MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2009

= Proposed Additions =

godakshin.com

 * spammer

''Go Dakshin is your friendly South India travel community. Find comprehensive South India travel guides, photos, videos, tips and much more here You can also connect with friends and family through the social networking features.''

Most recent example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agatti_Island&diff=prev&oldid=307564842

58.8.11.123 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * seems to have stoped since the report, lets monitor these for now. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam --Hu12 (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

bpled.com
IP spammer added this site on Advertising, see this edit. Momo san Gespräch 14:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly looks like vandalism, however the useraccount and the remaining IP's similarly mark the additions as "minor". Suspicious, but may not be enough for a blacklisting. Seems these have been reverted, if continues please report any new additions.--Hu12 (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

ez-tracks.com
Pages from this site are currently being used as references on a few pages. According to http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/www.ez-tracks.com - the site contains malicious software downloads. In addition, 'free mp3s' are offered, which suggests copyvio to me. Regardless of the legal status of the latter, it doesn't seem like the sort of site that WP needs to or should be linking to in the first place. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, most (all?) of these links appear to have been introduced by during May and June of this year. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * EZTracks is an adware program. It installs a toolbar and BHO on users system and displays unwanted ads.. also an WP:ELNO ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Article EZ-Tracks     Links need cleanup.--Hu12 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed all the remaining links from article space, replacing the refs where they were used with fact tags. Do the ones in userspace need to be removed too? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Existing archives links and userspaces typically don't need removing. If its on an articles talk page that at some point will be archived, its best to just remove the http:// part. Blacklisted links will prevent achiving. thanks again.--Hu12 (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Micetrap.net and Aryanmusic.net

 * Two IP users have been repeatedly adding spam to Johnny Rebel (singer) first claiming it to be the "official website" then "official fansite" of article's subject. Link is neither, it is a German language fansite that has not been updated sine 2007.  Fansite is hosted on whiterideraryan88.com (a German language white power music fansite resolving to aryanmusic.net) and mirrored on micetrap.net (NJ based white power record distributor). Both entities are neither owned or operated by article's subject nor do entities hold copyright on any of subject's works (although, micetrap does sell pirated or bootleg compilations of subject's music.)  Suggest both be added to spam filter. L0b0t (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ive semi protected the page Johnny Rebel (singer) as a short term alternative, seems another account and IP are in the frey;
 * Lets see if this cools down in a month. If this fails to help, lets consider other options., for now. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to investigate. Blocks seem to be working, protection is a great idea.  Obscure enough subject matter that it shouldn't become a big problem but it does attract those with, shall we say, strong opinions.  Thanks again, cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen other cases where the disruption ends up moving to the talk page, so keep an eye out on this and other Johnny Rebel related articles. Report if this occurs. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ive semi protected the page Johnny Rebel (singer) as a short term alternative, seems another account and IP are in the frey;
 * Lets see if this cools down in a month. If this fails to help, lets consider other options., for now. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to investigate. Blocks seem to be working, protection is a great idea.  Obscure enough subject matter that it shouldn't become a big problem but it does attract those with, shall we say, strong opinions.  Thanks again, cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen other cases where the disruption ends up moving to the talk page, so keep an eye out on this and other Johnny Rebel related articles. Report if this occurs. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to investigate. Blocks seem to be working, protection is a great idea.  Obscure enough subject matter that it shouldn't become a big problem but it does attract those with, shall we say, strong opinions.  Thanks again, cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen other cases where the disruption ends up moving to the talk page, so keep an eye out on this and other Johnny Rebel related articles. Report if this occurs. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

naturalhandcraftedsoap.com

 * Off and on for about a year now, various users and IPs (who may be in fact one person) have added links to naturalhandcraftedsoap.com in inappropriate places, sometimes even disguising it as something else (for example, changing the URL of a nonprofit site to NHCS but not changing the description of the link). The user(s) have been warned and/or blocked as appropriate throughout time.  There is likely no legitimate use of this site on Wikipedia, so I hope that this can be a clear-cut addition.  I'm also listing rachaelsoap.com because it seems to be a secondary front-end for the same company.  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped, are there other IP's or accounts adding this?--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a slow, but persistent, flow of edits. If there has to be a certain number of edits per month to get something onto the blacklist, then don't worry about this; I just proposed it because I can't see the site ever being linked legitimately. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 06:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Off and on for about a year now, various users and IPs (who may be in fact one person) have added links to naturalhandcraftedsoap.com in inappropriate places, sometimes even disguising it as something else (for example, changing the URL of a nonprofit site to NHCS but not changing the description of the link). The user(s) have been warned and/or blocked as appropriate throughout time.  There is likely no legitimate use of this site on Wikipedia, so I hope that this can be a clear-cut addition.  I'm also listing rachaelsoap.com because it seems to be a secondary front-end for the same company.  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped, are there other IP's or accounts adding this?--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a slow, but persistent, flow of edits. If there has to be a certain number of edits per month to get something onto the blacklist, then don't worry about this; I just proposed it because I can't see the site ever being linked legitimately. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 06:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

bukisa.com

 * A user submitted content site where users get paid per click, so fails all our guidelines and users already have a reason to spam it. No reason for it to be anywhere on the site.--Otterathome (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Adsense pub-8380061879300117
 * BUKISA links:
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views. (www.bukisa.com/info/learn-more)
 * Offers Affiliate Programs / affiliate earnings
 * Offers its Affiliates financial incentives to Link / spam
 * Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is already on the list so I don't know they were in articles already.--Otterathome (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect to the site yet to be blacklisted.--Otterathome (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . The previous listing was from an Adult Friend Finder referral spammer out of New Zealand. I'll merge the logs. Let me know if more redirects are found. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect to the site yet to be blacklisted.--Otterathome (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . The previous listing was from an Adult Friend Finder referral spammer out of New Zealand. I'll merge the logs. Let me know if more redirects are found. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pornstarglobal
A referral code linkfarm. Multiple IPs have inserted this address into multiple articles over the past several months. Some examples:. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbidthoughts (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 September 2009
 * Accounts


