Talk:Spam blacklist: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:48, 1 April 2007

The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, or Other discussions; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. In addition to that, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

Information: List of all projects; Overviews; Reports; Wikimedia Embassy; Project portals; Country portals
Tools: Spam blacklist; Title blacklist; Email blacklist; Rename blacklist; Closure of wikis; Interwiki map
Requests: Permissions; Bot flags; New languages; New projects; Username changes; Translations; Speedy deletions

[edit]

snippet for logging: {{/request|552139#section_name}}

If you cannot find your remark below, it has probably been archived at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01 or Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/02.

Proposed additions

This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived.

meatspin

The following discussion is closed: Not done

Shock site, used in vandalism (example). The primary domain is meatspin.com, but others, such as meatspin.net, redirect to it, so anything with "meatspin" in the URL should probably be blacklisted. I could dig up more examples if you want, but I can't think of any legitimate reason to link to the site. --Slowking Man 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence of this link being spammed into Wikipedia? Are there more then one IP range currently doing this? Or, any evidence of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a spam site (ad-mungous, bought by someone deliberately to exploit its viral propagation), and there has been endless argumentation about it on the talk of en:Shock site. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has the argumentation reached consensus? What about other wikis? Eagle 101 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"wowomg.com" is a direct link to meatspin, just so you know.--71.203.147.175 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs on the en:Shock site article, and cannot be blacklisted because it needs to be on that article. 69.117.252.186 03:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. The spam blacklist is intended neither to resolve content disputes nor enforce censorship of inappropriate content. It should only be used to counter widespread, disruptive or malicious placement of links where administrator tools are insufficient to easily contain it. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:03:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

reexamine.info

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=www.reexamine.info&limit=500&offset=0 - the site is currently 404 but hosts copies of the Watchtower and other Jehovah's Witnesses publications, without any distinction between those that are in copyright and those that are not. Since copyright goes for a minimum of 50 years from the death of the author, a large number even from the 1920s may contain material still under copyright. We have had at least one OTRS complaint, ticket 2007021310020955, complaining about links to copyright material on that site. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 287 of these links on en.wikipedia. I suggest maybe leaving a note at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses about the issue. I'm not sure who's going to delete these links; I suspect some deletions may be controversial, especially given that these are pages on religion.--A. B. ^(talk) 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a long blog entry from April 2004 about the history of this site:

Jehovah’s Witnesses shut down another dissenter’s website

The reexamine.info homepage consists of one sentence: "Closed for maintenance"

Waybackmachine.org's archives for reexamine.info redirect to reexamine.org:

--A. B. ^(talk) 15:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just spotchecked one of the links -- notwithstanding the note on the homepage, the link worked (although it loaded at what felt like 14k modem speeds):

www.reexamine.info/60s/g68_Oct_8.pdf
- Note: this is a 1968 publication still under copyright

--A. B. ^(talk) 16:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's under a DMCA takedown notice, and it's a dissenter's website being used as reference without explicitly stating that, I think it should be gone. Just zis Guy, you know? 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has at least the english wikipedia been notified of this? en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. Its not really spam, but yeah it seems to me to be suspect, but this is something that can be fixed just by talking things through and (possibly) removing the links. We have to remember that this list is not only for the english wiki. Eagle 101 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a note:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses#Removing 279 reexamine.info links for copyright reasons

I suggest someone review it and clarify anything I may have misinterpreted. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://.orkut.com/Community.aspx? and http://.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?

A really large amount of users at Portuguese Wikipedia persists to insert spam links to yours on communities from orkut. This may stop it without block the entire orkut (like personal profiles from orkut at userpages). Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] 555 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, before I blacklist something like this (that may get a bunch of people upset), lets have a bit of discussion if this is a good idea or not... I welcome any input. Eagle 101 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend blacklisting and selective whitelisting Naconkantari 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Portuguese Wikipedia these links are prohibited by community policy. Porantim 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exoticindiaart.com

See this link search: en, de, es, loads of others. The /article links are generally OK, but the /product, /book and /painting ones are straight sales pages. I propose we blacklist /products, /books, /paintings. Or blacklist the whole site and we'll find better, non-commercial sources for the other data. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok JzG, looks like we have the following counts of links on 15 wikis:

Total count: 168 en: 133 de: 5 ja: 0 fr: 1 pl: 0 it: 10 nl: 1 es: 5 pt: 7 zh: 1 ru: 0 fi: 1 no: 4 he: 0 sco: 0

Is there an agreement to have this site removed on the following wikis? I would worry about getting agreement from the english, and Italian wiki before moving on with your idea. Eagle 101 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to contact it: - I will find their amdin noticeboard. 80.176.82.42 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are things going with this? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e-library.net

Spammed from a few IPs within the same subnet (see en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.1 - blocked on nl:wp, en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.10, en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.130) Diffs: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Sandox 07:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have we tried blocking the IP range? (a short time can often discourage them). Eagle 101 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to block the ips as this sites has some great content wikipedia.org can use.

hai2u.com

Shock site. Example. --Slowking Man 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess I need to ask this, do we have a standard to blacklist ever shocksite that we come across. As far as I have been thinking, I would just treat it as normal vandalism, unless we are getting multiple IPs or multiple wikis. I'm not sure though on what is appropriate for this, and I invite others to please comment. Thanks. Eagle 101 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gerweck.net

Used to linkspam

Gloryhighbone 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I smell a rat here. gerweck.net is a wrestling site, and there is no real benefit in spamming it in those articles when there's dozens of wrestling articles he could have spammed. What with the recent blacklisting of pwinsider.com, this may be en:User:JB196 spamming to try and get "rival" sites blacklisted. JB196 has already managed to get declarationofindependents.net, geocities.com/xpw5yearslater and obsessedwithwrestling.com (since undone) blacklisted by linking to his own articles on them repeatedly. 81.155.177.63 02:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~start-done-end~~ - clearcut Eagle 101 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC). Lets talk this over a bit. I'd hate to see that we are getting Joe Job'd. But at the same time, if this keeps up I will blacklist. Again, I'm leaning towards blacklisting it. Give me compelling reasons to show me that it is a Joe Job. If it is another Obessed with wrestling thing, with one columnist spamming, we might end up just trying to blacklist that one column, but if we can't figure out which one it is, I don't mind blacklisting the whole site and contacting the site owner either. Eagle 101 03:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll try and make this as clear and comprehensive as possible. The sites above - DOI, OWW and the geocities site were all blacklisted because they contained articles written by banned editor JB196, who has repeatedly spammed them onto four articles on the English wiki since being banned. I'm not sure what caused pwinsider to be blacklisted, I know it was recent but I've looked at the archives (including the yet to be linked 2007/03) and I can't see why it's been done. JB196 has a long term abuse report here, and part of his extensive MO is to delete links to rival sites. JB196 is aware that his sites are blacklisted, and will know of this page due to it being linked on the {{Uw-spam4}} final warning which he's received many of with his many socks and open proxies he's been using.

The spamming done made absolutely no sense. Surely if you're spamming a wrestling site you'd spam the wrestling articles, or maybe some other popular culture articles? You wouldn't spam en:Finnish People's Blue-whites like the spammer did.

The first account was created at 23:21 on 23 March, and spammed 4 times until 23:23 but wasn't warned as can be seen by the talk page history.
It's therefore puzzling that the second account was created at 23:25 on 23 March, and spammed 3 times ending at 23:25. Why create a second account when the first one hasn't even received a warning?
The third account was created on the Corsican wiki at 00:23 on 24 March, and spammed 6 times until 00:28. With all due respect to the Corsican wiki, if I was a spammer it wouldn't be somewhere I'd hope to gain anything by spamming.
The fourth account was created at 00:27 on the Czech wiki on 24 March and hasn't made a single edit according to contribs, so how did User:Gloryhighbone know that person was a spammer? Perhaps because User:Gloryhighbone is the spammer?
The fifth account was created at 01:24 on the Italian wiki on 24 March and spammed 4 times until 01:28 (ignoring the talk page message at 03:16).
The sixth account was created at 01:31 on the Spanish wiki on 24 March, and spammed 3 times until 01:32.
The seventh account was created at 01:33 on the Spanish wiki on 24 March and hasn't made a single edit according to contribs, so again how did User:Gloryhighbone know that person was a spammer, apart from seeing a new user account with a name including Gerweck admittedly for this account.
The eighth account was created at 02:10 on the Italian wiki on 24 March, and spammed 6 times until 02:22
The ninth account was created at 01:14 on the Czech wiki on 25 March and spammed 3 times ending at 01:15. Although this might seem tenuous the name of the account is Pencilart, and one of JB196's socks was called Penandinkart. It should also be noted that JB196 had spent the 35 minutes leading up to this account being created spamming Extreme Associates and Xtreme Pro Wrestling on the English language wiki until the pages were semi-protected at 01:10 and 01:11 respectively.

The report made here was the first contribution by User:Gloryhighbone and was made at 01:22 on 25 March, and included in the report were details from two accounts with zero contributions, and from multiple language wikis as well.

