Special:Contributions/94.140.224.7
 * ru:Special:Contributions/188.123.232.208
 * Ect....
 * Also requesting Meta BL--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They've switched to using, can that be added as well? - MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Spam links added by sockpuppet Pptweddie, et. al.
--4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * accounts adding the link
 * accounts adding the link
 * accounts adding the link
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Pptweddie/Archive, Adsense pub-9231437151029763. seems to be a pattern including scams ✅--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com


Examiner.com is "citizen journalism" website similar to Associated Content (which we already block). Like Associated Content, they will accept contributions from essentially anyone, they exercise no editorial control, and they pay for page impressions; as such, it fails WP:RS. In addition, they deliberately allow themselves to be confused with the San Francisco Examiner, which is a reliable source. This has resulted in a fair number of good-faith additions based on examiner.com as a reference; there are also examples of additions which seem to be sneaky links to some author's page - which, again, is paid per impression. I'm not aware of any concerted spam campaign, but the other issues related to examiner.com links have convinced me that we should be blocking them to discourage their use as a reference. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with this request, but it'll take a substantial effort to remove the existing 2k+ links. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Launched in April 2008 Examiner.com links:
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * ""Examiners" are paid a very competitive rate based on standard Internet variables including page views, unique visitors, session length, and advertising performance. "
 * Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * I would tend to agree also. Much cleanup is needed.--Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone refresh my memory — did the bug whereby anyone editing a page with a blacklisted link got prevented from editing the page unless they removed the link (even if it was in a different section) get fixed? Stifle (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Editing a page with existing blacklisted links was fixed in r34769, dated May 13 2008. See also bug 1505. Anomie⚔ 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I sure am behind the times. In that case, I propose to add \bexaminer\.com\b to the blacklist in a week's time unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the Findsources, which removes this domain from searches used in AFD discussions. Also commented on the templates talk page here--Hu12 (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a week has gone by, so this is now . Stifle (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

webcitation.org
The www.webcitation.org site can be used to circumvent the Spam blacklist much like www.tinyurl.com. I have no evidence that webcitation.org has been used in this fashion.

I ran across this as I was on the .pst article and hovered my mouse over the reference link to see what site was being used as a reference. I was surprised to see the rather anonymous www.webcitation.org/5k40hOrFo meaning I needed to click to discover what site was being used as the source reference.

A robot has been converting links to Wikipedia sources to use webcitation.org meaning at present there are many links to that web site. Another robot has notice the links and added WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/webcitation.org.

I have asked at User talk:WebCiteBOT that the robot be modified to comment out the webcitation.org link. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think webcitation.org should be added to the blacklist. Please see the discussion at User_talk:WebCiteBOT--Blargh29 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. WebCitation is the primary tool used to combat link rot (even moreso than Archive.org, since it is an on-demand service). While it may be used in a malicious fashion, the possibility of such an event happening should not mean it is pre-emptively blocked. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ for the time being, in the absence of evidence of misuse. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the great deal of legitimate use that can't be effectively done another way, I'd be surprised if it were ever done. Anomie⚔ 23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

naj-obchody.sk
Adding links to articles in slovak wikipedia from different IPs. Its company which improve SEO for other webs. They put links to stimulate the google search positions of their home page.

please inform me about reguest progress --Vegetator (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cross wiki spam
 * sk:Special:Contributions/92.41.25.251
 * cs:Special:Contributions/94.197.117.237
 * en:Special:Contributions/94.197.117.237
 * sk:Special:Contributions/92.41.40.244
 * sk:Special:Contributions/81.154.122.207
 * en:Special:Contributions/81.154.118.182
 * sk:Special:Contributions/81.154.118.182
 * sk:Special:Contributions/92.41.71.180
 * sk:Special:Contributions/92.41.15.163
 * en:Special:Contributions/92.41.15.163
 * sk:Special:Contributions/92.41.10.188
 * cs:Special:Contributions/92.41.62.91
 * WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/naj-obchody.sk, --Hu12 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/naj-obchody.sk, --Hu12 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a request, here -- meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist. --Hu12 (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: this has now been added at meta . — Gavia immer (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

somerset3d.co.uk

 * is a photo website containing copyright 3D photographs which need special 3d glasses to view. The images on the website are no better and no different than any corresponding images on Wikimedia Commons, in fact in many cases they are greatly inferior. The only differentiator these images have is that they are 3D and that is not a compelling reason to add the link. It adds no value whatsoever. This site has been added to 100+ articles (I removed around 40 already) by a number of single purpose e.g. . --Simple Bob (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure this warrants blacklisting unless the images are copyright violations. The page is not running advertisements or profiting from us linking to it, so I am inclined to let it be. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ning.com