 * Crosswiki spam
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/97.113.32.80
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/204.15.226.210
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/174.34.161.12
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/204.15.226.216
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/97.113.41.26
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/38.98.244.86
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/es:Special:Contributions/216.12.206.8
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/95.154.214.12
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/95.154.214.12
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/95.154.214.12
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/95.154.214.6
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/95.154.214.6
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/95.154.214.6
 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad/38.99.170.150
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/38.99.170.150
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/38.99.170.150
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/38.98.244.82
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/38.98.244.82
 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad/38.98.244.80
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/38.98.244.80
 * Much, Much, more; WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/pornstarglobal.com
 * --Hu12 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Case Reported to m:Talk:Spam_blacklist . --Hu12 (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. it has been added to the global blacklist. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

NADA spam in Acupuncture detoxification


Addition by sock/meatpuppets of spamlinks, and recently outright spam, to an organization called NADA. Addition of such links has invariably been reverted, and goes as far back as 2005. The article itself seems to be nothing more than a spam magnet. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

,, , ,, , ,.


 * Article spam National Acupuncture Detoxification Association (NADA)
 * Accounts adding
 * Was user "Ryanbemis" remamed "Triplejump7

Seems Acupuncture detoxification is primarily the issue. Since there is consensus for a REDIRECT/MERGE per Talk:Acupuncture, I'll protect that page. For now, lets mark this as. If spamming and promotion continues, report back and other measures can be taken. --Hu12 (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Looks as if Freesophia is activley reverting back to the promotional content, Seems to have reverted while I was typing. --Hu12 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

2knowmyself.com
This link has been repeatedly added by many IPs (a few recent ones listed below) to many articles including egotism, body language, physiognomy, anger management, inferiority complex, personology, etc. These additions have always been reverted by other users and warnings given. Deli nk (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The spammer is now adding links to different URLs that redirect to 2knowmyself.com. See for example .  Deli nk (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Adsense pub-4653196880932757
 * redirect/refferal domain
 * redirect/refferal domain
 * redirect/refferal domain
 * redirect/refferal domain


 * More IP's


 * All ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ip's are now adding plain text links. --Hu12 (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

At Thy will South Africa / Ons vir jou Suid-Afrika
see also @ wikiproject spam

There's a host of IPs going 'round, adding a video by the Afrikaner Broadcasting Corporation to all South Africa-related articles, particularly South Africa under apartheid. The video, tellingly, starts out by talking about "the civilizing light of Europe" that was brought to the dark continent and continues in a similar tone. Despite the fact that a discussion-string was started at the said page, the IPs are unwilling to engage in a conversation, switch to a different address and re-add the link (even putting it sometimes at the top of articles, or very close to the top). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This was also discussed at WP:ANI. A rangeblock does not appear feasible. So far all the link additions date from September 20, and the linking might not continue if these editors see all their changes being reverted. Another possibility, if this continues, is to add this to XLinkBot's list. Two of the IPs joined in a discussion at Talk:South Africa under apartheid, but could not refrain from deleting comments by other editors. If the blacklist is used, I note that www.jbs.org does appear to have some valid uses in articles. So the use of XLinkBot could be preferable. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever works. Actually, that thing's been going on (irregularly) for several weeks now. If someone could just add it to said bot, awesome. Sorry if I picked the wrong noticeboard, never done this before. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See also
 * See also ANI pemalink
 * Related
 * Adsense pub-6829904919910616
 * Accounts
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been . I agree with the concerns about jbs.org, so I've blocked only jbs.org/forum (forum posts), the rest of the site should not be affected and can still be linked. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The spammer has returned with a new forum link:



The target was only Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd, which I have semi-protected, but I recommend a preemptive listing in the blacklist as this spammer is known to target additional articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you are proposing to blacklist southafrica.com/forums. That would be reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, that was what I was suggesting. Sorry for not being clear in the beginning. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree and agree . --Hu12 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)




 * ...the saga continues Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That didn't take long. Perhaps it is time to consider an EditFilter rule? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A few more IP's;
 * yebol.com/newsearch?key=Transvaal+Republic&t=v
 * He's using search queries, I'll add it so it doesn't block the site.  .✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems these are comming frome 3 distinct ranges;
 * Perhaps its time to consider range-blocking..--Hu12 (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the results of this search for IP contributions, I think you won't cause major damage if you block 77.54.0.0/16 for a month. I looked for IPs who have a talk page, leave edit summaries, and are making contributions that are clearly in good faith. The same search tool could be tried on the other two ranges. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Been looking for a tool like that, thanks. 77.54.0.0/16 and 93.108.0.0/17 are now blocked for a month. Found a youtube vid that is being canvassed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdsUmAZFaVA so Ill add that.--Hu12 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another;
 * I'll be adding jtf.org/forum_english and blocking the range 87.103.0.0/17.--Hu12 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its time to consider range-blocking..--Hu12 (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the results of this search for IP contributions, I think you won't cause major damage if you block 77.54.0.0/16 for a month. I looked for IPs who have a talk page, leave edit summaries, and are making contributions that are clearly in good faith. The same search tool could be tried on the other two ranges. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Been looking for a tool like that, thanks. 77.54.0.0/16 and 93.108.0.0/17 are now blocked for a month. Found a youtube vid that is being canvassed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdsUmAZFaVA so Ill add that.--Hu12 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another;
 * I'll be adding jtf.org/forum_english and blocking the range 87.103.0.0/17.--Hu12 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be adding jtf.org/forum_english and blocking the range 87.103.0.0/17.--Hu12 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