What it looks like to me is a clear case of looking at this page and seeing what it takes to get a website blacklisted, then spamming by numbers so to speak. JB196 is petty enough to try and get "rival" websites blacklisted, and I believe that is what's happening here. If this gets blacklisted it's absolutely no skin off my nose, but I can only imagine knowing his stubbornness that he'll keep doing it with more sites so it might be something worth keeping an eye on. 81.155.177.63 05:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spammer does not seem to have learned:

Gloryhighbone 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or more accurately, we rumbled your little game Barber and decided not to play along, so you spammed some more. 81.153.10.221 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Night in Hackney: I apologize but I really am not sure what you're talking about.

Gloryhighbone 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So not only do you know that account with no contributions are spammers, you also know that ONIH uses an 81 prefixed IP? You obviously seem to have a great deal of knowledge of Wikipedia, including the numerous foreign language Wikis, perhaps you could tell us who you are or are you just some newcomer making a series of lucky guesses? Or why not bother, as it's breathtakingly obvious you are in fact Jonathan Barber. 81.153.10.221 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta admins, please close this pointless joe-job, and preferably give Barber (Gloryhighbone) a ban to match his enWP ban. we really really do not need his crap anywhere on the project. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 proxy sites

spysurfing.com used to bypass the blacklist on obsessedwithwrestling.com by:

205.196.212.5 [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

hidemybrowsing.com used to bypass the blacklist on obsessedwithwrestling.com by:

205.196.212.5 [32][33][34][35][36]

proxyhole.com used to bypass the blacklist on obsessedwithwrestling.com by:

en:User:Staeraftphee [37][38][39][40]

Both accounts sockpuppets of JB196 who has a long term abuse report, and has spent weeks spamming en:Xtreme Pro Wrestling, en:Rob Zicari and en:Extreme Associates each time the semi-protection wore off. 81.155.177.63 01:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hidemybrowsing.com and spysurfing.com don't appear to support hotlinking (the posted links returned errors). proxyhole.com did return the site. fwiw --Versageek 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This diff for spysurfing and this diff for hidemybrowsing work fine for me. 81.155.177.63 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All sedoparking.com redirects

I was going to suggest all sites spamvertised by 198.185.10.2, and the IP itself, but this is a better idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:198.185.10.2 Eagle 101 already banned it for 48 hrs, spam continues. e.g.: myfirstpieceofass.com , Foreignaccentsyndrome.net, pharmparty.net, kebiracrater.com etc. All are sedoparking.com redirects. I can't think of a legit link to a domain that would redirect here. This would perhaps require a bit of coding.

FYI:

 unix% wget kebiracrater.com
--11:12:42--  http://kebiracrater.com/
           => `index.html'
Resolving kebiracrater.com... done.
Connecting to kebiracrater.com[216.104.161.111]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found
Location: http://www.sedoparking.com/kebiracrater.com [following]
--11:12:42--  http://www.sedoparking.com/kebiracrater.com
           => `kebiracrater.com'
Resolving www.sedoparking.com... done.
Connecting to www.sedoparking.com[212.227.34.3]:80... ^C

Oh, and http://research.microsoft.com/Typo%2DPatrol/ has a LONG but dated list of blacklist-worthy domains. Yes, the page is not the up-to-date one and yes it's from the evil empire. --Elvey 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sedoparking.com itself is not blacklisted, why all the redirects? Lets just keep blocking that one IP. Looks like it is a static one anyway. Eagle 101 19:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See www.041906.com for the list of domains this spammer is selling. I suggest just blocking them all. They're parked with sedoparking to get some revenue while parked but this spammer's niche in the spam chain is not driving traffic to sedoparking ads but rather building up the domains' traffic so he can sell them. If you look at this Google search, you'll find some domains not on this list; presumably he's sold them recently. He probably hasn't heard of the nofollow implementation. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the domains are also listed at en:User talk:198.185.10.2‎ now. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, A. B. I took forever getting a list ready for here!

The full list of domains is: <now listed at en:User talk:198.185.10.2‎ thanks to A. B. :)> ~~I put them here for the simple reason that this page is static, while we don't have control over the other page.~~ I will look into blacklisting all of these. Eagle 101 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it is from only one IP right now, lets wait a bit and see if they will stop (thanks to A. B.'s warning). Eagle 101 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - does not seem to be an ongoing problem with this one. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

theigdb.com

Many different users (mostly IPs) have added links to this site on many videogame entries, for many months. Examples of users include [41],[42],[43], [44], and so on. These users seem to have no interest in improving Wikipedia, only to use it for traffic, in some cases even suggesting it is an official site. When I do a linksearch for theigdb.com, I come up with nothing, yet doing a regular search comes up with many articles which presumably have all contained links to the site recently.(Dreaded Walrus on Wikipedia)

Mmm, let me think on this. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

steelecommerce.com spammer returns

Extensive spamming[45][46][47] of a wide range of telecom and other articles not stopped by blocks and warnings: [48][49]

ld.net
cheap-online.net
myinternetaccess.net
myphoneservice.net
steelecommerce.com
dsl-internet-service.blogspot.com

Back again this month[50] after a 3-month hiatus. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I thought that ld.net was blacklisted in January, but apparently not:

Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01#ld.net, myld.net, cognigen.net

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ld.net was blacklisted on Jan. 31st did someone whitelist this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

dsl-internet-service.blogspot.com should be the only site blacklisted here? A.B. can you show us where this user spammed the above sites since you warned him? This is the only edit made by [51] according to wikipedia.org. We don't have reason to blacklist all the other sites. You warned the user and it was stopped. This is 70.133.147.230 first edit and could have inserted this to get the sites blacklisted. We must blacklist on a case by case basis. If any of the other sites add spam, we then blacklist them. However, steelecommerce sure has spammed a lot in the past, if you didn't give a final warning we should consider this on the blacklist as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, clarify to me the pattern that I'm blacklisting for, or show me the spam per link. Thankyou. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here goes:

myinternetaccess.net
- [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]

steelecommerce.com
- [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97]

myphoneservice.net
- [98][99][100][101][102][103]

cheap-online.net
- [104][105]

dsl-internet-service.blogspot.com (new domain just developed February 2007)
- [106]

All share Google Adsense number, 5087461267623455, or Yahoo number, USYPN0028, and many sites have the name "Gary Steele' on them.

Additional domains Steele has developed recently -- I'm personally not aware if he's tried to spam them yet or not:

phone-source.blogspot.com (March 2007)
cheap-online-cellphone.blogspot.com (February 2007)
broadband-phone-voip.blogspot.com (February 2007)
digital-satellite-tv-source.blogspot.com (February 2007)
t1-line.blogspot.com (February 2007)
cheap-online-cellphone.blogspot.com (February 2007)

Given Steele's use of multiple IPs (including an open proxy in China) and his disregard for numerous warnings and blocks[107][108], I suspect we'll start to see these other new domains as well.

Finally this spammer also added ld.net links last year. Those were supposedly blacklisted in January as many spammers were starting to add ld.net and other cognigen affiliate marketing links. Yet when I checked the other day, they were still working. See Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01#ld.net, myld.net, cognigen.net; here are the domains that should already be blacklisted (by Andre Engels)[109][110]

ld.net
myld.net
cognigen.net

If they're not actually blacklisted, please add them. Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 23:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ok, I've done all of the ones that a link was spammed. For the others, we will wait, though too much more spam from this case, I'm just going to start blacklisting as they appear. I've also blacklisted the other 3. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! What about adding those as-yet-unspammed new links to Shadowbot? --A. B. ^(talk) 00:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property dispute / deathcamps.org

The following discussion is closed: Done (blacklisted).

Per en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive219#141.157.161.15 there is a dispute, brought from outside, of quite astonishing bitterness, regarding the ownership of intellectual porperty originally hosted at www.deathcamps.org and now also at www.death-camps.org; links to the latter were unquestionably added by the site owner (who probably does not own the IP); links to the former were added in some cases by the webmaster, and he edit-warred over the changes, and is being exceptionally belligerent on OTRS. All links to both have been removed from mainspace. The death-camps site has been linked, according to a quick search, at numerous other language wikipedias including de, nl, he, fr; ([111] and others), also the deathcamps link has been removed (presumably due to the same dispute) from e.g. [112]. I think it likely that deathcamps is the owner of the IP, but givent hat the claims are incompatible, we have no external judgement on the claims, only the arguments (often hysterically put) of the competing individuals, and the site, while interesting, has no known editorial processes, the best answer is "a plague on both their houses" and purge the links. I want to close the OTRS ticket (ref. 2007031910009401) so an expeditious blacklisting, if you wouldn't mind, would be much appreciated.

de: [113], [114]
fr: [115], [116] (cleaned by JKelly just now)
he: [117], [118]
nl: [119] (all nuked), [120]
no: [121]
it: [122]

for your reviewing pleasure. There are more, I'm sure. I am trying to recruit admins and the clueful on the various language projects. The site owner of deathcamps.org is quite open in his messages to OTRS that it was he and co-owner Chris Webb who added the links to deathcamps.org, and it is patently obvious that the motivation to change these to death-camps.org was the dispute described on the deathcamps website. Let them fight it out elswhere. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they continuing to spam these, or have they stopped? If they have stopped, I don't see much point to blacklisting. ——(admin) Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today? On enWP? No. Because we are watching and because one party is blocked. Tomorrow, and on other projects? I'll put money on it. It's a big and headache, the dispute is ongoing off wiki (and appears to have been so for some time) and the problem is deeply embedded across multiple projects. Just zis Guy, you know? 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, you'll want to take a look at Image:Zasanie Synagogue.jpg (en.wikipedia) and Image:Zasanie_Synagogue.jpg (Commons)-- taken from death-camps.org but probably in the public domain.

