Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed Additions

[edit]

504experts.com

[edit]
Accounts adding
Sba504guru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Jwolcott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
208.82.161.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
208.51.111.34 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Merca123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Sdinatale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Obviously these are WP:SPA accounts, using Wikipedia for promotion and advertising purposes. I see the domain is limited to their respective (yet spammy) articles, unfortunatly this is appropriate. Lets hold off for now or untill this develops further. --Hu12 (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pharmacy-0x6.tk

[edit]

Various Ukraine IPs adding spam links at Clomifene. We could just sp the article, but considering that we've had various IPs reverting the spam links that is kind of like a slap in the face. ;) The other version of the spam link thats been added recently is untitled02.tk but I don't know if we've blocked that one and thats what cause the switch to the pharmacy one or what. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the untitled02.tk after adding it to XLinkBot did not help. I also added this one now to the blacklist. Unfortunately, it is not only Clomifene, there were more pages involved, so protecting is probably also not going to help. Blocking the IPs may also result in damage, there are also more:

Someone creative with rangeblocks? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More
Links
ranges

Nothing from range 95.133.1.36/16 for the past several weeks has been more than spam and vandalism. I've blocked this range for a week, and blocked range 99.235.232.104/32 for 1 month. Also plus Added the new urls--Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

suvenirograd.ru

[edit]

suvenirograd.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Various IPs persistently adding links to this online souvenir shop, masquerading it as a website with pictures and/or information (in Russian) relevant to the article the link is being added to. The relevant information is in fact there, but it's obvious it had been included only as a deterrent to remove the link; the primary goal of the site is still sales.

This has been going on for months and months; I myself must have reverted dozens of these. Blocks would be unfeasible as the edits come from a variety of different IPs; protection is ineffective as well as the number of articles affected (or that potentially can be affected) is rather large. Diff examples: Sochi, Barnaul, Orenburg, Chelyabinsk, Tomsk.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Long term Mass spamming plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lamu-house-rental.com

[edit]

lamu-house-rental.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

No encyclopedic value. Diffs: [1] [2] [3] [4]. --R.Schuster (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lamuhouserental
Accounts
Lamuhouserental (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Lamuhouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Sockpuppeting to spam is never a sign of good faith.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zunzun.com

[edit]
Articles;
partial list of IPs


This seems to have been going off and on since 2004. There have been some blocks and a bunch of warnings on various talk pages, but none of that has successfully got this editor to discuss their edits. - MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added, thanks MrOllie--Hu12 (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

energizedseller.com

[edit]
link
accounts

Persistent spamming of a link which is an on-line community website which contains a combination social-networking/blog/advertising-forum. Has been warned and reverted by multiple other editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

terabitconsulting.com

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
links
current accounts
older accounts

Combination of factors that has resulted in multiple accounts and IPs being blocked today. The users have engaged in edit-warring, pointy edit disruption, wiki-lawyering, block evasion, and sock puppetry. All for the goal of adding links to spammy powerpoint presentations. When consensus was going against the use of the links in EL, the user added new text and used the links as refs[5], a different user found new sources from news sites and journals[6], which the IPs then reverted back to the commercial presentation slides[7]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also:
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also;
Verifigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Verifigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Misinterpretation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Antiquity10091 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
 Done--Hu12 (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing to see that these links were hastily added to the spam list when there was an ongoing discussion about them. The history of this incident is described at WP:Editor_assistance/Requests#Submarine_cables. NathanielDawson (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear evidence of sockpuppetry, editwarring, spamming, block evasion and disruption. Wikipedia is not a place to to promote terabitconsulting.com. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source, in an appropriate context. Closed--Hu12 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

kavakavashop.com

[edit]

kavakavashop.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Accounts

Multiple IPs edit warring over advertising a commercial site on a few articles, mainly the Kava article. The persistence of so many attempts via a large number of IPs in such a short period of time demonstrates the need for blacklisting (COIbot shows most of the edits are within just the last week, although one dating to Oct 12). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

newlawstudent.com

[edit]

newlawstudent.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Persistent spamming. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 09:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming continues despite all warnings. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bolenreport.com