deepcreeklakeproperty.com
Another on the DNS redirects to Long and Foster, spamming Deep Creek Lake State Park. We blocked a bunch of the other DNS redirects earlier this year. Syrthiss (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Appears to be the same related issuse as this Spam-blacklisting case. Blocking doesn't have seemed to help. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears to be the same related issuse as this Spam-blacklisting case. Blocking doesn't have seemed to help. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears to be the same related issuse as this Spam-blacklisting case. Blocking doesn't have seemed to help. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

sites.google.com/site/spywareanti/registrycleaner
Accounts Multiple IP addresses adding this link to Windows Registry, edit warring to keep the link on the article. Suspect the link points to malware. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 12:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Adsense pub-7277263932761944
 * Another
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Return option(s)tradingpedia.com
Adsense pub-2850904672063531
 * See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Dec_1
 * See also - MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2009
 * Origional blacklisting
 * Spam Article

Optiontradingpedia.com



Return of optiontradingpedia.com spammer, Subverting blacklist with option(s)tradingpedia.com. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

416dentist.com

 * links


 * accounts


 * Prior spam report
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2009 Archive Aug 2

Repeated spamming of commercial linkspam to multiple articles (ie: Dentistry, Dental implant, Invisalign, All Saints University of Medicine, & Toronto). Ongoing for several months, continuing today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nariphaltan COI/spam links
I'm of the opinion that it is time to blacklist links to the Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute, given that they have been consistently added by single-purpose IPs and accounts directly related to the institute. (The lead account, User:Akraj, has been established to be Dr. Anil K. Rajvanshi, director of the institute.) The pattern involves adding PR-style text that mentions new developments from the institute, or theories developed by Dr. Rajvanshi. This has been discussed here before, and elsewhere:


 * WikiProject Spam
 * the Conflict of Interest noticeboard
 * the India noticeboard
 * WikiProject External Links
 * the "sustainability" article
 * Editor assistance

Accounts to list would include nariphaltan.org, nariphaltan.virtualave.net, and education.vsnl.com/nimbkar. I'm prepared to do it, but thought I'd get some additional feedback here. Thoughts? --Ckatz chatspy  17:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

=Ckatz seems to have a personal animosity against anything to do with nariphaltan. Most of the articles are about some technologies and processes. Since they may not be available from various sources they have been put on nariphaltan sight. Yet without reading those articles ckatz has taken in his/her head that they should be removed. For an administrator of Wikipedia this is a very destructive behavior and unbecoming. It will be appreciated if ckatz uses his/her talents in more constructive way rather than showing angst in unnecessarily removing valid articles. — 59.95.16.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * If SPA accounts don't heed warnings to stop link canvassing, blacklisting is appropriate. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 04:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I think the events speak for themselves, given the sockpuppet accoutns, the IP edits, the repeated addition of links and complementary text, the blatant conflict of interest, and the repeated reverting and spurious accusations against any editor who challenges their actions. --Ckatz chatspy  04:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ECT...
 * Quite a bit of Disruptive editing and spamming. Repeatedly they have been warned and have chosen in pursuit of a certain point, to reject community input and consensus that their edits are disruptive. Despite the blocks, discussions, ect.. this is now ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember the COI reports from April, 2009, and the great indignation about our enforcement efforts. (Note the comment by an IP above in response to Ckatz: "..very destructive behavior and unbecoming"). Adding these links to the blacklist seems necessary since no amount of persuasion has worked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ECT...
 * Quite a bit of Disruptive editing and spamming. Repeatedly they have been warned and have chosen in pursuit of a certain point, to reject community input and consensus that their edits are disruptive. Despite the blocks, discussions, ect.. this is now ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember the COI reports from April, 2009, and the great indignation about our enforcement efforts. (Note the comment by an IP above in response to Ckatz: "..very destructive behavior and unbecoming"). Adding these links to the blacklist seems necessary since no amount of persuasion has worked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

MAC media reproduction software

 * links


 * accounts


 * related discussions
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Fishup2008/Archive
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

Ongoing spamming of "instructional" sites that are actually advertisements for two pieces of media reproduction software. Users have been warned by multiple editors over several months, and some accounts have been blocked due to sockpuppet activity related to these links. I can't find evidence that the users have ever engaged in talk page discussions about the links - they appear to only be interrested in spamming the advert links into articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

bjelasnica.net

 * link:

--Jorunn (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * account:
 * Thanks for the report. This link is an WP:ELNO and also EL. However, I've blocked the user for a short time first. If if this continues after the block, we can reconsider. For now lets mark this as .--Hu12 (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Heatsinkchina.com

 * link:


 * account:
 * 114.217.169.6
 * 222.93.165.213
 * 58.210.148.111
 * 222.93.171.21
 * 114.216.63.36
 * 222.93.173.152
 * 117.82.108.161
 * 117.82.222.59
 * 121.227.55.21
 * 222.93.164.235
 * 58.210.147.180
 * User:Heatshrink