 * Social networking site.
 * More specifically, this regards links with the format addisethio.ning.com/group/[some_subject]
 * More specifically, this regards links with the format addisethio.ning.com/group/[some_subject]

These addisethio.ning.com links are appearing in various Ethiopia-related articles. These represent the only edits from this IP address. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * is the IP address adding the links.
 * Seems to be a reasonable request, not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reconserver.com
Accounts

Activity Commercial site selling keylogging software to capture passwords. Edit warring and modifying other links in the Keystroke logging article to point to the reconserver.com site. Spam warnings not being headed. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keystroke_logging&diff=320938631&oldid=320092704
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keystroke_logging&diff=319445043&oldid=319362259
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keystroke_logging&diff=319361969&oldid=317378508
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keystroke_logging&diff=317012185&oldid=316990739
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keystroke_logging&diff=314652389&oldid=314651110
 * see WPSPAM item
 * Also
 * ✅, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

googlecustomsearch.appspot.com
Should be added for the same reason as www.google.com/cse, methinks. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, we've got our own Special:Search. Also just seems to be the code from google.com/cse --Hu12 (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

niralimagazine.com
This site is hosting malware, specifically "Trojan.Pidief.F".  Will Beback   talk    23:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * , thanks for catching this Will. --Hu12 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cottage Rentals
These websites are repeatedly added into articles such as Muskoka and Parry Sound,, Cottage, and Cottage country. They are for finding cottage rentals and would serve no useful purpose, even on the cottage or cottage country articles where they are so frequently inserted. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢ 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More
 * Accounts
 * Agree, seems to be both a problem and no encyclopedic value, good catch. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More
 * Accounts
 * Agree, seems to be both a problem and no encyclopedic value, good catch. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * Agree, seems to be both a problem and no encyclopedic value, good catch. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * Agree, seems to be both a problem and no encyclopedic value, good catch. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, seems to be both a problem and no encyclopedic value, good catch. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

honestfreespeech.com

 * link


 * accounts


 * articles

A non-notable video sharing site (newly created, and to date only three members). Repeatedly re-spamming advert links and posting rants about why the advert should be permitted. User has ignored all posts to his talk pages - both the warnings and the attempts at providing helpful guidance. Site is, at this stage, self-published content, and provides no encyclopedic value to this project. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * . Comments seems to be nothing more than Vexatious rantings, despite the Good faith helpful guidance offered--Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

www.google.com/cse
I have been wanting to link to the custom search engine for the Video Game Project for finding reliable sources, and get a blocked notice. What is the reason for this? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Its blocked on all language projects. Thats for adding to websites. Wikipedia is not a place to Host a search box, we've got our own Special:Search.--Hu12 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

AsianMediaWiki.com
Hello, I asked the blacklist for our site to be removed in February of this year and the blacklist was removed for a few weeks without any problems, but a moderator here disagreed with the removal and readded the blacklist. I asked again a month ago, but was asked to ask specfic task force members to make the request for me. I left specfic requests on the Korean cinema task force and Japanese task force, but did not get a reply. In those requests I left specific reference pages where I thought our website would be useful to wikipedia (like the Lee Jun-ki page). Even though I did not get a reply I do see that now parts of our pages have been incorporated into wikipedia pages. As an example this is the original bio for Korean actor Jun-ki Lee from AsianMediaWiki:


 * 1) AsianMediaWiki-"...Jun-ki was a fairly normal kid who enjoyed sports & computers. He first became interested in the performing arts as a high school student after watching a play of “Hamlet.”[1] Jun-ki Lee initially failed to get into college and, because of this, he moved to Seoul with almost nothing, but a dream to work in the entertainment field. For the next couple of years, Jun-ki worked at various part time jobs, before gaining acceptance into the Seoul Institute of the Arts. In 2001, Jun-ki Lee made his debut as a model for fashion brand So Basic, appearing alongside actress Hee-seon Kim.[2]"(please reference http://asianmediawiki.com/Jun-ki_Lee )
 * 2) Wikipedia- "...Jun Ki was a fairly normal individual who enjoyed sports and computers. He first became interested in the performing arts as a high school student after watching a play of "Hamlet". Lee initially failed to get into college and because of this, he moved to Seoul with almost nothing in his pocket, but a dream to work in the entertainment industry. For the next couple of years, Lee worked at various part-time jobs, before gaining acceptance into the Seoul Institute of the Arts. Lee later started out as a model and held minor roles in Korean dramas. In 2001, he first appeared in the television commercial for the So Basic fashion label, appearing alongside actress Kim Hee Sun."(please reference Lee Jun Ki)