[edit]

bolenreport.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Owner of the spammed website and subject of the article have been in a real world dispute, and maintain pages about each other. Spam: [8], [9], and talk [10], [11]. Links to the domain also show up occasionally at other articles (Quackwatch and Barrett v. Rosenthal, mostly) for the same reason, and the site contains no WP:EL-compliant content. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also;
→quackpotwatch.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
→bolenreport.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
→northamericanconsumersagainsthealthfraud.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Related →http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html
Discusions
Accounts
Asside from the obvious WP:SPAM, this banned user is using his Website(s) to attack, facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors and those who choose to edit the encyclopedia including repeated egregis violations of WP:BLP.
An attack site is a site outside Wikipedia that engages in any of the following:
  1. Used to impugn a person's character
  2. Harasses or sponsors harassment of Wikipedians;
  3. Makes or sponsors legal threats toward Wikipedians
  4. An attack site might be run by an individual, in the form of a private website or a blog, or it could be a virtual community, such as another wiki or discussion forum.
Previous consensus, rulings, practice[1]
  • "Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment..." [2]
  • "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." [3]
  • "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances." [4]
Seems there are two domains (quackpotwatch.org and bolenreport.net/.com) and a related url (http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html) being used for Attacks. 2 domains (and their mirrors) and one Url have been plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

chinesepageantpage.com

[edit]

Obvious fansite by a pageant lover. The below listed IP has been linking pageant articles onto this site ( probably their own ) since 2008. All edits on Wikipedia has been just adding the link. Been warned several times including a 24-hour block yesterday. As soon as the block wore off, the user is at it again, spamming pages with the link as if nothing happened. I tried to warn them this would happen... Some people just don't learn. Music + Pageants (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the IPSummary up, above your post. Seems blocking is effective, untill it expires. This may be a controllable Issue by simply extending the block. I've re-blocked this IP for a period of one month, lets try this first. However, if the links are being added by other IP's or accounts, report them here and we can take the next step. Lets mark this as  Not done, for now.--Hu12 (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

israel-deadsea.com

[edit]

Repeated addition of this link by the same IP editor to Dead Sea. Low level of spamming, but blacklisting would reduce the need to patrol the article and put blocks on the editor. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the IP has been blocked for a period of one month. Lets how this works out first. However, if the links are being added by other IP's or accounts, report them here and we can take the next step.  Not done, for now.--Hu12 (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Removals

[edit]

zoophilia.co.cc

[edit]

Just wanted to add this as my personal website on my mediawiki profiles. I've no idea why it's blocked I've not long registered on here nor there. Friend of mine said it might be because the last owner might have used spam, but I haven't even got enough bandwidth to do that lol. Thanks, James —Preceding unsigned comment added by James D Smith (talk • contribs) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hscripts.com

[edit]

Hi, Our site hscripts.com seemed to be blacklisted. please remove it from the blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.52.149 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Stifle (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Denied in the absence of a reply. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why was it blocked. just because some one add a link to our site can it be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.124.97 (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of initialy seven sites spammed, all by the same owner (HIOX India, Adsense pub-3229609591361912)[]
Incidentaly, an IP recently, from your range 115.184.52.149/17 adding another HIOX India site;
115.184.126.70 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much spam did you get from hscripts.com? Also how many links where submitted for hscripts.com that made you think it was a spam. Why do you block the website in wikipedia just because some one links to it. Does that mean that no site should be linked from wikipedia and our website will never be linked from wikipedia. Does it also mean that wikipedia will never use a link to HIOX India websites. If this is the case then I would be willing to give all the websites owned by HIOX INDIA so that you can block all the websites from wiki and say that we will never link nor write about HIOX nor its websites at any point of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.92.243 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I was analyzing I found that you have even removed link for the site easycalculation.com from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_calculators. The page has nothing but links to calculator sites and the link to easycalculation.com was there from the birth of the article. Its really absurd that this too was considered spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.116.233 (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