Endless spamming of the heatsink article, occasionally crossing into other articles like radiator. Fails to engage with other editors in any way other than with reversion edit warring. Given that the IPs are from many different ranges this is difficult to deal with using range blocks (although I have used a few). Please blacklist.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  10:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Now getting some rather unpleasant threats from these people . The sooner we get them off Wikipedia the better.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  13:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

www.thehamptons.com
A sometimes-logged-in, sometimes-not user who seems to have multiple ips at their disposal adds www.thehamptons.com to The Hamptons, despite my discussion of our external links policy (user was LizObelinsky or such back in the history of the article). I had sprotected the article for a short time before, and have it again sprotected after another ip added a spamlink and the owner of thehamptons.com re-added their own spam. This isn't ideal, though, since there was a bit of improvement over the past few months by ips. I'd rather just add the site to the blacklist and lift the protection. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * link
 * Added a LinkSummary for easier review of existing use of the link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a LinkSummary for easier review of existing use of the link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See also - Help_desk/Archives/2007_March_31
 * Adsense pub-7047252950005517
 * Accounts
 * owner
 * Adsense site, clearly a promotional endevor by the site owner. Blocks are not going to help since other IP's are being used, and indefinatly protecting the page is out of the question...✅. If some of these links are requested by high volume, good standing wikipedians, I am not adverse to whitelisting on a case by case basis.--Hu12 (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

www.HawaiiFreePress.com
This site has been listed as "blocked external link". I do not see why it should be. This is a Hawaii-related news and opinion site which is an invaluable reference for opinion and information about Hawaii politics, business, socio-political trends, and history. It is one of the few sources of pro-Statehood information and commentary. This site does not fit in with the obviously commercial sites which have been banned for spam. This is probably retaliation for editing the Antonio Gramsci wiki page with information about the Gramsci vs Tocqueville debate and links to a series of right-wing critiques of Gramsci which does not please the Gramscians. This spam-blacklisting is precisely the type of retaliation which would come naturally for the Gramscians. Please remove from list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.35 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That site is not blocked. Either you have spelled it wrongly, or it was delisted separately since you made this request. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

www.army-guide.com
The barmy-quide blocks it though. Flayer (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite, it's blocked because of spamming. Can you explain why we should not expect this to restart if we deblacklist the site? Stifle (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... No. But I've been reading this site for a while lately and everything was fine. Flayer (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in here, but I'm not sure why this site is blacklisted for spam. I reviewed the requirements for listing it as spam, and it doesn't seem to meet any.  It was posted frequently in external links, but this appears to have been done by one or two 'enthusiastic' users with 'good intentions' (providing additional sources on the topic), which perhaps triggered the initial fear that this was a spam link.  If you look at the links posted, they were all relevant to the page that they were posted in.  If you look at the contributions of the people who posted them, they're on a wide variety of topics, not just one's associated with the site in question... so it doesn't appear to be for the sake of advertising or a bot (really, what could an 'army guide' have to do with wrestling?).  Finally, yes, this site was posted frequently, but it's an extensive site, so it can be realistically associated with many articles here at Wikipedia. -Jonathon A H (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if it were unblacklisted, what pages from the site would you add, and to what articles? Stifle (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm currently working on BTR-60 article so unblacklisting BTR-60 and TAB-71 articles on the site would be very helpful. The site is a normal site about military vehicles with some very interesting and useful information so it doesn't make sense to blacklist it. Pages for various other weapon systems should also be unblacklisted or even better the whole site should be unblacklisted. There's nothing harmful in that site. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to deblacklist the site and will do so in a week or so if I don't see any further reason to change my mind. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

www.PornstarGlobal.com
- Based on multiple IPs adding 10+ links, there has clearly been an attempt to linkspam. If an established editor wishes to add a link to a specific page on this site, they may place the request at WP:WHITELIST. -- Versa geek  03:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello .. we received an inbox of emails this morning letting us know that the PornstarGlobal site was 'BlackListed'. Upon initially viewing the rant that was posted above, a massive amount of frustration was shown by all of our staff members. The people that develop PornstarGlobal 24-7 have a passion for making it the most spam-free, pop-up free, ad-ware free, spyware-free, clean and zero-harm site possible on a daily basis (Which is why the very first paragraph on the home page is as follows: ("PornstarGlobal is not only the most robust porn star database online, but our paramount user standards continue to provide viewers a premiere pornstar archive which is free of pop-up's and adware. Enthusiasts worldwide continue to make us the who's who of Pornstar info sites. Enjoy -") To call a database of invaluable (and sometimes un-attainable personal info about individual Adult Entertainers) a 'Link Farm' is a slap in the face to people who work extremely hard to find such info. Each of our Bios pages has the same info as any one of your pages but on a smaller scale. PornstarGlobal has been recognized by such organizations as XBIZ: http://www.xbiz.com/news/web/102049 and continues to receive achievement awards from multiple outlets. We challenge you to find another site that has a 'Pornstar Festivals' section in their categories area. there are countless links that simply link to other sites without any affiliate connection whatsoever: Another example could be the 'Links' area which is where you will find links to Industry award shows, clothing lines, and websites that cater to parents in the Industry. The IP's that begin with 9 are obviously 1 workstation (OURS) which changes due to the modem being restarted daily (surprised you don't already know this) and each time we added a link to a Models Wiki page it corresponded directly to her bio on our site NOT to an affiliate link EVER. We did not check back nor ever wonder if our links had been removed as we just assumed they would not be due to the fact that we were providing info that Wikipedia could not in some cases. It was because of this that we did not know they were being removed. as far as the foreign stuff goes, we posted the IP's 9 again, not the others. Please do not confuse us with someone 5000 miles away posting our link on a Wikipedia site, because it is not us. We have many fans, viewers and competitive entities that could be the cause, however as I look at the links I truly don't see an issue unless I am missing something ?? Again .. all the links in question direct to a models bio, nothing affiliate involved at all. In regard to the links we posted, we simply thought we were helping you out and now see that it was a mistake. Please don't take this the wrong way, but Wikipedia External Links not only have no use to us, they are also the last thing on our minds. We do however care about our name being run through the mud and your editors falsely labeling our intentions in a slanderous manner. I advise others to please view the site and understand its concept to gauge for themselves and also kindly ask you to remove the site from any 'BlackLists'. We have no problems with parting ways and never looking back, thank you for your time. 97.113.37.141 (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC) GlobalCorp