The whole thread (archived here) quickly took up 37 kilobytes in less than 24 hours. It appears, as Guy mentioned, to be an intellectual property dispute between the owner of the content and an individual hosting the content at a mirror without permission. This apparently has spilled over onto OTRS and, from what I understand and from my experience in the thread (I removed a significant number of links from both domains overnight), the owner of the content apparently does not want any link to the mirror's site and is being very belligerent about it. While the current issue is not technically that any Wikimedia project is being spammed in a traditional sense (although it may have been at one time), it is such that, I fear, the copyright owner will not stop even short of threatening legal action unless the mirror's sites are all removed from all Wikimedia projects. In order to put out the firestorm, we are asking that both domain be listed on the spam blacklist. Then we can tell whomever is currently corresponding via OTRS that no links from any Wikimedia site can be directed to his or her site or the illegal mirror. It's a bit unorthodox, but it would sincerely appreciated and sorely missed. --Iamunknown 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must take issue with your description of that anonymous person as "owner of the content" and "copyright owner". He is neither, even (if one were to accept deathcamps.org owner's claims, of which this person is kind of an unofficial "representative") - he is the new "webmaster" there, nothing else. Your description of death-camps.org as "illegal mirror" is also false, and maliciously so. You have evidence for neither assertion. --Sergey Romanov 11:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, Sergey. I'm going to assume good faith and assume that you aren't intentionally misrepresenting my views. In fact, I have absolutely no views on the matter. I don't know if what I said was correct at all. Thus I said "It appears." I don't know if deathcamps.org is the copyright owner or if it is an illegal mirror or what it is. I don't know if death-camps.org is the copyright owner or if it is an illegal mirror or what it is either. And I never said that death-camps.org is an illegal mirror. Please provide a direct quotation that says exactly that. Otherwise, do not misrepresent what I said and suggest that I am acting maliciously and in bad faith.
  - What I and others are asking is that this battle be forcibly removed from all of Wikimedia by adding both domains to the spam blacklist. I sincerely hope that this happens. It has already wasted too much time. --Iamunknown 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did write that "the copyright owner will not stop even short of threatening legal action ". You did not say "alleged copyright owner". You did write "the owner of the content", not "the alleged owner of the content". "It appears" does not cover any of this. As for "illegal mirror" referring to d-c.org, how else one should interpret "Then we can tell whomever is currently corresponding via OTRS that no links from any Wikimedia site can be directed to his or her site or the illegal mirror"? If I misunderstood this particular bit, I apologize. --Sergey Romanov 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Their dispute is not worth the problem it's causing here. The information is not so valuable as an external link that we need it that much. - Taxman 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Meta admins: Sergey is the troll who was replacing the deathcamps links with death-camps on enWP. I think you see now what we have been putting up with. Just zis Guy, you know? 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Meta admins: "JzG" is a liar as I am not a "troll". I did replace the links and stand by my (absolutely ethical) actions (replacing the links to an unreliable resource by the links to a reliable resource). (Sorry to everyone, except this guy, for "tough" language, but I am not accustomed to be baselessly insulted on a purportedly authoritative and allegedly civil resource such as this site.) --Sergey Romanov 07:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - all this is doing is causing a problem, looks like one of the only solutions is to blacklist both. looks like there still is talk. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where? On enWP we're about done with that. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deWP is unsure at the moment. More not-blocking then blocking AFAIS. --DaB. 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- enOTRS is still having to deal with the belligerent correspondence. And, from what I understand, the owner of whichever domain (I don't know which) does not indend to stop until all links point to the domain he or she represents; since Meta is not a battleground and neither side appears to be unwilling to resolve this off-wiki, I still support global blacklisting. --Iamunknown 02:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted per Template:OTRS ticket, this discussion, and the discussion on the en-Wikipedia administrator's noticeboard (and the second one). To simplify writing about the dispute, I'll refer to the parties involved by their respective websites (note the hyphens).

Death-camps appears to have forked from deathcamps (the former asserted this, the latter did not deny it when it was mentioned in the OTRS discussion), so to whom the intellectual property rights belong to (if either) is unknown. Although it would seem logical to blacklist death-camps (which sparked the debate by changing links to themselves), death-camps asserts that the fork occurred because of false information on deathcamps that they knowingly host. Examples and evidence are provided to back this claim, and they're plausible enough that it's not our place to make such a decision.

Further, both parties have openly stated that they placed the links themselves. This is a bad idea for the reasons described more fully at w:Project:Conflict of interest. Furthermore, deathcamps seems to be guilty of trolling and bad-faith changes from death-camps to deathcamps, even in discussions where death-camps.org is being specifically referred to (see the discussion).

Therefore, our choices are threefold:

blacklist death-camps and use deathcamps, and deliberately reference our articles to a website that knowingly hosts content that may be incorrect. The fact that it is registered with a free yahoo.co.uk email address further damages their credibility.
blacklist deathcamps and use death-camps, and deliberately reference our articles to a website that may knowingly violate both intellectual property rights and [http://deathcamps.org/Archived.html the copyright] on the deathcamps.org design and formatting.
blacklist both, avoid both legal and accuracy problems, and avoid the fighting between the two parties (one of which is sure to be unhappy to be blacklisted if one is, or unhappy that the other is not blacklisted if neither are).

Thus, I have blacklisted both. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One can see from archive.org that deathcamps.org is the original site since November 2002 or earlier.
In fact every mail-address is free. If you have a domain you can use it for mails or not. What's the difference? None.
Possible mistakes concerning images etc is not a question of intellectual property.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we need good sources like this one. The original site does not harm any intellectual property rights. There is no reason to loose ones nerves. The holocaust is an important theme and in particular, there is no reason for kicking the references to this site out for all revisionists' delight.
Particular in the German wikipedia, I would like to go on to write articles corresponding to this list using the site as source and reference. I do not know a better alternative. -- Simplicius 08:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blacklisting them. I removed a lot of the death-camp links from German Wikipedia, leaving just talk pages and project space, but I was reverted.[123] I only removed a few of the deathcamp links, and there are still over a hundred.[124] I think that when a site is blacklisted, it's not possible to add that site to a Wikipedia page, but it doesn't seem to have any effect on pages that still have it. Or will the next user be unable to save the page until the link has been removed, regardless of what his or her edit is? ElinorD 11:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElinorD, first of all, I'm not an admin on either Meta or en.wikipedia, so what I write below is in no way "official". I'm just another editor trying to help:

If someone goes to edit a page that has a blacklisted link, then when they are finished and hit "save", a message flashes up on the screen telling them they have to delete the link before they can save their edit. On de.wikipedia, where you have a forced "preview" of edits, I'm not sure if the message comes up before or after the preview. You can check this out for yourself by going to de:Wikipedia:Sandbox and trying to add some blacklisted link such as tinyurl.com.

If the link is in the External Links section (Weblinks), then the offending link is easy to find. If, however, it's embedded in some footnote or inline citation, then it may take 5 to 10 minutes to find. You are doing your editors a real service to take care of this for them rather than letting them find out the hard way.

At least with the English language blacklist notice, it would be nice if the offending link was highlighted in bold. Also, many editors are surprised and flustered enough that they close the page and lose their edit, rather than copying to a text editor. Or they immediately close the notice page and then forget what it said about saving the problem. If you skim the troubleshooting and removals sections below, you'll find that complaints from frustrated, ignorant, innocent editors trying to figure out how to edit a locked-up page. Many more just give up and don't bother trying to find this page.

As a first step, you'll want to get these links out of the articles. That was done on en.wikipedia. Then I took it on myself to delete the link from user and article talk pages using edit summaries such as this[125]. For user talk pages, I left an additional short note on the page.[126]

I think it's important for German Wikipedians to understand that the Foundation is legally vulnerable to a copyright lawsuit in the U.S. if the potentially infringing links remain in de.wikipedia. The Foundation does not have a lot of money to spend on lawsuits even if they would ultimately win since in the U.S., unlike many countries, the loser in a lawsuit does not usually have to pay the other side's legal fees. So this is not a case of en.wikipedians trying to force an editorial decision on other wikipedias.

If they still want to use deathcamps, I suppose they can do it by adding that domain to the German whitelist (see de:MediaWiki_Diskussion:Spam-whitelist) after it is blacklisted, but please, for the health of all wikipedias, remove the death-camps links. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I whitelisted deathcamps_dot_org at the german wikipedia. If there is a foundation-adjudication to deny this domain, I will delete it. But untill this our user seems to need the domain and we have many articels with that link.