theclassicalmusicshop.net

[edit]
corrected to "theclassicalshop.net"; see below

I am objecting to blacklisting "theclassicalmusicshop.net" and similar sites. This is my first encounter with the blacklist-whitelist concept, but I have to say, blacklisting such an excellent source of information about recordings seems fairly disruptive to me. I've done a lot of work on discographies for various classical musicians. Here is an example of an article that is affected: Antony Beaumont. It was when I tried to edit that page today that I encountered the problem. Not only this site "theclassicalmusicshop.net", but other similar ones which apparently have a good chance of ending up on this list, frequently provide useful material, including detailed track lists, artists, dates and locations of recordings, and often and not the least important, downloadable CD booklets which contain much information on the music, composers, and artists. If one incorporates this information into an article, one should quite properly provide a link to the product page with the information about the recording, and/or link to the booklet which was the source for the information. It will be very inconvenient and discouraging to good editing to require that each editor obtain an exception each time that editor would like to link to this site. Yet that's what seems like has happened. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This domain does not appear to be blacklisted:
Are you sure that's the correct address? It doesn't look like there's anything at that page.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A.B. see [whitelist request. He means the theclassicalshop.net. --Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
theclassicalshop.net

OK, now I see the history; theclassicalshop.net is blacklisted

Personally, I agree with you (see my comments in the earlier discussion), but I'd like to see more discussion here first. Could you leave a (neutrally-worded) note at the appropriate WikiProject(s) asking for input from our classical music editors? Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the error. I must have been getting tired when I did this. I'll see what I can do about getting more input. I just want to point out that when an artist records for very few labels, it's clear there will be a bias in the links from that page. Also, I'm amazed that someone would want to block links from Amazon.com as well. The article on Antony Beaumont also includes an effective and descriptive blockquote from Kirkus Reviews that I picked up on a product page at that site. (I must confess that I bought the book: the quote is quite accurate.) (Also I see that the quote is no longer on the Amazon page. I haven't checked yet whether it may have been preserved on the WayBack machine.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found two discographies with multiple links to product pages which would not appear to be in the category of spam:

Arthur Honegger discography
Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius) discography

Lists like these seem to be the exception, but that is because adding links or footnotes to sources of information is time-consuming and requires effort so doing it is the exception rather than the rule. Personally I think both of the editors who created these lists are to be lauded for doing so. We should encourage this kind of thing rather than discourage it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Israeli News Agency

[edit]

Why is http"//www.isrealinewsagency.com blocked? Since when does wikipedia block news sources? --Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not blocked locally, it's blocked at Meta. Your question should be posted there instead. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the original meta block request here. From looking at the site, I'd agree with the rationale behind the block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.zentechnologies.com

[edit]

Hi I found that my website is blacklisted by the spam filters. Please remove it from Blacklist as I have not done anything against the policies/terms & conditions of Wikipedia. Please remove it from the list—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.19.192 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 29 October 2009

Excessive spam and abuse, including from the IP you used here.no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.nicoclub.com

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Requesting removal from blacklist. Some past staffers got in a bit of trouble with Wikipedia, but have long since been replaced. Was attempting to edit / update / rectify some incorrect info on the 240sx Convertible page and include the Official Registry of these vehicles (see forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/165498). Our intention is NOT to "spam" the page, our linking and page strength speaks for itself. We maintain a close relationship with Nissan North America, and are the web's foremost resource for Nissan enthusiasts. We're just asking to be treated fairly, as there are quite a few links on that page alone that contain misinformation and "are "spammy" by nature. Thanks for your consideration! 70.176.198.131 (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-representatives' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. However, it does appears a second chance was given, and the additions continued. Being the the site is an unofficial fans/enthusiast forum, it is a Link normally to be avoided and would fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that the spamming of your sites continued since that time;
24.123.89.226 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
76.172.51.238 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
69.23.66.89 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
98.100.143.96 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Those will also be added, no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I don't comprehend Wiki's internal language well enough to understand those last 4 links you listed, but from what I can tell, it appears someone added a link to cubedriver.com? I resent the implication that just because someone posted a link to a site in our network, that "we" are "spamming". If a site is the foremost authority on that particular topic, it's bound to happen, and beyond our control.