I would like to ask again to reconsider the removal of the blacklist of our site and attribute our site as one of the references for the Jun-ki Lee wikipedia page. I believe there may be more pages like this but contributors on wikipedia cannot list our site as a reference because of the blacklist and use portions of our articles anyways. Thank you -- --RamenLover (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Canvassing, and asking editors to "make the request here MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist" is wholy inapropriate.
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2009
 * A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition. We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. AsianMediaWiki.com is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site. --Hu12 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Man this is getting absurd. In response to ""canvassing wiki project films and asking editors to make the request here MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist" is wholy inapropriate" ... I was instructed by specific moderators here to make those request. Quote
 * "However, and I think I have told RamenLover this, I would really like to see that a suitable WikiProject shows backup for this removal or for whitelisting (Ramenlover, please contact a suitable wikiproject, a list can be found here first and let an editor from such a wikiproject then request delisting after consensus has been reached to do so)."

Also if our site doesn't fall under reliable source guidelines why are you guys using it on the page listed above without attributing the source? -- --RamenLover (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hu12 I see that you went to my request thread on the Korean cinema task force discussion page and informed the editors there before they could respond that AsianMediaWiki doesn't fall under Wikipedia guidelines for citations. You do know that Beekstra asked me to make that request on the Korean cinema task force page right? You also do know that you are taking the role of those editors and deciding what is worthy for citation on wikipedia articles right? You also do know that the article listed above cites our article without attribution and obsviously somebody feels its worthy enough to include in the article right? -- --RamenLover (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part of "...after consensus has been reached" was this request made? of the two wikiprojects only one person has replied, and it was a question about what you were talking about. Either way, consensus involves more than just someone coming here because you asked them to. Policies and guidelines do reflect established consensus, for example; Its not a "reliable source" for all the same reasons Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published. This includes open wikis (AsianMediaWiki.com ). If by chance a wikiproject requests a link for use as a citation, it's dealt with on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source. Not a wholesale removal of the entire domain, which you seem to be asking for. --Hu12 (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to ..."Which part of "...after consensus has been reached" was this request made?" --- I made the request for blacklist removal here in September and in that request Beestra informed me that I should get long standing editors from relevant wikipedia projects to make the request instead of myself. Because of this I left two requests and listed what I thought would be useful asianmediawiki articles to supplement wikipedia articles so those editors could decide for themselves. I didn't get a response one way or the other, but I did find that the articles I listed in my request thread were being incorporated into wikipedia articles without attribution after I made the request. I then came here and made another request for removal because of this problem - which is what this thread is about. Instead of addressing my concern you systemically declined my request and gave one of the primary reasons because my actions were (I am quoting you) "wholy inapropriate" in regards to making those requests in the wikipedia projects. You also left very heavy handed comments on my request threads, which will most likely deter any wikipedia editors from making such a request on our behalf. I would still like you to address my initial concern that the the asianmediawiki articles I listed as helpful supplements for wikipedia has been incorporated into wikipedia articles without citation and I believe this is because of the domain blacklist. I believe if the blacklist was removed, there wouldn't be problems with our articles being copied without citation or as references. Also having our articles used in live wikipedia articles by your editors should give an indication to the relevancy of our articles. We are also not an "open" wiki in which anybody can make edits. They have to register first and speak with an editor there, like any website before contributing to articles. -- --RamenLover (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hu12 I see that you won't answer my questions or even engage in a rational discussion over my concerns. I am now telling you to either 1.) remove the blacklist and attribute the source of the article listed above to our original article 2.) whitelist our site for that particular article and attribute the source for that article or 3.) remove portions of that article that commits copyright infringement of our article. -- --RamenLover (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The first two above,(#1 & #2), have been explained previously. However I'm quite disturbed at your last statement (#3);
 * "remove portions of that article that copyright infringement of our article" --RamenLover (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Asianmediawiki.com, runs our Mediawiki software, ("powered by mediawiki") and does so under the GNU Free Documentation License granted. Since you initially Scraped that particular articles content from wikipedia, the content added subsiqently is subject to Copyleft/Share Alike terms of use;
 * en.wikipedia.org - see "Lee_Jun_Ki"; "Revision as of 11:14, 17 July 2007'
 * asianmediawiki.com - see "Jun-ki_Lee"; "'Revision as of 23:38, 30 July 2007" by WikiSysop
 * Information for re-users
 * "You can re-use content from Wikimedia projects freely, with the exception of content that is used under "fair use" exemptions, or similar exemptions of copyright law."
 * Re-use of text:
 * Copyleft/Share Alike: If you make modifications or additions to the page you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later."