The secound point is, that I think it is not a good thing, that a need of enWP counts more then a need of other project here on meta. --DaB. 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DaB., I'm sorry if it appears that enWP counts more than other projects; that is simply not the case. The case, in summary, is that a person affiliated with one of the sites was edit warring over links, belligerent on :en:WP:AN and then, when they were indefinitely blocked, continued on OTRS. They were not mad that the links to the other domain were on enWP, they were mad that the links were on any Wikimedia site including deWP. That's okay though, I understand that you absolutely must have those links even if the dispute carries on here, on OTRS, on deWP, or elsewhere. --Iamunknown 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that will help resolve the OTRS complaint. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67.43.4.31

67.43.4.31 redirects to www.theshadowsun.net which is banned.

Done - thats not good, we blacklist the name domain, and now we have to worry about the proxies, and its IP. ——(admin) Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

homejobsite.com

Spammed by multiple IPs to multiple articles: [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*.linksynergy.com

This service allows spammers to get some money (few cents) every time a user clicks on the link. It's used mainly to redirect to iTunes store from en.wiki [134] but it can be used also by the affiliates to Netflix.com to get a "referral profiteering". Add to the blacklist. Thanks. --Madetests 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done redirect site. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cuba.com.ua

Spammed from multiple IPs many times. Was restored more then 10 times after being deleted. [135]

Not done - Try protecting the page first. That oftentimes stops the spam, as they appear to only want the link on one page. (Do a semi-protect for about 3 days). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xfile007.blogspot.com (Munblog) spam on Wikipedia

Spammed 26 articles despite warnings[136] and was blocked[137]. Has since started using dynamically-assigned, shared IPs to slip links back in one edit at a time.[138][139][140] --A. B. ^(talk) 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I also found a link on the Italian wiki that matches the exact same pattern of insertion as the problem on English. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is there an efficient way to linksearch all Wikipedias at once? --A. B. ^(talk) 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you join #wikipedia-spam-t :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfontaine's esperantio.com and survivaltopics.com spam on Wikipedia

U.S. spammer hit 40+ articles on en.wikipedia plus appears to have added his esperantio.com link to other wikipedias as well (I just spot-checked several and found the links on Greek, Esperanto and Estonian wikipedias -- probably other Foundation sites as well).

Used at least 6 accounts on en.wikipedia:

RobertRogers
Rfontaine
69.205.8.94
69.24.8.179
- Added the Estonian link, too [141][142]
68.169.217.62
68.169.221.230

Domains:

esperantio.com Total count: 19 en: 6 it: 1 nl: 2 zh: 1
americandiscoverytrail.org Total count: 6 en: 6
epaleo.com Total count: 6 en: 6
northernforestcanoetrail.com Total count: 6 en: 6
survivaltopics.com Total count: 11 en: 6 (oddity, if you want a list, let me know)
whitemountainsworld.com Total count: 8 en: 6 fr: 1

For further details, see:

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#whitemountainsworld.com, esperantio.com and survivaltopics.com
- (permanent link)

--A. B. ^(talk) 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I have modified your comment above to add links to the linksearches. Join #wikipedia-spam-t on the irc.freenode.net network if you want to run some of your own. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

minorurl.com

it's a url-shrinking site like tinyurl.com --Versageek 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also: xaddr.com and urlot.com , so kindly pointed out on the wikipedia article for tinyurl.com --Versageek 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huge list of redirection or shortening domains

A ton of URL shortening/redirection domains. This is by no means a complete list, but all the ones here have been compiled from the dmoz entry on redirection sites, and there are more there that have not been listed in this post

sx.am
trimurl.com
urlbee.com
urllogs.com
tiniuri.com
xn6.net
9ax.ne
shorturl.com
not2long.net
iceglow.com
irotator.com
igoto.co.uk
dl.am
zwap.to
explode.to
From unonic.com (URL redirection)

*.net.tf
*.us.tf
*.int.tf
*.ca.tf
*.de.tf
*.at.tf
*.ch.tf
*.edu.tf
*.ru.tf
*.pl.tf
*.cz.tf
*.bg.tf
*.sg.tf

kickme.to (URL redirection)

lovez.it
needz.it
craves.it
means.it
digs.it
adores.it
chills.it
is-groovin.it
is-chillin.it
drives.it
reads.it
surfs.it
swims.it
playz.it
singz.it
dances.it
has.it
does.it
knows.it
shows.it
rules.it
rocks.it
makes.it
says.it
owns.it
zor.org
1024bit.at
128bit.at
16bit.at
256bit.at
32bit.at
512bit.at
64bit.at
8bit.at
again.at
allday.at
alone.at
altair.at
american.at
amiga500.at
ammo.at
amplifier.at
amstrad.at
anglican.at
angry.at
around.at
arrange.at
australian.at
baptist.at
basque.at
battle.at
bazooka.at
berber.at
blackhole.at
booze.at
bosnian.at
brainiac.at
brazilian.at
bummer.at
burn.at
c-64.at
catholic.at
catalonian.at
chapel.at
christiandemocrats.at
cname.at
colors.at
commodore.at
commodore64.at
communists.at
conservatives.at
conspiracy.at
cooldude.at
croatian.at
cuteboy.at
dancemix.at
danceparty.at
danish.at
dealing.at
deep.at
democrats.at
divxlinks.at
divxmovies.at
divxstuff.at
dizzy.at
dork.at
dutch.at
dvdlinks.at
dvdmovies.at
dvdstuff.at
emulators.at
end.at
english.at
eniac.at
error403.at
error404.at
evangelism.at
exhibitionist.at
faith.at
fight.at
finish.at
finnish.at
forward.at
freebie.at
freemp3.at
french.at
graduatejobs.at
greenparty.at
grunge.at
hacked.at
hang.at
hangup.at
hide.at
hindu.at
htmlpage.at
hungarian.at
icelandic.at
independents.at
invisible.at
japanese.at
jive.at
kickass.at
kindergarden.at
kurd.at
labour.at
leech.at
liberals.at
linuxserver.at
liqour.at
maxed.at
meltdown.at
methodist.at
microcomputers.at
mingle.at
mirror.at
moan.at
mormons.at
musicmix.at
nationalists.at
nerds.at
neuromancer.at
newbie.at
nicepage.at
ninja.at
norwegian.at
ntserver.at
paint.at
palestinian.at
phoneme.at
phreaking.at
polish.at
popmusic.at
portuguese.at
powermac.at
processor.at
prospects.at
protestant.at
rapmusic.at
raveparty.at
reachme.at
reboot.at
relaxed.at
republicans.at
researcher.at
reset.at
resolve.at
retrocomputers.at
rockparty.at
rollover.at
rough.at
rumble.at
russian.at
scared.at
seikh.at
serbian.at
short.as
silence.at
simpler.at
sinclair.at
slowdown.at
socialists.at
spanish.at
split.at
stand.at
stoned.at
stumble.at
supercomputer.at
swedish.at
synagogue.at
syntax.at
syntaxerror.at
techie.at
temple.at
thinkbig.at
thirsty.at
throw.at
toplist.at
trekkie.at
trouble.at
turkish.at
unexplained.at
unixserver.at
vegetarian.at
venture.at
verycool.at
vic-20.at
viewing.at
vintagecomputers.at
virii.at
vodka.at
wannabe.at
webpagedesign.at
wheels.at
whisper.at
whiz.at
wonderful.at
zx80.at
zx81.at
zxspectrum.at

I'll pause for now, but I think this is a rather sizable number. Kyra_~(talk) 01:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I did them all, there is no need for any of these, and quick checks of these show that some have been abused. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

healthdel.com spam on Wikipedia

Spams multiple articles on en.wikipedia using multiple sockpuppets.[143][144][145][146][147][148] --A. B. ^(talk) 18:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I added the link to shadowbot for now, as it appears to be an english wiki problem only. If shadowbot can't do it, then I will blacklist. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 19:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agloco.com spam

agloco.com is the current "hot" affiliate marketing scheme:

mccallsnotes.live.spaces
agloco.com
aglocotest.com
johnchow.com
wegetpaidtosurf.com

These links have been recently added by a number of unrelated editors. This is just the tip of the iceberg"

en:Special:Contributions/192.249.47.8 (shared IP -- most of the edits are not by an agloco spammer)
en:Special:Contributions/202.164.198.115
en:Special:Contributions/70.50.235.7
en:Special:Contributions/Amahdigital
en:Special:Contributions/Glomage
en:Special:Contributions/Glomage
en:Special:Contributions/Librahitech
en:Special:Contributions/RAKESHPPANDYA

In some cases, they were deleting others' referral codes and adding their own. --20:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PS It's possible there may be some agloco.com links (but probably not the others) on other wikipedias. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Consider these done. Any more feel free to report, affiliate marketing schemes annoy me, as it seems to be difficult to find and detect. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another huge list

Even more URL shorteners/redirection domains.