Your "verifiabilty" comes from people who work for Nissan (many of us), people who build Nissans (many of us) and people who own several of them. I'm not interested in your links. I'm interested in clearing the record and being treated fairly. 70.176.198.131 (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow its Wikipedias fault for having inclusion guidelines and abuse policies? Based on the above facts, the big picture clearly shows someone who is only "interested" in using Wikipedia to promote their own interests. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your sites. --Hu12 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I apparently don't follow directions very well, I'm replying. I tried to explain, I'm not interested in promoting my sites. If you could read, you'd SEE that my original intent was to contribute, with NO link to any site I run. How is that "intent to advertise"? Just take my sites off your silly little list. I'll make sure none of our 136,000 members ever offers their expertise or edits another article on here again, since apparently it's MY fault if someone references us as a source of expertise. You people are delusional, thinking anyone would covet a no-followed link. 70.176.198.131 (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

examiner.com

[edit]

Why is this listed? it seems like a legitimate news source for the Houston area. RayTalk 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I found the archive listing. I agree that it should stay blocked. RayTalk 02:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no Withdrawn Stifle (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If a site is considered as a spam site, should it have a WP article then? Or should that be up for deletion as "non-notable"? Example: Examiner.com. I was under the impression that it *was* an acceptable source based on the fact that it had an article on WP. Thus giving the impression of notability. But when I used Examiner as in-line reference "examiner.com" kicked off a spam filter blacklist notice when I submitted. So that made me wonder. If a site is regarded as a spam-site then should it even have an article on WP? Are there any cases where it would be useful to have an article about an entity that is currently also blacklisted? CaribDigita (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of an article may be notable for a bunch of reasons that are not related to the subject being a reliable source. Sites are blacklisted when they are extensively spamlinked, particularly when most instances are not particularly helpful to Wikipedia. Accordingly, I do not see a problem with a site having an article and being blacklisted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please take a look at project talk:WikiProject Spam#ein Schildbürgerstreich

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Dear friends; I am travelling and can neither be online nor on IRC. Thanks for your help in advance!
‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 10:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link is not blacklisted--Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

visitalgarve.pt

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

This site was wrongfully added to the blacklist. It's the official tourism board website for the Algarve and shouldn't be blacklisted as it needs to be added to the externals links of that article. --Algarvean (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them Xaman79 (talk · contribs), [14][15].no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never spammed this link, you're mistaken. Please remove it from the blacklist as explained it's the official website for the tourism board of Algarve, it shouldn't be blacklisted and needs to be used, as it is in articles from other languages. Thanks. --Algarvean (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read what is on your user page and talk page? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to add links. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who the fuck asked you? I'm asking an administrator to unban this site, not some lousy editor. Please keep the usual bullshit predefined remarks to yourself until someone asks your opinion on something. --Algarvean (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you want admin attention, you've got it: one more post like the above and you're blocked. I'd strongly advise you to strike your comment, then take some time and reconsider your approach to Wikipedia. Abusive nonsense like the above is not acceptable. no Declined--Ckatzchatspy 11:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just shove it up you ass? I'm tired of listening to frustrated power-drunk morons running Wikipedia, no wonder more and more it's being considered a biased, flawed, non-reliable and non-coherent source of information, where any piece of trash can force their opinion and use power to silence the others, leaving little or no room for discussion. Some clueless editor considers that the article for Algarve can't have a link to the official tourism board website and removes it and bans the site from Wikipedia, when 99,9% of all location articles include at least one link to the official tourism website. And when you out-reason their arguments, they throw predefined answers, assuming that makes it right. Well, that's it for me, it's like reasoning with pigs. For you and all of those, GO FUCK YOURSELF! And have a nice day too. --Algarvean (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


newworldwine.suite101

[edit]