 * I am sorry to inform you but:
 * 193 records; Top 10 editors who have added pornstarglobal.com: 85.25.176.136 (20), 85.25.179.116 (17), 97.113.41.26 (8), 97.113.36.30 (8), 97.113.46.235 (7), 97.113.47.159 (7), 95.154.214.12 (6), 38.99.170.160 (6), 97.113.33.95 (5), 97.113.36.253 (4).
 * This list shows 10 IPs, who are connected to editors who have added links to your site. I am sure that this data shows a true representation of the top 10 of editors who added these links to Wikipedia.
 * As you can see, 6 of these IPs are very close to your IP, and it suggests that those belong to you, or your coworkers. In the above request, you also see that two users with usernames which closely resemble your organisation have been involved in this situation as well.
 * If I go through the edits of some of these editors, I only see that the interviews are linked in external links sections, and some editors seem only to do that. Moreover, the link has been added to more wikis than only en.wikipedia.  See: 193 records; Wikis where pornstarglobal.com has been added: w:es (66), w:it (44), w:fr (43), w:en (34), w:pl (2), w:ru (1), w:ca (1), w:pt (1), w:nl (1).
 * In other words, these links have been added in violation of our external links guideline, in a spammy way, by editors which likely have a conflict of interest (and may very well have been more interested in tunneling traffic to the site than in improving wikipedia), in combination with harassing remarks (diff).
 * These links could indeed have been used properly, referencing articles, or expanding the content of articles, but it seems that editors from your organisation were not willing to consider that cooperation. I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 01:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dirk, Actually everything you just mentioned was stated in my edit, did you read it fully? To clarify once again though .. we do not benefit from your tunneled traffic nor having links on your sites, if anything we were helping you cover your bases in places that you were lacking bio info. We first thought Wikipedia was a great project with non-bias editors and a goal to produce accurate info, but have learned otherwise. You are skipping right over all the points I just touched on including the miss-labeling slanderous words like 'link farm' and 'spammy' that your employees have named our brand. I'm sure you and many others have visited PornstarGlobal, read the blacklist info, and done the math by now so it's painfully obvious that mistakes were made. I can tell that you too do not agree with the harsh treatment that was given to PornstarGlobal and know that a handfull of usefull external links could only help the (sparce and linkless pages) that they were posted on. Once again NEVER was their any affiliate activity from our end whatsoever and NEVER was a link placed anywhere but an individual performers bio page. Your editors chose to have no links rather than one of our links that lead to info your site did not have. Please re-read my original post which explains everything, and then please explain to us why (if we choose to never acknowledge your site again) would we remain on your 'BlackList'?

USER/WIKIPEDIA EDITOR: Morbidthoughts is the person who initiated this ban, but after recieving an email from an anonymous source we soon discovered this link: http://www.adultdvdtalk.com/reviews/search_reviews.dlt/reviewer=morbidthoughts/morbidthoughts.htm. This link is Morbidthought's own porn dvd review page (from another site) dating all the way back to 2003. In one of these many reviews he makes this quote "I never realised how difficult it was to write a review and it may have been made worse since my porn viewing gets dictated by my ADD." The link to this quote is here: http://www.adultdvdtalk.com/reviews/read_review.dlt/sku=5123/joey-silveras-service-animals-11.htm. Not only is he clearly stating that it is very hard for him to write a review, but he is also stating that his disabllitly (ADD) is clouding his overall decision making. He then continues to say "By this time I stayed away from his movies when he started his Service Animals line. I work with service animals in real life and wasn't that comfortable with the title and the implications of what that title means." which is proof that if he does not like something he will intentionally cease to recognize its value. We then found his Nickname on many other pornstar bios related sites including our biggest competitor. he is appearantly well known in the porn industry and is obviously engaging in bias and favorable activities according to Wikipedia rules & standards. His actions should monitored and his previous blacklisting's should be investigated as he is clearly a rouge editor with malicious intent and a lack of comprehension due to his dissabillity. It also appears that other Admins. (who shall remain nameless for now) are very close to Morbidthoughts and partake in his activities as well. At this point all we would like is our url removed from your blacklist, but not because we fear it .. just because we no longer want to have any involvement with your Company in any way shape or form. Thank you - 97.113.37.141 (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC) GlobalCorp
 * It would seem to me that if you no longer want to have anything to do with Wikipedia "in any way shape or form" then remaining on the blacklist is win-win for everybody. L0b0t (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, I don't really have to say anything thanks to statements like that L0b0t. You realize there must be 20 senior admin's in shock that you just said that right? 97.113.37.141 (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt very much that any admin will be shocked here. What you seem to fail to realise is that Wikipedia is not about providing a place to link to other sites.  The main purpose is to write articles for Wikipedia and editors who spend no time writing articles for us, but instead all there time inserting links to other people's articles, are not very popular.  You should read the English Wikipedia's guidelines on external links; in case you don't have the time, here is a quote of one of the things that should not be included:
 * Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article
 * Spend some time getting a few articles to featured status and then we might find more time to listen to you.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  11:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I did read it, GlobalCorp. As I said, at least 6 of the editors mentioned in my first list are IPs very close to you.  Such editors should not engage in link additions.  Those editors should know more about the subject, and they could use their knowledge to provide content, not links only.  So how are we going to see if it is to tunnel traffic away from here, or if it is not.  And seen that you, so shortly after the link was blacklisted, come here to complain and say that editors here made a serious error does show that you are interested in having your links here.  I am sure that, if you can provide content, that you could also do that without links.  Link farm is not my words (though read what it refers to, just to help (from the external links guideline): "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.").  And my words was 'in a spammy way', or to refer that to more context: see this section of our spam guideline: "Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them.".  IMHO, you were given sufficient warning that the way you were editing here was not appropriate, but you chose strong words, and continued.  Maybe you want to address that situation also?  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it from Wikipedia's point of view, if we remove the site from the blacklist there is a risk of it being added again, whether by yourselves or unknown others; if we don't, then it won't be added. Since you seem happy for the links never to be added here again, I prefer the first solution. This request is therefore. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've come here spewing complaints at people because the site has been blocked, but you say you have no problem parting ways with Wikipedia. It would seem like the obvious solution is to keep the site on the blacklist and for you to stop posting here. From what I can see here, links to the site have been added in a lot of locations where they add little value and appear to serve only to direct traffic to the site. The site is not a reliable source, and I fail to see how being listed on the blacklist is equivalent to the "name being run through the mud".