15h.com
1dr.biz
2url.org
7ref
8rf.com
active.ws
bydl.com
bittyurl.com
bizz.cc
briefurl.com
c-o.in
cjb.net
co.nr
chopurl.com - seems to be non-functional for me, but the site is up
ko168.com
cool158.com
cool168.com
ontheinter.net
cutalink.com
da.ru
dephine.org
fx.to
drlinky.com
fireme.to
ontheway.to
nextdoor.to
fancyurl.com
get2.us
spotted.us
went2.us
hasballs.com
globalredirect.com
go.cc
gonow.to
gowwwgo.com
hotshorturl.com
here.is
hothere.com
coolhere.com
homepagehere.com
mustbehere.com
onlyhere.net
pagehere.com
surfhere.net
zonehere.com
iscool.net
l8t.com
5ux.xom
9irl.com
9uy.com
just.as
linkfrog.net
lispurl.com
linkzip.net
midgeturl.com
ne1.net
r8.org
nanoref.com
ozonez.com
ppcredirect.com
pulsar.net
quickurl.net
qwer.org
red.tc
sky.tc
tnx.be
lol.la
the.vg
redirectfree.com
surl.ws
sg5.co.uk
shim.net
freegaming.org
freebiefinders.net
op7.net
2cd.net
0kn.com
v9z.com
shortenurl.com
simurl.com
passingg.as
redirect.hm
rr.nu
kwik.to
fw.nu
ontheweb.nu
isthebe.st
kwik.to
byinter.net
findhere.org
onthenet.as
ugly.as
assexy.as
pass.as
athissite.com
athersite.com
isgre.at
lookin.at
beastdeals.at
lowestprices.at
spydar.com
tz4.com
cemper.com
urlproxy.com
come.to
i.am
listen.to

I am not sure how many of the domains on the second list are on the SBL already, but the ones that I checked manually (eg, the first list) are not on the SBL to the best of my knowledge. And this concludes the list that I got from the dmoz entry. Kyra_~(talk) 22:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

I just checked the huge list, and the three listed in the second list are not on the SBL. Kyra_~(talk) 23:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - same as above list. (this is the second similar list, all redirect sites) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals

This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. The addition or removal of a link is not a vote, please do not bold the first words in statements.

obsessedwithwrestling.com

The following discussion is closed: Not removed

Obsessed with wrestling provides very good information and has many links in the wrestling section of wikipedia. Although not always the best source it does provide enough information and another alternative source. I am not sure why it was blacklisted, but I feel the site is more than good enough to not be blacklisted. Govvy 09:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Often a good resource and certainly not spam.

If I remember correctly, this website spammed the living shit out of en.wikipedia, hundreds and hundreds of links in very small amounts of time. JoeSmack 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was ONE user, who was promoting his columns at the site. The webmaster of OWW has since removed those columns after the user lied about spamming Wikipedia. TJ Spyke 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence that things have changed? We blacklisted in response to constant spam, and it will stay on the blacklist until we are sure the spam issues are gone. Our counter spam folks have enough problems without having to re-chase down spammers again :). Eagle 101 06:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed, except he needs to use archive.org to link to his columns now. 81.155.177.63 01:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not removed, the problem has not been resolved. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ya, he just went right back to spamming it as soon as it was unblacklisted. (see the diffs the guy gave above).

Ps - what do you mean, "not removed?" It's already been removed. ==Desperadocujo 05:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, who is spamming it? Show me diffs. Eagle 101 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think its probably the same guy as before

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_Associates&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xtreme_Pro_Wrestling&action=history

== Desperadocujo 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blogs.myspace.com

The edit where this was added asserts with no evidence that Jimbo requested it. I would like to see at least a diff to where this request was made or it should be removed as out of process. This addition was also not logged. --Random832 13:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest asking jimbo on his talk page, if he indeed did not request it he would say so there. Eagle 101 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He never answered when this was brought up before, and I think that the burden should be on Raul654 to produce evidence of the claim in his edit summary. We don't know if he specifically requested that they should be added to the blacklist, or if he said he doesn't like their use of sources and was misinterpreted, or even which hat he was wearing. --Random832 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try sending him (Jimbo) an e-mail (using the special email this user function), and request that Raul provide some proof, perhaps on his talk page. Invite him to comment here perhaps? Eagle 101 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this has already been brought up here. Eagle 101 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eagle 101 here. But more importantly, I tend to trust Raul, barring any evidence to the contrary, when he acts in ways that suggest that Jimbo asked for things. Just as I tend to trust my other fellow admins when they say that, or when they say (on en:wp) that something is an WP:OFFICE action, I trust them there too rather than getting into revert wars or sparring about it. And when Raul makes a mistake, which is not that often, it's not because he's malicious, it's because, hey, he's human, as are we all. Coming in here and saying things like "the burden is on Raul" isn't very friendly in my view, and may not be the best approach. Better to explain why this really isn't a spam link, and ask politely for a review. On the face of it, it certainly appears to be such a link just by the name. Also, this list ultimately exists to defend the wikis from garbabe and there is not that much harm from having a link on there by mistake. More harm comes from not having links on there by mistake. So I support erring on the side of caution. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, doesn't AGF apply on meta?--Doc glasgow 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this for Jimbo's reply. Eagle 101 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should start this over, and try not to get into questions of who requested what and who claimed what and when and what burdens should and should not be on whom to do what. The germaine question is: is there reason for this domain to be spam-blacklisted at the present time. As suggested by Lar, I politely request a review. I have read some of the history, and this domain does appear to be causing a great deal of heat on both sides. I think some of the reasons of this are:

MySpace offers hosting for blogs, and various notable people (actors, comedians, musicians) as well as bands etc have blogs on this site. Some of these people or groups are discussed in factual and informative ways on wikipedia, and the article contributors feel that a link to the blog maintained by the person or group would be a useful addition to the article.
MySpace offers hosting for blogs, and many of the blogs are garbage.
There may have been a problem in the past with links to MySpace being spammed on wikipedia. There may indeed be an ongoing problem, but I think this is unclear, and this is why I ask for the review.

As with other hosting services, there will almost certainly be problems from time to time with spamming of individual blogs/pages, but these should be dealt with individually not by blacklisting the whole domain. Are there still compelling reasons to blacklist the whole MySpace domain? If so, can these please be stated for the record, with evidence and explanation, and with details of how article contributors can request whitelisting for individual verified blogs if appropriate? I think that should help cool things down in the future. If the reasons for the original blacklisting no longer apply, can it be removed from the list? Mooncow 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good summation. One thing to keep in the mix of course is that whether or not our honorary GodKing requested it originally, he does approve of keeping it on for now per the diff given. He's a reasonable fellow though, I hear, so if the case can be made, it should be, and he'll no doubt change his mind. That said, my thinking at this point is informed by a hypothetical... Suppose 99.9% of the subdomains/pages of a site are something that only get spammed, and 0.1% are good... In that case it would be reasonable to spamblock it, and whitelist exception the 0.1% good, wouldn't it? whitelist exceptions are harder though. If it were the other way around, and 0.1% of the subdomains/pages were spam and 99.9% good, no one would argue that we should spamblacklist the exceptions. Now, somewhere there's a point of balance. Given that it's harder to whitelist than blacklist it's probably not at the 50/50 point, it skews. But what is it, and what are the numbers in this case? I have no opinion because I have no more data, but I think this analysis might be a reasonable way to get cost/benefit understanding? ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we at least unban myspace blogs from Talk pages? I need to cite a fact from a musiacian's myspace blog to counter a claim of original research. 128.122.226.112 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blacklist extension does not work selectively. Its an all or nothing deal. The easy way around this is to simply do http://blogs.myspace.com/blah (in wikitext it is <nowiki>http://blogs.myspace.com/blah</nowiki>). That will allow another person to find the link. Eagle 101 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment here is another example of the problem, if any were needed. The only people that can resolve this are the people who understand the technicalities behind the blacklisting/whitelisting process and I'm happy for them to act as they see fit. The only thing I would add is to question whether it is unfriendly program code that has lead to the situation where whitelisting is considered 'difficult' and that more subtle code could perhaps be made to filter on the FriendID= Daytona2 19:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm elaborate, I don't understand what you are getting at at all :) If it is a proposed change in the regex I can do something, otherwise I have to refer it to bugzilla and the devs :) Eagle 101 06:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you don't understand :-) Lar said that whitelisting is harder. Is this the case, if so why ?. If it weren't so I'd say blacklisting myspace.com but allowing only specified entries through (if that's the way it works) would be the way to go. You don't need to add program code to interrogate the FriendID= property in the URL if you just add URLs to a database, but if, in future, they change the URL sufficiently it may cause problems. Daytona2 13:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Blog URL blog.myspace.com/aesirwuotan]This is blacklisted in my user space; I did not find any rules restricting blog address in user space and I think it is permitted in talk space as well, if I'm wrong about that tell me. Blog links certainly should be permitted in talk and its vandalism to delete links in my user space. I will try the above mentioned "easy way around this", though it does not seem believable that they can't distinguish between article, talk and user space in the blacklisting. 69.81.123.56 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the myspace accounts be treated like insureme.com accounts?