Why is this site on the Blacklist? While editing Wine, I discovered that a cited source linked to non-relevant info, so I decided to replace it with a better link. newworldwine.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_effects_of_oak had a very informative discussion about wine taste + oak barrels, but unfortunately, it's blacklisted. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The site is blacklisted due to massive spamming (hundreds of links spammed by multiple Suite101.com editors).
Additionaly Suite101.com;
  • Has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
  • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#Suite101 dot com
meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/12#suite101.com
Previous Suite101.com discussions
I think you ment your edit on Oak (not Wine), However this single link seems to be fine, I've whitelisted http://newworldwine.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_effects_of_oak, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ehow.com

[edit]

Not sure why this site is blocked, but the following link is needed for the History section of the article on Dice. Relevant URL in ehow : /about_4570456_history-dice.html --Mehrshad123 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eHow.com links
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
Here's the same thing withought all the adverts;
  • http://www.diychatroom.com/content/the-history-of-dice_65ba69cf-bc93-f46c-9b66-8f1078415355/
 Not done, reasonable alternative availiable, however don't think it meets core content guidelines to be an appropriate source.--Hu12 (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EncyclopediaDramatica.com

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

I have no clue why this site is blocked- It's a compilation of Internet funfacts, Memes, and basically a compilation of hate and raging filth of the world... But this does not take away from it's value as a citing site if used in conjunction with other sites. It's views are unique - which makes it all the more valuable for citing on a popular discussion if done responsibly. :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hytegia (talk • contribs) 09:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no value there, and certainly nothing citable. Kuru talk 14:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Troubleshooting and problems

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

Restructure this page?

[edit]

Something that has bothered me for a while about this page is the awkward page structure for editing. It would be simpler to start new discussions if we broke this page into sub-pages, then used this page to provide links to those subpages and to transcule the contents of those subpages here for a central review page. To accomplish this, we could create these sub-pages:

Do others have any opinions on this? Worthwhile to others, or a waste of time/effort? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six more pages on the watchlist, six different links to archive and log, may be a bit cumbersome. Guess I'm not seeing why this would be a practical improvement to justify breaking up the board. I'm for keeping this in line with Meta, and the other 57 or so major language blacklists for now. Uniformity is important (IMHO), as many Meta., Commons. and en. admins cross work multiple MediaWiki Black/White-lists. Although transcluding the "Logging / COIBot Instr" makes sense; its a static, rarely edited instructional portion of this page.--Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was already thinking of transferring the whole spam-whitelisting and blacklisting process to Wikipedia:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As i understand it, MediaWiki pages are predefined with the default configuration on all Wikimedia projects is MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Namespaces such as "Wikipedia", outside the MediaWiki namespace are not intended to be customised for this, and if tried probably won't work as expected. These are MediaWiki software interface pages, not Wikipedia:Projects or intended to function as such. Don't think this would be a practical improvement. Unless all the other projects uniformly do the same, I see no reason to support either changes. --Hu12 (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the blacklists themselves would need to stay in MediaWiki namespace, but the request pages could be transferred to Wikipedia namespace, rather than MediaWiki talk. This would also give us the opportunity to put requests to block something on one page and requests to unblock on another page, rather than the current situation where unblocking a whole site and permitting one or a few links are requested in separate places, which is unduly confusing. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notice in the editnotice for this page the injunction not to use the "new section" tab. The tab can be suppressed using __NONEWSECTIONLINK__. See Help:Magic words. Rd232 talk 11:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I've added __NONEWSECTIONLINK__ to the header, and removed the related text from editnotices  ;). Also transcluded the "Logging-COIBot Instr", FYI--Hu12 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I requested that new magic word a while ago at Bugzilla and it was denied. I guess someone else caught Brion in a better mood :) Stifle (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLWHA

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

www.plwha.org - Why is this page on the Blacklist? There is no information included which violates any laws, rules, or restrictions, and is actually an informative site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromancer (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass multiproject spamming. m:User:COIBot/XWiki/plwha.org.--Hu12 (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing cross posted; MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#plwha.org --Hu12 (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Some rulings from the Arbitration Committee on linking to attack sites
  2. ^ See [16]
  3. ^ See [17]
  4. ^ See [18]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2009&oldid=1109323770"