This was obviously a huge mistake on Wikipedias end for many reasons and the way that many of you are now shuffling to hold your stance but clear yourself of any involvment at the same time is remedial at best. Words like 'spewing' are not commonly used in business practice but to each his own I guess. We didn't make any complaints, we posted links to facts about certain editors because we don't want any other sites to be treated as unfair as ours has. We were never given a warning about anything and our only crimes are providing better more reliable info than Wikipedia / exposing bias editors, and if your feelings were hurt by this we are sorry but right is right. What we don't understand is why you are going to so much trouble to remove our link from all of Wikipedia and actually banning the url, but refuse to let it leave your list. You are basically saying leave forever but you can never leave ?? Maybe Wikipedia editors should have taken the time to view this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Morbidthoughts before even commenting and they would see that the situation was dosile and close to resolved before they interjected their disrespectful and hurtful words here. To be completely clear once again .. whether we are placed on a list or not, you will never have our support or any of our colleagues support financially, and you will never be allowed to use our link anywhere on your .en site again so the only thing you have truly accomplished from all of this is intentionally slandering our brand in public. It is rather refreshing to see some other very classy sites on the list however - The other reason was because we feel as though the term 'Blacklist' is racially fueled and is a term that was created to oppress the worthiness of African Americans, and to be quite blunt it offends us a bit. We would like to be placed on a list of equivilant value but with a more PC name please. 97.113.39.208 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh..."a term that was created to oppress the worthiness of African Americans." ORLY?  From the Washington Post: Blacklist- "A phrase first used by playwright Philip Massinger in 1619 to describe those who possess neither "fire nor spirit of their owne."  Methinks works of divers black arts are afoot.  L0b0t (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand that your post above is actually stating that you are not sensitive to ones beliefs in racial equality nor our standpoint or personal issue with the word at hand? You are treating our heartfelt statements about how we think Wikipedia should not place us on a list that is labeled with a term that has obvious ties to racism, and you are not only disregarding it but trying to lessen the severity as well. ALL racist words begin meaning something else. We were hurt when you unfairly placed our site on a ban list due to it having more valuable info than yours but we brushed it off, we were amazed when your editors told us that Wikipedia Viewers' opinions do not matter here at Wikipedia, but we still remained focused on solving the issue, but now you have Wikipedia admins openly disregarding the value of a request to remove us from a list that has (in our opinion) a name that we all know dang well has racist undertones and was created from racism long ago (no matter how many times the actual definition has been 'cleaned up' over the years). I'm assuming that L0b0t speaks for all admins and for the entire Wikipedia Company as no one is saying any different, so we will just take that and gracefully bow out with many lessons learned about Wikipedia, its staff, its true intentions, its racial standpoints, and its ability to mock serious issues. PornstarGlobal.com is now publicly placing Wikipedia on our 'Banlist' and it will not be removed until our name/brand is removed from its site completely, and its insensitivity of racial issues are addressed. This situation is now being monitored and should not be taken lightly. Please contact us anytime for a speedy resolution - 97.113.39.208 (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's cute but at least you are finally learning to use the spell check functionality of your browser. For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor do I ever intend to be an administrator and to assume otherwise... well you know what they say about assuming.  Fellow editors, please accept my most humble apologies for feeding the troll.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

We do not find this very serious situation cute at all nor do we see anything cute about the image on your talk page that says "This user will tenaciously defend the honor of his Confederate ancestors!" You continue to call us names and voice your obvious disregard for other races. The only thing you are contributing to this already volatile situation is your message to all that Wikipedia does not like Black people. We can only hope at this point that an honest, non-bias, and well rounded Wikipedia employee takes notice of the unfair treatment we are recieving. 97.113.34.162 (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm an administrator (as it happens). There's a lot of silliness above. "Blacklist" is a word that to most people has no connotations of skin color or "racial" identification; anyone who says it does is most welcome to suggest an unproblematic alternative. Spelling mistakes are uninteresting. Nobody has been a troll. Now please cool down all around. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pornstarglobal.com revisited
And here's the new section, as vaguely invited above.

Presumably as a result of my own single comment, closest to the foot of the blue box immediately above, I yesterday received a polite email (addressed to "Hoary/wikipedia Administration") from "the sole and only owner of www.pornstarglobal.com". The message is informative, and appears to go a considerable way toward explaining both the earlier linking/spamming and the truculent comments on this. Because it's a private message, I'm not going to quote it or get into specifics, beyond saying that the writer claims not to have written any of the comments above and would "be willing to make a public comment to clear the air of all that has happened".