Langmaker.com

Please remove this domain from the blacklist! I don't see the point why this harmless site should be regarded as spam. I personally find it the most important reference in things concerning constructed languages. --primordial 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reason why this was added to the blacklist. If it is useful, I would suggest requesting whitelisting of a particular page of that website (whatever page it is that you need). Eagle 101 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the role Langmaker.com is playing here. Only because some troll in fr:wp is spamming about a languague called 'latin moderne', everyone has to 'renounce' the information given on this site? in de:wp we have a portal about conlangs. in the section 'weblinks', the first one is langmaker.com -- thus making it impossible to edit the entire page. --primordial 14:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ('user:primordial' on de:wp)[reply]

Mmmm... let me look into this... though a potential solution for now would be to whitelist it on de... Again give me a few hours to a day. Eagle 101 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets at least notify the French that we are considering taking this link off the blacklist, as it was them that took the primary brunt of the spam. Eagle 101 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. But as far as I can see, the only object of spamming is the subsite http://www.blangmaker.com/db/Modern_Latin. Where can I ask the french to recall their request for blacklisting, or is this an admin issue? --primordial 08:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ?? --primordial 09:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend not removing this site from the blacklist due to the amount of evidence presented here Naconkantari 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which evidence?! Have you looked through this at all? Give me only one reference where langmaker.com is used for spamming except its subsite "Modern Latin"! I just can't understand why this incidence can block a site for more than three weeks now. Please do something, or give me a hint what to do, for this issue is sooner or later getting annoying. --primordial 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I failed to show patience, you guys sure have a lot of resentment about people like me. Please answer me just one question: Would it be possible to reduce the blacklisting to the subdomain "langmaker.com/db/Modern_Latin"? --Primordial 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, let me think on it, and please do realize that I am a volunteer, and we are quite busy at this page, and to be honest your reply has slipped by our notice (the one you gave on the 13th). Eagle 101 07:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Primordial. Please remove this domain from the blacklist! Hill

medrapid.info

Why did this site get blacklisted? There has only been a short description of the medrapid research project in wikipedia. Is wikimedia against research projects accessible for free?

Ok, the admin who originally added this does not seem to be around anymore, but a bit of digging in the archives yeilds this. It looks like the german wikipedia got spammed with that link multiple times by multiple IPs. Minding the logical fallacy above (no we are not against research projects), I will think about taking this off, give me a few days. In the meantime you can show me where it might be useful to have this site? I welcome some comments from any passerby. Thanks. Eagle 101 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bonsaimenorca.com

I’m the director of the bonsai School of Menorca, I was told by my webmaster that bonsaimenorca.com was blacklisted in Wikipedia, it seems that we have something called Cross-wiki , I don’t know who did that, probably one of our students. We are one of the oldest Bonsai Schools in Europe and we don’t want to be in any type of blacklist. I don’t know the way to remove the links and get our domain whitelisted.

Thanks for your attention

I am a bit on the fence with this one, on one hand we did get whacked with this about a month ago (here), but on the other hand this site may have some good sources, not any that I've personally found though. Eagle 101 05:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org

This has pretty recently been blacklisted. The site itself is highly respectable, and non-commercial; a joint site for the European National Collections of Rare Books, from the British Library on. Each library selects a few items in a standard formula (including images), & maintains it's own site. Many libraries are adding their full catalogues (see the about us page). Funded by the European Union, this replaces a previous gateway. It is likely to become a major scholarly rescource, and is already one of some significance.

The site has been added to many articles on en:Wiki rather crudely - mostly in 2005 by en User:CristianChirita - in fact he started new articles by just cutting and pasting the details table from the site. I have cleaned some of these up. All the new articles were certainly notable - most of the existing featured content, at only 4 items per country, will be so by definition. Many of the treasures from the smaller countries are not available online otherwise - of course the big Western countries have their own bigger sites.

This site should be whitelisted. Any "spamming" must, I think be well-intentioned, and usually valid. Needed links to images are being removed. Please remove from list, Thanks. 87.194.23.18 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (Johnbod on en). PS This is a VERY hard page to find. Took me 20 minutes on Wikimedia. Is this deliberate? If not some mention of Spam on the main page would be an improvement.[reply]

Please read what spam is. Thanks. Eagle 101 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, done that (once again). Now please will you explain how that relates to this site? I have only ever seen fewer than ten links to it on en Wiki, which is perfectly legitimate for an official site covering twenty-whatever nations in the EU. How many links does WP have to the Library of Congress? Did you actually read what I wrote above? 87.194.23.18 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For as far as I know is the site not blacklisted on meta, but 'theeuropeanlibrary\.org' is blacklisted under en:user:shadowbot on en.wikipedia. As an explanation: the site does not comply with WP:EL (it is not accesible from all browsers, the site does not work in e.g. Opera), and was spammed (the definition of spam on en.wikipedia does not judge the contents of the site, just the way they are added) by several accounts connected to the a.o. en:Dutch Royal Library (which have a conflict of interest). These additions have been cleaned, indeed resulting in only about 10 occurances being left on the site.

When the site works with all browsers the site would indeed be a good and notable site, and would comply when used as a reference, i.e. when not being spammed to external links sections, or added by users with a conflict of interest. Hope this explains. --Beetstra 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make editing here even less accessible, the edit link at right is not coordinated with this section of text: open "edit" two sections down! so, how could blacklisting be defended for the shared site of the EU's national libraries? The blacklisting process is whimsical, open to any "administrator" who elects to add a site, which is then methodically deleted throughout Wikipedia by followers who have not reviewed the material. A serious abuse, among many. 162.84.242.92 01:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (User:Wetman).[reply]

Beetstra, thanks, that is helpful. i will follow up on en 87.194.23.18 04:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wetman: The blacklisting was performed on en.wikipedia only after discussion with several people, and we all have this site on our monitor now. We are not happy with this site being blackisted, but the current situation (spamming under a conflict of interest) needed to be addressed. I have explained the reason why it was blacklisted and have repeatedly tried to explain the situation to the accounts in question. Only links were removed that were added by the spammers (which ALL have a conflict of interest). I did not even remove all of their links, I removed the links that were added by them and only had a tangential link to the subject they were added to, and/or were they were added to the external link sections. --Beetstra 09:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I first became aware of the issue when I could not edit a page on an MS (I've now forgotten which) without removing the link to the only available picture of that MS. My recollection is that this had been added in 2005, but I might be wrong. 87.194.23.18 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, the first time I encountered the link, I actually looked where it went. That stalled my browser (Opera), which is not supported by the site (I could not even use my back-button to get back to the wikipedia), see here. The addition was in the external link section, where en:WP:EL fully applies (though I would consider it also suitable for external links in the text, and even in the references), and that guideline states that sites should accessible for all/most browsers. In that light we could remove all external links to this site (yesterday I did have the same trouble with the homepage of theeuropeanlibrary). The site is new, and it might become a good information site, but for now, it does not comply with wikipedia rules (and it gets spammed under a COI). I am sorry. --Beetstra 10:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ 2nd time

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ is an information web site concerning Parkinson's Disease. It is the most comprehensive web site on Parkinson's Disease - far more comprehensive than the Wikipedia article. Consequently, it appears on all of the Parkinson's Disease web sites including National Parkinson's Disease organisations and Parkinson's Disease patient forums.

1. viartis.net was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes, on the 13th August 2006.

2. The brief addition was directly relevant to the article, which concerned Parkinson's Disease, and was added merely as a reference to further detail concerning that subject.

3. There is not even one advert on the entire web site.

4. According to Wikipedia's definition of spam, it did not fulfill any of the definitions of spam. SeeWikipedia spam.

5. Rather than the viartis.net site being checked to see if it constituted spam, which it didn't, it's maintenance on the blacklist was due to merely asking the opinion of somebody who described himself as a minor editor, who had a personal grievance against the editor. When asked his opinion of viartis.net, he confused the issue by responding instead about a different web site.

There are no grounds for maintaining viartis.net on the spam blacklist because it plainly does not fulfill the definition of spam. Nobody has been able to contradict that fact. --XX7 22:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we just did this once above. If you can get agreement to add this link to that article, I will take it off of the blacklist, though I think that the whitelist is better suited for this. P.S. I'm sure I can find a similar source elsewhere as well :) Eagle 101 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The request has already also gone on to the Whitelist. If approval for removing from the blacklist is needed on a particular article then any two editors on any article could unreasonably ensure without any reason whatsover that any article is blacklisted and remain that way. There are half a dozen related articles. So that would mean approaching editors of half a dozen articles with a web site that was blacklisted - a bit like somebody trying to get a job who first has to admit he's a criminal even though he's committed no crime. The decision should be with the Administrator of the SPAM blacklist based on facts and reasoning, rather than the arbitrary decision of what could be two anonymous editors. Whether or not it is added to any particular article after it is removed from the SPAM blacklist (where it clearly should never have been) is a later separate matter. If editors then object to its inclusion then so be it, as that would then be up to them, as it is on any Wikipedia article. If you are sure that you can find a similar source elsewhere that covers all of the content of ALL the pages, I challenge you or anyone else to do so, as I know in advance that you could not even come close. --XX7 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend not removing this site as it has clearly been used for spam. Naconkantari 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have just written is ridiculous. You bring this discussion process on the spam blacklist in to contempt by your continuous failure, not only with this site, but all sites, to come to conclusions without there being any evidence to support you. You have provided no evidence at all in support of what you have written. "Clearly spam" is utter utter nonsense. The web site was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia relevant article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes. It contains not a single advert, it is entirely non-commercial, and it does not promote anything. I have already requested elsewhere that you no longer are able to have anything to do with the spam blacklist because your attitude to what are supposed to be reasoned and factual assessments is instead one of arrogance and a complete disregard for consistency, reasoning and facts. --XX7 09:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show me that other editors want it by linking to a discussion on the english wiki, talking about this link, preferably on the talk page of one of the articles that you want to add this site. Eagle 101 10:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed your previous suggestion by taking it over to the whitelist, where it has started to be discussed and has so far gained a favourable response. I will leave it there for a while. --XX7 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cosplay-world.com

This website is one of the most important in my area and has a lot of historical archives from the past 10 years. I don't even know why I'm blacklisted! It is rather unfair to have to justify myself for being blacklisted for no apparent reason. Please remove my website from the blacklist.