 * Lastly, that "text" appears to have been added to Wikipedia by user Colleen16 in this edit, she also appears to be the same editor editing the article on your site.


 * I'll remove the content your editor added, but doing so per WP:BLP. Closing as this as vexatious.--Hu12 (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

atbriders.com
I would like atbriders.com to become whitelisted. I'm not sure as to why it was blacklisted in the first place. It is a mountainboarding social networking web site that I had listed on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountainboarding page before it was unexpectedly blacklisted. There is a section on the mountainboarding wikipedia page that lists online forums, and since atbriders.com has an online forum just about mountainboarding I would like to add the link to it. The web site is useful because it is a place where new or seasoned mountainboarders can come together, ask questions, share pictures, videos, and mountainboarding related information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.140.243 (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Forums are not generally considered reliable sources; what makes this an exception? Stifle (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If forums are not generally considered reliable sources, then why are other forums allowed to be linked to on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountainboarding while mine is not? It doesn't bother me if forums aren't allowed to have their links on wikipedia, but what does bother me is the inconsistency, as other forums are currently freely listing themselves on the wikipedia page for mountainboarding, while mine isn't allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.140.243 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. WP:ELNO criteria 1 and 10 both imply that web forums have no place on Wikipedia. atbriders isn't allowed and nor should any of the others. The ones in the mountainboarding article should be removed by someone. I for one make a point of removing forums whenever I come across them in articles that I edit. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, those have now been properly removed. This request is closed as . Stifle (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

yachtpals.com
We request that yachtpals.com be removed from the spam blacklist. Yachtpals.com is a legitimate news source that does not spam sites. We provide valuable information which could be of use at wikipedia. We specifically deal with news pertaining to boating and sailing adventures around the world and interview sailors directly, no press release reprints only original news. We don't know why we were blacklisted but we know that much information from our site has in fact been copied onto wikipedia (not by us, must be by our readers). For example see the Kenichi Horie page. Unfortunetely, when we tried to put a link to important information on our site today regarding Jessica Watson we received an error which said we were blacklisted. Please reconsider as we can be a valuable resource for wikipedia. We truly appreciate your attention in this matter as we consider wikipedia a useful source on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.87.88 (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts spamming yachtpals.com on Wikipedia
 * All seem to have come from the same sbc net range as yours .--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All seem to have come from the same sbc net range as yours .--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Contact re www.2knowmyself.com
hello, i am a world wide body language expert and you could see my tv interviews here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCU5ir4fCwI my website 2knowmyself was banned and it hurts my reputation to have my website which is viewed by 400,000 monthly would be thankful if the ban can be removed (not for the sake of spamming) thanks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.237.103 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Heres the reason; MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2009. multi-article spamming, adding redirecting urls and use of url-refferal/redirectors  in order to circumvent blacklisting. --Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll be a then. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

hello, this is the third request to remove 2knowmyself from the spam list, what if someone else spammed wikipedia using my site's name in order to damage my site's reputation? why would i carry the blame? 2knowmyself is a respectful site getting almost half a million visit a month, would be thankful if it can be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.178.238.151 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous decline discussion
 * "..my website contains real body language information compared to the shit that is in the external links section, how come you remove it?"
 * "had you knew body language correctly you would have placed my link on the top not removed it"
 * Not only was spam comming from your IP range, you were adding your site during a previous request for removal. Your use of several un-related domain refferal/redirectors and adding "plain text" are not only sneaky attempts at inclusion, they are a sign of bad faith, which makes any claim of joejobbing an implausable one. Its apparent that your actions were just brute force attempts to include your site, despite it being blacklisted. Closing as --Hu12 (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

