MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2011

=Proposed additions=

djllalique.com


Persistent Spamming of René Lalique article to add this domain 9 times by IP user, including reverting edits by myself, by ClueBot NG, and longtime editor *. IP vandalizes the page by removing existing link and puts this domain at top of external link list in it's place. Brand new user added it twice (also once to Hood Ornament article) before IP user took over. The insertion of this domain is the only contribution of these users. Domain is a recently created commercial sales site with no encyclopedic value ("Buy & Sell DJLLALIQUE.com Top $ for your Glass Items - 35 Years Experience. Largest Buyer", Home Page title is "DJL Lalique - Buy and Sell ……….."). IP user has ignored warnings on their talk page. I also left comment on Talk:René Lalique requesting assistance.--Patagoniaddd (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets try this first. I've blocked the IP for two weeks. If the spamming continues, we can consider alternative actions. thanks or the report and removing the spam.--Hu12 (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

www.rolffrey.de and scm-shop.de


Music and music shop spam --Biker Biker (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

turl.no


This site appears to be similar to tinyurl. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, an url shortener. These go by default on the meta blacklist, which I already did now.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hgh-advice.com


Persistent Spamming of commercial site, aggressively adding to many pages and reverting removals. Thanks --CutOffTies (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * One more IP:


 * Plus, keeps adding advice-hgh.com to human growth hormone, apparently in good faith, as an example of spam.  I tried to remove it but was reverted.  Deli nk (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

'Best poems'
Someone is spamming the site 'best poems' from various different IP addresses over many months. It is a generic commercial poetry site that generates revenues from advertising and offers links to poetry text. It offers no unique value.  There are many more examples of spammed articles, mostly American. When deleted as spam and policy refs given, the editor jumps to another IP and re-adds. The site would seem to deserve a spam black listing. Thanks Span (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * summary
 * Adsense google_ad_client = pub-5815837753304072
 * Spam Article
 * Accounts
 * In addition to the mass spamming, I see no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers for the Poems, per WP:COPYRIGHT--Hu12 (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * In addition to the mass spamming, I see no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers for the Poems, per WP:COPYRIGHT--Hu12 (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Span (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

artiflix.com
Recent spamming by below accounts have inserted links to this commercial website. I see no likelihood of this being used as a valid source so it's probably worth nipping this in the bud.



See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam (permalink).

— Scientizzle 17:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also;
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

getmyaddress.co.cc


I hadn't run across this particular spamsite before, but my inner alarm is telling me we can expect to see it more. I do see that the account has already been indef'd. One of five attempts to add the link to Email is here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ because there's nothing to do. All of *.co.cc is blacklisted already. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

=Proposed removals=

hollywoodnorthreport.com
Site does not appear in the log. The only evidence I can find against the site is that back in 2008 a user named Hollywoodnorthreport used links from it to promote his band. The user has been inactive since then, but in any case action should have been taken against the user rather than the site, which was a legitimate source of entertainment news in Canada. I say "was" because the site is now gone; I'm asking because the blacklist is catching material from the Internet Archive.

I'm presently looking to summarize some comments some actors made to an interviewer for the site about the television episode Pegasus (Battlestar Galactica), and I'd like to include a link to the archived copy. For reference, I've included the interviews' URLs in markup comments. I could ask over at the whitelist, but I don't want to have to go back there every time I or someone else finds something worth adding to the encyclopedia. The site really just belongs off the blacklist. Thanks. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Dec_1
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_1
 * Appears the user was found to be the site owner, based on whois ect. Seems the domain currently does not exist and is nothing more than a "Test Page for the Apache HTTP Server & InterWorx-CP".--Hu12 (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I said, there's good material to be found in the Internet Archive, and hollywoodnorthreport.com's presence on the blacklist is preventing me from adding links to citations of the Archive. Try adding one of the links in the comments over at the Sandbox to see what I mean. Lagrange613 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, the site no longer exists. Second it is restricted from being linked to, without exception see #2. Additionally, the two links (you've commented out), can be found here;
 * web.archive.org/web/20061030030725/http://www.hollywoodnorthreport.com/article.php?Article=2363 = http://www.cinemaspy.com/spotlight/battlestar-galactica-set-visit-part-i-4776/
 * web.archive.org/web/20061030021938/http://www.hollywoodnorthreport.com/article.php?Article=2673 = http://www.cinemaspy.com/spotlight/battlestar-galactica-set-visit-part-ii-4774/
 * Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. --Hu12 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

News 24 website search feature
I respectfully request that News 24 and/or its search results page be removed from the blacklist as it is not spam, but a search results page for articles placed on News 24, a media website. I greatly appreciate your kind concern. Thanks. - Drakenwolf (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * . I don't see http://news24.com listed anywhere. In fact, as you can see from the link I just added to this comment, it doesn't seem to be blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That is odd, because when I tried to use the page as a reference for an article which I currently cannot remember, the page refused to save the reference link, saying that it was blacklisted. Drakenwolf (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

pickeringchatto.com
Hi, the page for the Pickering & Chatto Publishers has been deleted for having been build as an advertisement and the link to the publishing company's website has been listed as spam. The fact that the person who first created the article might have been from the company and had build the page as an advertisment was not necessary an good enough reason to blacklist the company's website. I think it's time to remove it so that it can appear on their web page. So far I created the article as a stub and it has really few information. And just in case: I do not work for any publishing company and do not personnally know anyone from this company. Bouktin (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * to unblock specific pages on the company web site (like the "about us" page).
 * Also note the following:
 * The article as it stands now doesn't appear to establish notability. Let's first see if it survives a proposal for deletion.
 * This was just one tiny part of a huge spam campaign by Agora Publishing. See this record documenting the abuse. It wasn't just from one employee of the company.
 * Therefore, the domain will remain blacklisted for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Gayot.com
Reason for blacklisting: # Ckatz # heavy spamming of site by multiple SPAs; use as :reference" as rationale for link spam