It's not up to me, but out of curiosity, what is cosplay ? --XX7 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People dressed like weird anime characters pretending to be some manga superhero --Jollyroger 08:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplay

When I first saw this site I thought that it was very informative, although I wasn't sure what it was informative about because I didn't know what cosplay was. Now that other editors have kindly informed me about what cosplay is, it seems a bit odd, but then so are a lot of things. However, how it can possibly be on the blacklist is baffling. It provides detailed information about cosplay events, and does not have any adverts that I can find. For those people interested it would be a useful site. It's not up to me as I am not an Administrator here, but it really should be removed from the blacklist. It has no reason at all being there. --XX7 11:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=536776#cosplay-world.com is why it is on the spam blacklist. I will think about if taking it off if a good idea or not. Comments are welcome, but please realize that this is not a vote, so please don't use bold words infront of your comments. Thanks. Eagle 101 22:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can a web site not be added to different language Wikipedias ? What if for example, there was an article on The White House on numerous Wikipedias. Could the White House web site not be added to all of the different language Wikipedias rather than just English Wikipedia ? Regarding cosplay-world.com I doubt if there is any better in other languages, so it seems reasonable that they add the web site to different language Wikipedias. --XX7 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its reasonable to a point, but after you spam it to multiple languages like here, we start to have problems. One it is very hard to track this activity, as most users tend to stay to their home wikis. If the site is in only one langauge I fail to see the benifit of adding this link to multiple wikimedia sites. This is a case where the site benefits more then wikimedia does. I'm willing to remove this in a month or so, and try again, but for now I recommend that we do not remove this site. Eagle 101 05:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of web sites are on many different language Wikipedias, such as The White House, Manchester United, Real Madrid, Michael J.Fox Foundation. This is despite all of these sites being in English. Why are they not blacklisted ? Why is Cosplay.com subjected to blacklisting when it has been added to different language Wikipedias in precisely the same way that these other sites have been added ? Cosplay.com appears to have been added to the relevant Wikipedia articles. If it had been added to a lot of articles on foreign language Wikipedias to which it was not related I could understand the objections. There presently appears to be one standard inconsistently applied to Cosplay.com that is not applied to many other web sites.--XX7 11:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is only some of the Wikipedias that the Real Madrid web site has been added :

Azeri Catalan Czech Danish German Estonian Spanish Esperanto French Croatian Korean English

As the Real Madrid web site can be added to Wikipedia in different languages, so should cosplay.com be able to. There are many other web sites besides this that appear on Wikipedias in many different languages. There is an obvious inconsistency in the treatment that cosplay.com is getting here. --XX7 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err yeah, but that website was not spammed. There is a difference between insertions all at one time, and a gradual build up, as various people find a site a good site. Arguments on how other links are being "treated" don't make much sense to me. Justify this link, the existance or non-existance of other links means nothing to me. As far as applying standards, no I'm not applying standards, I simply saw it get spammed one day and added it. Give me a day to figure out if there were any other spam insertions other then the that I mentioned. If not, I'm willing to take it off and give it a second try. Eagle 101 10:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid is one of the biggest sports clubs in the world, with daily tv and newspare coverage in many countries. It is therefore likely that there would be a gradual build up of its web site on different language Wikipedias. However, cosplay is a little known, obscure and unpublicised subject. It would therefore probably only end on different language Wikipedias if somebody made a concerted effort. I assume that an enthusiast or somebody with an interest in the web site merely did a thorough job of making it available. Without their effort, and left to chance it, realistically would not have ended up on the various Wikipedias. Simultaneoulsy adding to a lot of Wikipedias is the sort of thing that conmmercial spammers do, which is why it no doubt resembled spamming. Added to this is the fact that few people, myself included, would have a clue what it was all about. However, this site doesn't appear to have any adverts. I may be wrong, but it merely looks like a list of forthcoming events - a bit like a calendar of forthcoming sporting events. At present, unless there is more that I don't know about, it doesn't appear to be spam. --XX7 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

petrophoto.net

This site offers well-sorted galleries with photos of relevant places all around the world. Sure, they are rather small, but if equivalent photos are not available on Commons, a link to petrophoto might serve as a temporary substitute. --Langec 14:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=535949#petrophoto.net here is why it is on the spam blacklist. We got spammed across multiple wikis with this. I am going to note that you could possibly contact the owner of the site for permission, or if the images fall under public domain you can use that. I will consider taking it off, give me a day or two. Comments are welcome here. :) Eagle 101 22:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I added the site, I won't say no for sure, but I recommend against removal. ——(admin) Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ppstream.com

It's the official site of PPStream, a popular P2P streaming video software. I have no idea why it's included in the blacklist. -- scchiang

That article has already been deleted once. see this. Are we even sure that the community wants that article? Eagle 101 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

outrate.net

The following discussion is closed: not removed

I'd like to request my site, Outrate.net be removed from the blacklist.

Though I was warned about adding too many links in one go, and though some of these links may have been inappropriate, I feel that some other links, such as our site's interview with Billy Hayes (Of Midnight Express) and Camille Paglia are content rich pages that are worthwhile external references. We would only reinstall such external links, if we were to be reinstated.

Mark Adnum, Outrate.net

I recommend highly against taking this off. What happened here was a classic case of spamming with multiple user accounts to be harder to detect. On the english wikipedia we also have guidelines on conflicts of interest, which would include site owners adding links to their sites. Eagle 101 23:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not removed; this request is a conflict of interest by the requester. Please show a consensus on several pages among established editors that the link is beneficial, and let them add it if it is unblacklisted in the future. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to investigate my request. Is there anything I can do to assist, or will the editors decide which links are acceptable for re-inclusion on the Wikipedia database?

It just strikes me that many sites,m such as Man Net, provide endless links back to their own sites. As I explanied previously, I agreI overstepped the mark. But I definitely feel that some links are worth inclusion in WIkipedia. Please help me resolve this issue, and again, apologies.

Demonstrate to me how man net has spammed, if we had caught them, it is very likely that they would be on this list as well. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They, and other sites, often ad heir own reviews and interview to relevant pages, and so I assumed it was acceptable to do the same to.. This page, on Matthew Rush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Rush contains links at the bottoms to an external interview with Matthew Rush. Why is this acceptable yet my Interview with Camille Paglia has to be removed from her wiki page?

Ah, becuase you spammed a link, and were told to stop. Those other sites are presumed to have not been spammed. Trust my I'm not picking on one site, I just reverted another guy adding 20 links to wikipedia today. Thing is that he stopped, you did not. Please read the english wikipedia's information on what spamming is, and our info on conflict of interest. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gage_Powers which contains external links placed by the site owners.

As for ManNet examples, see her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_%28porn_star%29

I just assumed that's what external links were for.

www.lost.eu

I'm trying to create a userbox for people who play the game Lost, to be used on Userpages, which as far as I know is quite allowed. I understand why it's blacklisted, but I'm trying to use it legitimately. Is there any way to blacklist the website only in the article namespace, or is there some way to get around the block? If not, can we remove it? -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 00:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, and here is why it is on the spam blacklist. They have a contest going on, and people are spamming it from everywhere. Its probably not going to be removed until the contest is over. I recommend against removal. As far as whitelisting, I doubt they will do it for the same reasons. Just use a wikilink in the template. ——(admin) Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unitedfutures.com

Don't understand why this site is banned. Never received any type of warning. There was an article that pointed to a very useful quote page. This site never posted anything that was not useful. Never did or tried to spam anything. Can this be removed from the list? And I suppose warning is noted if thats the case. RunnerD 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference:

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know who posted those things except the quote page. Why should we be punished for someone else's postings? It doesn't even look like it was spam. RunnerD 00:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - see, this. 16 socks, this was the only way to make it stop. Perhaps in a few months, but if the site has anything relevant you can request local whitelisting. Regards. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pavelnedved.110mb.com

Hi! This site is blacklisted for spamming. There was a problem with some users in the forum but now is all ok. Please can be removed from the list?

I did the original blacklisting here. I'm neutral as to if it should be removed or not. All I will say is it has been spammed. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.citronpaper.it

I tried to fix fix a small inacurracy in the article about the Citroën GS (a specific model of cars). I was told I could not change the article unless I remove the link to www.citronpaper.it. Since I am a quite unexperienced wikipedia user and the link seems quite useful to me (it provides a lot of historic original material about citroen) I am reluctant to delete it. Could someone experienced check if there is a good reason for blacklisting this site or else remove the link so that I as a new user don't have to take the responsibility to remove stuff that I cannot find anything wrong about. Thanks!