I tried to add a link to http://www.learn-hebrew.co.il/English-Hebrew/dust.htm to the discussion here about the differences in the modern/historical translation of the Hebrew word "dust" but the link said it was blacklisted. However, I did a search of the blacklist page and couldn't find the link (or any part of it) on there. Am I missing it or is there an error? If it is on there, I was just wondering why because it seems like a legitimate translation site. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like there was chronic problem of abuse involving multiple language wikipedias. Its probably best to use a different source, however if there are no reasonable alternatives available, you can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source.--Hu12 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

= Discussion =

FYI: Local reports from COIBot
I have posted this with full explanation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, in short, COIBot now saves reports for links where the additions trip certain thresholds to reports on meta. They are categorised in m:Category:COIBot Local Reports. For en: m:Category:COIBot Local reports for en.wikipedia.org categorises all reports concerning this wiki, open reports are in m:Category:Open Local reports for en.wikipedia.org. More information can also be found in m:User:COIBot/Local. Please be careful with evaluating these reports, it is based on bot statistics, NOT on an evaluation of the information linked to or a full evaluation of the editor. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Contact re pornstarglobal.com
Today I received an e-mail from a user identifying himself as User:GlobalCorp -- this account has been permablocked -- who asked me to consider intervention in the blacklisting of his website, pornstarglobal.com. I've read the archived discussion, I've examined the site, and I can see no point whatsoever to making it possible for links to this site to be added to Wikipedia; I'm firmly against any kind of intervention. I'm leaving this note because (a) I haven't the faintest idea why this individual chose me for his e-mail request, since I've had nothing to do with any previous activity involving pornstarglobal.com, and (b) I am wondering if any other admins have received such e-mails recently. My experience is that, since my username is alphabetically near the top of an list, I tend to get e-mails from people who are trying to enlist large numbers of admins pretty much at random. My policy is not to answer e-mail privately but to do such business in the full view of the Wikipedia community, but I suspect it may be useless to leave notes for User:GlobalCorp on his talk page. If other admins are being randomly contacted with this material, it may be time to block User:GlobalCorp from sending e-mail. If anyone has any questions or comments, I"m at your service. Accounting4Taste: talk 02:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note Accounting4Taste. I agree with your assesment. Seems there is a pattern of electronic canvassing by this blocked user and an ongoing abuse of the "email this user" feature, therefore I have blocked that. The user's talk page remains unprotected, for now. Lets see how long that'll last) . --Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I assure you there is no need to block anything because I wouldn't know what that is in the first place. I was simply trying to contact admins for advice because I don't understand all this stuff you are talking about. No one will respond here except Hu12 and he/she is really just not very smart. I have never done so much explaining in my life. What I don't understand is why Admins. who are so strongly against it, keep posting here to voice that. I think you guys might be taking this admin./blocking thing a little too serious. No worries, be happy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.35.65 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a block on the above user's IP range may be necessary if this activity continues. They appear to be operating from the /18. Triplestop  x3  16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alhutch commented on the above-noted talk page that s/he too has received an e-mail and concurs with my comments. I think my observation about admins being contacted in alphabetical order seems to be borne out.  I'd be in favour of the IP range block if only to get this forum-shopping canvassing over with. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * seconded, and I'm certain that this person was just contacting admins in alphabetical order.--Alhutch (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it me or are people just posting here now to practice their vocab? There is no operation, it's just a guy on a computer. What a weird place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.44.222 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We should be able to point to blocked links in talk pages
Is there a reason the spam blacklist blocks edits in the talk pages too? I assumed we would be able to present our case for the inclusion of a link the article's talk page, and possibly, after discussion, request the removal of the domain (or whitelisting of that specific link) in the appropriate pages. But the way things are, it can't be even talked about! Is this intentional? --Waldir talk 11:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Links need not be hyperlinked to be discussed, ie http://www.spammydomain.com using wiki markup "   " or the use plain text ie. www.spammydomain.com (like you did here). --Hu12 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it, I just think that it's kind of a put-off to get a huge warning especially when you're trying to discuss possibly controversial changes, which is a behavior we should encourage.