At the risk of self-promotion, I wanted to register a complaint re the blacklisting of gayot.com from Wikipedia. People post links to our site for the same reason the New York Times and MSN.com repeatedly link to us, and for the same reason Google, AOL and American Express have partnered with us: we provide professional, unbiased reviews, including those of more than 21,000 restaurants around the world. Unlike many websites, we have been publishing since 1969, first as the best-selling Gayot guidebooks, and then on the Internet.

We feel we are being singled out unfairly. Why is it that on the entry for DiFara pizza, it’s OK to link to a review on seriouseats.com, but not to the Gayot review? Why was the fact that GAYOT.com named it one of the top 10 pizzas in NY removed, but it’s fine to publish that it has been “regarded as a top pizzeria by many established publications including Zagat and Daily News”?

For the CityZen entry, it’s OK to link to a Zagat blog that is now a broken link, but wrong to mention that the restaurant was named one of the top 40 restaurants of the year by GAYOT.com? Why can Masa be touted as five stars by Forbes Travel Guide (which has only been around since 2009), but not that it has been named to GAYOT.com’s top 40 list “for five consecutive years from 2004 to 2009”? Why is it permitted to link to Sous Vide Supreme, a product that chef Richard Blais endorses, but not mention in his bio that he was named a top rising chef by GAYOT.com in 2005? Is that not a pertinent fact? There are many more examples of other restaurant guides getting named and linked in multiple wikipedia entries. Can you please explain why they are able to be featured and discussed, but we are not? Thank you for taking the time.--Sslater4 (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While Ckatz (the admin who listed gayot.com) could probably answer better, I'll give it a shot. The pattern of linkspamming gayot.com on Wikipedia in no way matches the pattern of linking to the New York Times, MSN, or Zagat. I find it curious that after this blacklist thwarted the attempts of numerous single purpose accounts that existed for no other reason than to add links to gayot.com, that the site owner decides to register a complaint.


 * Please understand that you have a conflict of interest. Regardless of the value and reliability of gayot.com (which I don't dispute), the fact remains that your objective in giving your site exposure on Wikipedia isn't in line with Wikipedia's objective to build an encyclopedia. If a trusted, high-volume contributor to Wikipedia requests a delisting for the purpose of using gayot.com as a reference, we will consider the request. Also understand that Wikipedia can function just fine with other reliable sources; there is no compelling reason to unlist one reliable source that has been abused when other sources abound. for requesting links to specific pages on gayot.com where no alternative exists. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

cbronline
Used all over the place. I just went to cite it and got hung up. It is the website of an in print magazine with editorial staff, so RS. jorgenev 06:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, that was also what I saw when I reported this (I did not blacklist it). However, if one is publishing an RS is not a reason to massively spam Wikipedia as was done by several sites from this owner (a lot of sites ending in '-business-review.com' .. maybe all RS but nonetheless blatantly spammed).  Maybe this single one should be removed, though very strictly monitored, though seen the scale of the spam, maybe the whitelist should handle this.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I discovered Wikipedia's spam blacklist for the first time when attempting to cite and link an article on cbronline (Computer Business Review). I agree it seems a legitimate site and not spam.  What does "RS" mean?  If the problem is limited to sites ending in '-business-review.com' (that publisher's "spam division"?) why not just blacklist that only? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * RS stands for Reliable Source. As a result of the mass abuse, If a specific link is needed as a citation, a request can be made on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source. --Hu12 (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The -business-review.com sites weren't the only problem; it was several sites of the same owner that were being massively spammed, so they were all blacklisted. Bear in mind that external links are a convenience, not necessary for referencing, Wikipedia can function just fine without them, this source is hardly unique, and several other reliable sources abound. Blacklisting this one does no harm to the project, and prevents the owners of those sites from abusing Wikipedia as a promotion channel. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

HurryUpHarry.org
This website's blocking may have worked for one purpose, but it has hindered me from publishing anything containing material from the site, especially in regards to the 2011 Norway attacks. It would be lovely for this URL to be unblocked so that I can make edits to the eponymous article which I currently can't edit, among others. --Toussaint (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * to whitelist a specific page on that site in the eponymous article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

youtu.be
This is the shortcut link to youtube. You can argue about the validity of some youtube videos being copyright violations, but http://youtu.be/uCG5v0Dbc3I this one and ones in the same menu are clearly posted by the official rights holder. So these are legitimate for public dissemination, documenting a major event, in this case 2011 World Championships in Athletics – Women's 100 metres. As a whole, the domain should not be blocked. Good grief, the site is even blacklisted from posting the link onto this page for the purpose of example. Trackinfo (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * . URL redirection sites are not to be used on Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)