Not done The link was used in a massive spam attack on Itailian wiki as far as I understand. You can request local whitelisting though. Try to give them a deep link to a specific page on the site. (such as "www.citronpaper.it/something". —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hugeurl.com

I dont think this belongs to the "url shorteners" list, because this isnt shortening the address, it makes it bigger, not smaller.

regardless, it is a redirect site, and allows bypassing of the spamblacklist. I recommend against removal. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An added note, please sign your posts using ~~~~. Thank you. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alleydog.com

This site does not belong on the blacklist because it is an educational site with only positive (useful) intentions. The site was created and run by a Psychologist (PhD in Psychology) specifically as an educational site for psychology students and people interested in psychology. There is no malware, spyware, etc., associate with this site. The site is for educational purposes only.

Here is why alleydog.com is on the spam blacklist

#11 Jul 06 - bot spamming en.wp
alleydog\.com

I will think about removal. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An added note, please sign your posts using ~~~~. Thank you.—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nefac.net

I am not sure why this site is blacklisted, but it be great if it could be removed from the list. I would like to keep the link nefac.net/node/166 on the Charlotte Wilson page. 69.112.99.31 21:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here is why the link is blacklisted, I recommend against removing it from the blacklist, but I do strongly suggest that you request local whitelisting, your situation is exactly what the whitelist is designed for. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems

This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).

republica.com

The block in republica.com is also blocking republica.com.br, an important Brazilian website dedicated to political analysis. Dantadd 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what wiki, just request whitelisting, unfortunatly we cannot restrict the regex to prevent matches on .br. I will double check in time and see if perhaps I can come up with an advanced regex that might do the trick, but for now just simply request whitelisting on en:WP:WHITELIST (assuming the english wiki). Eagle 101 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is now a more advanced regex in place. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog.myspace.com

Please help.

I try to edit the en:Galactus page, but it keep saying that "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: h**p blog.myspace.com".

I have no idea where this link comes from. I have not added, and I had no problem editing the page before it all of suddenly showed up. - DCincarnate

DoneI assumed you were referring to the english wiki, and I found the link. The problem is now fixed :). Eagle 101 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PressArchive.net

I keep getting an error of a blacklisted site, and it's preventing me from saving my work. I don't know what it's talking about because I'm not adding any links, and it will give me the error when I'm just reverting vandalism too. Bignole 12:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right what article are you trying to save? Just find what the link is (the blacklist message will tell you) and remove it. The article should save afterwards. If you have problems with this, just tell me the article, then I will help you out. Eagle 101 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussions

Spam blacklist policy discussion

Referral Profiteering

Please consider a list of referral affiliate syntax to filter/substitute. The idea is to prevent people adding links to articles which they profit from. Typically this would mean linking to a relevant book on amazon instead of an isbn number. Spiral Staircase 18:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas are welcome ;) Eagle 101 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the less knowledgeable amongst us please explain what is meant by a "list of referral affiliate syntax to filter/substitute". I guess that it is something to do with links to book web sites. At present can a book that is relevant to an artcile include a link to the publisher's web site that gives more details about the contents of the book, which would be useful, or to online books retailer's sites for that book such as those on Amazon ? --XX7 15:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with linking to the details of a book on Amazon or elsewhere, which will provide detailed information about that book, rather than an ISBN, which doesn't supply any information about the book. With the ISBN, somebody would then have to go and look it up on Amazon anyway. The diversion is pointless. --XX7 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details about a book are fine, as long as the link doesn't include a personal referral number that will allow the person who posted the link to profit if whoever clicks the link happens to buy that book. --Versageek 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean that Amazon links such as the following are OK that give more details of the book without making money for an editor who has a personal referral number for it : Puccini : a biography. I added an Amazon link that merely gave more details of a book, yet it was immediately removed. --XX7 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did this on the english wiki right? If so, you might want to ask over there if its 'ok'. Try asking at en:WT:EL, thats a pretty active page, and editors there know quite a bit about the external link guidelines. Cheers! Eagle 101 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, I'll check it out. It does seem to be a subject that causes people to differ in their opinions. Some see links to book details on publishers and online retailers web sites as useful information. Others see it as advertising. Most less experienced editors don't seem to know what Wikipedia policy is on this. --XX7 12:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just put the ISBN, it it translated automagically into a link which can be used to get to the book from one of a large number of booksellers (also I think finds the Library of Congress catalogue and other details). No need even to use Wikisyntax, ISBN xxxxxxxx in plain text works. Links to Amazon or any other bookseller are strongly discouraged. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

artnet.de/artist

Hi! I just got "Spam protection filter"-ed trying to edit w:Joseph Finnemore for a link to "http://www.artnet.de/artist". (I didn't put it in, it was there in the original!? Can't even put in this msg.) The link seems to be legit, to an old print. (There are some very* interesting items on the blocked list, though). What's the prob with this link? Are there any workarounds for this site? Thanks, --Saintrain 17:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

(* Reminds me of the quandry the old missionaries faced: How do you tell them what "sin" is but not give them ideas.)

Ask de:Benutzer:Hedwig in Washington in English/German and de:Benutzer:MaxSem please, they are responsible. see: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Hedwig_in_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=26571641

~~Comment by Hedwig some days before: And now I´m waiting for complaints.~~ Greetings 195.93.60.97 11:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit, I never said that. It's your personal problem that makes you frustrated. Don't blame your own inability on other user.--Hedwig in Washington 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone here able - no, not you, Hedwig Troll from Washington - to answer the question of Saintrain and of all people, who will ask the same questions in the next years? Btw: de:artnet is a regular en:joint stock company and not suspected of producing spam (except by Hedwig and MaxSern. Unfortunately he speaks no German :-))
Examples: here <-- and and here from 22:34, 16. Dez. 2006 to 22:47, 16. Dez. 2006 . Does anyone find one single spamlink at artnet? You can win 5 Euros!
I guess, not the most engaged vandal is able to "produce" such a damage like Hedwig and Max, because these few examples from de can give only an impression to what is happening worldwide in wikipedia 195.93.60.97 09:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is why the site is currently on the blacklist see here. If you can present good arguemnts on how the original blacklist conditions nolonger apply I will take it off. Regards. Eagle 101 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it´s unbelievable. Thanks for that link. I planned to wait on the next asker and then to present the next 20 damages on de. But I had no idea, that Hedwig has destroyed 129 articles, only in de. How big is the damage in en? In Germany these people are bestkown as super trolls. (@Hedwig: Das gibt noch ein Nachspiel)

Note: You will not need artnet for illustrations like Da Vinci, Rembrandt or Dürer, but for all these thousands of artists who are only popular (or nearly forgotten even) in their own countries and who have made beautiful stuff like this [[149]. Can´t believe it, honestly. Regards 195.93.60.97 20:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can be destroyed, it's a Wiki! So don't cry and don't accuse others of being super trolls, maybe you shall read the rules of Meta and DE-Wiki before complaining and don't try to threaten me. That's not helping your case either. As I said many times before (my email), convince me or let us try to unblock the site and watch it closely. But no, better complain about the system and Admins that don't speak German on Meta. Oh Lord. --Hedwig in Washington 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I´ve asked you one time, see above, that should be enough. 195.93.60.97 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here who can tell me the damage in en and fr ? Thank you. Regards 195.93.60.97 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to remove it. I'm not sure why artnet.de/artist was blacklisted in the first place; there's no evidence of spamming. The argument seems to be that it doesn't provide much information, so it seems they were just concerned with the quality of their references. However, it's better to reference a site with little information than not reference at all. I'll ask mzlla, who blacklisted it, to comment. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the previous discussions were in December 2006 and February 2007. It seems the users involved were concerned with the quality of their references, not spam. Note that widespread placement of a link in good faith to reference an article is not spam, as this quote by one of the requesting user suggests:

"the point is that 129 (see above) links are way too many. Period. That's masslinking and it's not conform with the rules. If it's unblocked, there will be 100 or more within a couple days. I understand the problem the guys have and I really wish it would be different, but unblocking is not the right thing to do IMHO. We should find different ways (websites) to show pictures and the written information is not very useful and doesn't help on the topic."

I'm further inclined to remove it, unless mzlla has another reason I haven't seen. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem editing en:Old School (Film)

Under the Old School poster I wanted to add en:Elisha Cuthbert as one of the actresses starring in the movie but was prevented to do so by a Spam Protection Filter. Her name is listed on the movie's IMDB site:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0302886/fullcredits#cast - 218.186.8.13 10:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the article in question. Are you sure you gave me the right link. What happened here is that there is a blacklisted link in the article, and it needs to be removed before you can save the page again. ——(admin) Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had put the link at the title, but here is the article: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_School_%28film%29) When I try to put the name and link of Elisha Cuthbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_cuthbert) as one of the film's stars I was prevented from doing so by a Spam Protection Filter.- 218.186.8.13 13:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done see the edit by —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} if you want to see what I did. (check the history of the page). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]