 * By the way, I'm wondering if this is the right place to ask about this -- should I make a bug report instead? --Waldir talk 15:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked links are not a bug. We add many sites that are known to install maleware, run malicious scrips or have trojan exploits which harm wikipedians. Why would we drive traffic to these sites on talk pages? In addition, why would we open ourself up to talk page spamming and canvassing?--Hu12 (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't assume a lot of traffic is driven from talk pages until I see statistics showing that. My personal experience and opinion is that most readers don't use the talk pages -- these are mostly used by people concerned about changing the article's content. If they're doing it in good faith, as I said, we shouldn't be shoving a huge warning in their faces; If they're canvassing, I believe that alone is enough to make their efforts fruitless: most people are smart enough to recognize and reject blatantly biased opinions. As for spamming, we have excellent tools to prevent it, even automatically. Even if it does give us some extra work, the worst case shouldn't be dictating the default behavior. --Waldir talk 15:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't assume that efforts to protect our readers and editors from harm failed and resulted in installed maleware, malicious scripts or infections from trojan exploits. Nor would it be appropriate to allow links to child porn, or other blocked illegal content which violates the laws in the UK and US to be allowed to reside on either user or article talkpages. "we have excellent tools to prevent it...", as you say, and the blacklist happens to be an effective one. Why have a blacklist at all?--Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit ambivalent about this, I agree with Waldir here, as it does help in discussing, we can discuss a specific document on a generally useless site (which is still possible by making sure the link is disabled, but it would make it easier). However, the spam blacklist is also used to protect against malware and similar sites, which harm the computer of our interested readers, and also, one could still use the talkpage to drive traffic; most people don't check where they end up when they click this link!.  So it has its pros and cons ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Existing links being discussed for articles on talkpages that were there prior to blacklisting remain, "hyperlinked" untill removal. Ie. the offensive example above. It's the addition of new links that the BL restricts. However links need not be hyperlinked to be discussed, as there is Cut, copy, and paste. If a blacklisted links criteria for being discussed "requires" it to be hyperlinked on a talkpage, its probably being discussed for the wrong reasons. Either way the risks far outweigh any benifit. Wiki markup ("   ") is simple to use, and Plain text is even easier.--Hu12 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another point is that if links for blacklisted sites were possible on talk pages, it would become standard practice for spammers to promote their sites via multiple talk pages (after the site has been blacklisted and so cannot appear on articles). Also, there have been many cases were spammers make user pages to promote their POV, and they would fill those with links as well. It is simple to post a URL like www.example.com/some/page.html (without any wiki markup required). Bear in mind that spammers post stuff because they hope it will work, not because it will work. So telling a spammer that there is no point in posting their links because of nofollow or whatever is generally a waste of time. In case there is any doubt, my opinion is that blacklisted sites should be blacklisted everywhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible for the code that does the blacklist testing and splashes the error to modify the content the person is trying to save so that it does not link? I would agree with not allowing clickable links to be added to talk pages. I have dealt with spambots that attack talk pages and do not restrict themselves to the mediawiki mainspace. It's easy to use www.spammy.com should someone need to discuss a blacklisted site. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a compromise solution would be great. I am not saying that blocked links should be clickable in talk pages, I agree that they probably shouldn't -- what I despise is having people learn our external link syntax and then scaring them away when they try to use it the way it's intended to be! I'm sure there's a way to silently unlink blocked links in the talk namespace, while allowing the edits to be saved. So, I support Marc's proposal -- I assume it could be something like the warning that shows up when we forget to include the edit summary (if we set the preference to be warned in that circumstance) -- that would be ideal. Especially, the edit text box shouldn't disappear like it currently does, forcing the user to go back in the browser history in order to restore the text (and I believe many don't even realize that and end up having to write it all over again, or giving up). I reinforce, this should only happen in talk pages. So, what do you think? --Waldir talk 09:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's already a bugzilla open to present users with the text they added if they trigger the edit filter. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For reference, it's the bug #9416. That'd be nice if implemented. It's not exactly what's being asked here (automatically unlink blocked links in talkspace instead of blocking the edit), but it'd solve the problem, in a more generic way. Btw, one of the comments there mentions this discussion, which is one of the several occasions where this happened and frustrated users. I will watch that bug from now on, and will coment on this thread should it get fixed anytime soon -- even though, unfortunately, I seems it's not wise to hold my breath on this... --Waldir talk 09:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just yesterday 60 + talk pages got spammed, source soliciting for a link. while not getting into the merits of the link and the users intention, it does illustrate the vulnerability of talkpages if this was a blocked link. While I'm still against hyperlinking any blocked link anywhere, my top concers are still with opening up talkpages to the worst of the worst links, such as maleware, malicious scripts, infections from trojan exploits, child porn, or illegal content. Maby not so pressing, but a concern also as wikipedia servers are in the United States is the practice of Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ). While a lesser danger to editors than malware, its inappropriate to link anywhere to a site that is known for carrying a works in violation of the creator's copyright.--Hu12 (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)