I invite him to do just this, here (but to be brief). His interlocutors are welcome to be skeptical, but should also consider the possibility of good faith, and should remain polite. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your note. Even without all the things that get people hot under the collar, the prima facie evidence still remains, (m:User:COIBot/LinkReports/pornstarglobal.com) and occurred over many, many months under many, many IP's. Despite clear evidence of abuse and multiple statements of policy, and despite multiple reasoned opinions and comments provided by multiple experienced independent editors and administrators, then continuing this in pursuit of a certain point is no longer necessary. There have been multiple declines, which I also agree with. At this point this matter is closed and any further discussion, explaination or rationale for placing the link is quite secondary to the behaviour, when it reaches this stage. Remember Wikipedia is not therapy nor can it help with the Grieving process. --Hu12 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I follow you until you reach your last sentence. Until that point I may agree with you as well; but even if I don't, I agree that you make reasonable points. However, the last sentence strikes me as somewhat sarcastic. Let's try a little harder to be polite. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am checking back here for the first time after sending Hoary an email from the GlobalCorp account, which I wasn't even sure if it went through because this is only the 2nd time I personally logged into either one those related accounts. I don't speak wikipedia language and honestly only understand about 1/4 of the conflict above but am making an effort to teach myself more about the system and post text properly here. It's going to be hard to keep the entire explanation brief but I will give it a shot if nothing else but to clear the air and publicly denounce the previous behavior of 2 employees of mine. The full version should be totally covered in the email I sent to the Administrator Hoary and he is more than welcome to foward that email and my contact info to anyone wishing to have it. I am available anytime via phone or email. I don't do any marketing,linking, or anything like that so while this was happening I was unaware the entire time. I handle other things which is why I hired 2 individuals to take care of these things. 1 of them had the right to speak on my behalf if I wasnt around but not in the manner he did here so when i checked in on progress a couple days ago he told me that their were some issues which is when I told him and the other person to stop everything until I got back. I'm back, 1 of the 2 has been let go, the other is under last chance probation and I am handling all online activity from this point forward. I was unaware that these 2 wiki accounts existed and had no knowledge of any of this until now. I will be the first to admit that there was a clear breach of your rules here and our link was placed many times when it should not have. Its emberassing and the things that transpired afterward should be removed from this page because they are childish and pure rubbish. I understand your feelings toward all this and do not blame you at all and could only ask that this entire mess be reversed,erased, and both accounts deleted not for a second chance per say but because it is not fair to others around the world that may want to contribute our link but are forced not to because of the actions of 2 youngsters acting inappropriately. This is nothing more than a lack of supervision on my part and I take full responsibility. I am very sorry for any grief it caused anyone and would like to end this by letting everyone know that this is not how we conduct business here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.28.135 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In at least one place, I must agree with you. I was surprised to receive the mail from you, because it was obvious to me that it should instead have been sent to a Wikipedia address intended for this kind of thing. And so I thought I'd forward it on your behalf. Although I've been here some time, it took me about 15 minutes of intensive reading and link-clicking to go around in circles and tentatively conclude that there was no such address for this kind of thing. (Though I'm still not entirely sure.) Wikipedia certainly can be pretty opaque. &para; Also, thank you for your apology. Now let's see what others here say. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked members of WikiProject Pornography to comment here (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Pornography), I hope that I chose a suitable wikiproject, if there are others more suitable, please invite them too. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * After almost two weeks, nobody has commented. It could well mean that nobody's interested, and it clearly doesn't mean that they all think blacklisting is unfair -- but it's also hard to interpret as their approval of blacklisting. &para; It seems to me that the proprietor of the website has a fairly plausible explanation, is contrite, and promises to behave well. If a blocked vandal is contrite and (credibly) promises to behave, we lift the block, because blocks are not punitive but preventive. While a blacklisting isn't a block, it's not utterly unrelated. So I say: Give the man a second chance. (If there's more trouble later -- and if there's no reasonable suspicion of a joe job behind it -- then go ahead and blacklist, without a repeat of this rigmarole.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly, the related IP's in this thread coincide with the evidence of this is not being a joe-job, nor was it's listing punitive, but preventative. User claims on the 11th of sept, "...was unaware that these 2 wiki accounts existed and had no knowledge of any of this until now. ". yet on the 6th of Sept. prior to this statement he logs into the account he was "unaware of" and blanks his talk page, which included an incident of Harassment on other wikipedians. The 6th was the day of the initial removal request above. Additionaly the race baiting fueld commentary above by this user does not lend it self to trust, and appears to be patterned behavior. The big picture here clearly shows someone who is using Multiple language Wikipedia's to promote their own interests. A second chance was given at WikiProject Pornography. Despite evidence of abuse and multiple reasoned declines provided by experienced independent administrators, any lack of response here or on the wikiproject isn't grounds for delisting, nor can you assure against its return. It realy has no place on Wikipedia and despite lack of interest on the wikiproject, there is no pressing need for removal.--Hu12 (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My decision to avoid commenting here (until now anyway) was based upon my regret for prolonging the drama above and a reluctance to see it start up again. This should in no way be interpreted as advocating the site's removal from the list.  Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I respect everyones opinions and can see that the words typed by said employees really hurt some of you. Hu12 in particular seems really bent out of shape and if I were in his position I might feel the same. I do need to clarify some things though. Hu12, yes Hoary posted that he recieved an email from on the 11th above, but that is not the day I sent it to him. I think it was a couple days before wasn't it Hoary? and when I did login that time the first thing I saw was all the issues you speak of starring me in the face so I tried to delete them as fast as possible, but I had no idea it was against the rules or anything, I thought it was my page and I thought I was the only one who could see it, almost like it was just a warning for the account, not to mention it was too emberrassing to look at. I really have no idea how Wikipedia works and have only logged in myself here 4 times I think so you are giving me too much credit. I have now read the harassment thing you are talking about and don't really see any to be honest, all I see is the same goofy actions by my employee and again I am sorry about that, wish I could take it back. I wasn't aware of any multiple declines or lack of interest by the entire Wikipedia Community like you say and if it is true that is unfortunate because my site is a place to get info just like here plus it is only 1 year old. I did not know that I was required to do anything on the wikipedia porno project link and was unaware that It was my second chance and I was required to say something over there. There is really no big picture, I am a peaceful man and try to steer clear of drama by any means. I just feel bad that no one in this world can contribute my link ever again because of some isolated unfortunate events. Yes you can trust me that there will be none of this happening again from us and if you flip the switch that removes the blacklisting you will right away see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.25.136 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to think that links to this site would help Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, that is not true at all, I can think of a couple ways it might help. This isn't about helping though, it's about not hurting anymore, which I stated would stop and I mean that. If vandals are granted removal but we have to go through all this, I would say that there is something else prohibiting the removal but I don't have the energy to explore any further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.42.188 (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

www.404techsupport.com
I would like to think 404 Tech Support is a value adding resource to the Wikipedia community. As a technical blog, it offers examples, screenshots, and reviews of software. It also covers bugs and workarounds to fix common problems. In a select few cases, it also provides download mirrors to third-party files or self-created code. While the site is ad-supported, it is of a similar format to many other external links (e.g. freewaregenius.com) that provide further valuable resources for the community beyond the Wikipedia article. 130.126.35.85 (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC) As far as I am now aware, 404techsupport.com was only linked from 3 Wikipedia articles: 100Pulse.com, Auditorium_(video_game), and NTFSDOS. A number I would highly contest as being "spam" or likely to "spam" again if links were permitted again. I disagree that the link should be considered spam on the 100Pulse.com article. There was a direct link to an overview of the service. 404 Tech Support also provided a download link from the NTFSDOS Wikipedia article and a review of Auditorium. Wikipedia articles are not:
 * This was blacklisted for spamming (see here); how do we know the spamming won't start again if we permit links? Stifle (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate. I believe the 404techsupport.com links were within the realm of "useful content-relevant links to an article" while never being an excessive list. If better articles or at least from more major news reporting sources were to come about, the 404techsupport links could be replaced. For the time being though, I believe all links to 404 Tech Support were informative, useful to readers, and highly relevant to the context of the Wikipedia articles.

As the site owner of 404 Tech Support and after reading further into the External links policy, I will adhere to the recommendations regarding a conflict of interest: "It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines." Thank you for your time and I hope my site may be removed from the spam blacklist so other members of the community may link to this resource if they deem it a worthwhile contribution to an article. 130.126.35.85 (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not in the habit of delisting sites at the request of the site owner. If a high-volume, trusted editor comes wanting to use links from the site in articles where they comply with WP:EL, this request may be considered. For now, though, it is . Stifle (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

asianmediawiki.com
I would like to ask for asianmediawiki to be removed if possible. They offer insightful detail in asian films/tv and articles like Geun-seok Jang / Jun-ki Lee could work as nice supplements for articles here. -- --RamenLover (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * m:User:COIBot/XWiki/asianmediawiki.com
 * m:Special:Contributions/RamenLover
 * declined asianmediawiki.com
 * was removed in good faith for a "second chance"
 * re added and declined after second chance


 * Hello I run asianmediawiki...RamenLover 22:39, 18 February 2009


 * We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests, particularly when after second chances, they re-spam multiple wikimedia language projects.


 * Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site. In addition, its a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey one thing you seem to be confused about - the blacklist was removed for a few weeks in February and readded solely by another monitor not agreeing to the original blacklist removal. There wasn't anything done to warrant the re-addition to the blacklist except a differing opinion by someone monitoring this list. Your comment - "particularly when after second chances, they re-spam multiple wikimedia language projects" is completely wrong. Also the pages I alluded to (Geun-seok Jang / Jun-ki Lee) do fall under the guidelines and are easily verifable under the reference section - I would provide the link but obviously cannot because of the blacklist - please do a search if required. I was offering to help the bio section on wikipedia but could not site because of the blacklist. Thanks - --RamenLover (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree here with RamenLover that the second chance was nothing more than 'a short removal of the link from the blacklist', and no link additions were recorded in the period that the link was off the blacklist.
 * 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). Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

www.2knowmyself.com
hello, i am a world wide known body language expert and i show up on MBC channel every week, the person editing the body language page removed my site from the external links even though it contains much more detailed info and research based information than all other sites listed, when i tried returning my site to the external links (obviously because its the most beneficial to the readers) my listing was considered spam and the site black listed

i want someone who knows more than little about body language to judge my page himself : 2knowmyself.com/body_language/learn_body_language — 41.196.244.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * serious pattern abuse, including using redirect/refferal domains. Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to site-owners' requests, or those who where involved in spamming them. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages.


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your Adsense site(pub-4653196880932757). --Hu12 (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

VeoMed
VeoMed was recently blocked from uploading educational videos, and is requesting to be removed from the spam-blacklist. Veomed is an online educational resource that students, HealthCare professionals, and Medical organizations can use to advance their learning about medicine. The videos that were posted to Wikipedia are an educational resources that can help enforce the information presented on each topic. VeoMed would like to be removed from the spam-blacklist, so that we can continue to share our information to Wikipedia. — Swimmer0003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * First there is the Serious Spam abuse, edit warring and disruption. Secondly, Its a social networking sites Which makes it a Link normally to be avoided. Additionaly VeoMed fails the multiple requirements of the External Links policy and both the Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Thirdly, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-representativs' requests. Ie. ("we", "our"). 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.--Hu12 (talk) 13:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moneyweek
I'm trying to add a reference to a Moneyweek article to the Specialized Bicycle Components page but the link seems to be blocked. The address is http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/entrepreneurs-my-first-million-mike-sinyard-specialized-45339.aspx. Can this be unblocked? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've Whitelisted  http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/entrepreneurs-my-first-million-mike-sinyard-specialized-45339.aspx  ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =

Can non-clickable URLs be dealt with?
I just reverted a large number of edits by 88.159.116.99 which inserted the string "according to www.stadiumzone.net" into articles about football stadiums. Technically, they are not links and the cannot be followed by clicking, but (please correct me if I'm wrong) they still constitute spam. Is there a way to automatically prevent this? According to this search, similar edits have occurred in the past and probably will again. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The spam regex can be used, however I am not sure this is practical Triplestop  x3  14:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried User:XLinkBot? -- &oelig; &trade; 03:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit filter may be able to do this too. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)