From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed additions Information

incrediblesushi.com

Link
Accounts involved

Two IPs have done linking sprees of adding this site to multiple articles ... in many cases replacing existing valid links in favor of the site they're spamming.

The site being added is a WordPress (blog publishing) page, using adsense account #ca-pub-6831750335119417. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Request withdrawn ... user has stopped spamming the site. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

world-snowboard-day.com

Link
Accounts involved

The user adding this link, FORSANS remi ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is clearly promoting an event that he has founded, as admitted in this diff. He's added it repeatedly to Snowboarding (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as follows: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. Some edits are from the account, while some are from the anonymous IP. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

pokerverdict.com

pokerverdict.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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 - Special:Contributions/87.252.37.237 anon user is one example of single purpose account creating articles to spam the domain, as well as remove reliable sources to insert this domain instead. 2005 ( talk) 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done Still needs link cleanup -- thanks. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

fulltilthouse.com

fulltilthouse.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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 - a few IPs like Special:Contributions/78.149.195.148 and Special:Contributions/86.26.93.140 have been spamming this useless domain all over the place, including a category and unrelated articles. 2005 ( talk) 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Today's dozen spam attempts came from Special:Contributions/78.146.241.197. 2005 ( talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Another addition was made today even after warning the user who been spamming, this user will replace the legitimate official site with theirs as so diff 9/3/08, the site being added is for the sole purpose of promoting a FTP Referral Code as part of a Affiliate Program but is done in violation of the sites Affiliate Agreement, namely spamming 2.21, nevertheless there is no legitimate reason for this site to be on Wikipedia in it's present form and I would urge the blacklisting of this site. ▪◦▪ ≡SiREX≡ Talk 16:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Spam accounts
Thought it best to list the IP's involved. Three of the IP's have been given blocks. Last activity was today. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? ( talk) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply


 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Willsoncomputers.weebly.com

Domains

Adsense ID: 7909203317229105


Related domains


Account

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 15:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

parakeetnews.weebly.com

Spam domain
Spam account

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • We have 158 links to weebly.com sites, and I would say that every one of them fails WP:EL. Any reaons we shouldn't go for the root domain here? It's a free we hosting firm, and additions seem to be like this: Special:Contributions/91.111.100.193. Guy ( Help!) 20:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
We have a boat load of other free web hosts listed on XLinkBot - that might be the logical place to list it if we wish to list the entire domain. -- Versa geek 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply
 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

thejazzchameleon.com

Spam domain

Google Adsense ID: 1058176667586160


Spam account

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

brookbarn.net

Spam domain


Spam account

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

DISNEYLANDRESORTPARIS.TK/

Link
Account

Another variation of an already blacklisted site (previously blacklisted under disneylandresort-paris.tk). Same method as before - replacing the link to the official site using a misleading edit summary. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 22:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

GRUUVE Inc spam

Spam domain


Related domain


Spam accounts


Spam article

Deleted twice:


Public registration data

GRUUVE Inc

333 Cobalt Way
Sunnyvale, California 94086
United States

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

imuslimz.com

Spammed by:

* Imuslimz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Level 4im warning on September 9 2008. * 62.212.74.91 ( talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) back adding the link again today.

Because warnings have been ineffective and user is resorting to IPs request blacklisting. -- SiobhanHansa 15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It's been a week since the request was added and there don't appear to have been any more additions. So I withdraw the request for now. I'll add it back if the spammer returns. -- SiobhanHansa 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

thesufi.com

Spammers

Spammer is now on his second block for adding this link. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 09:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 04:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Adventuresincardiology spam

Spammers

3 blocks, plenty of warnings. MER-C 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I second this. Dancter ( talk) 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Copyvio links

These three sites are scanslation and fansub sites that completely violate WP:COPYRIGHT in providing illegal copies of licensed anime and manga works (in the case of OneManga, they even directly provide the actual licensed versions, not just fan translations). The anime and manga project made a concerted effort a few months back to rip these links out of our articles, and delete the associated templates. However, IPs and others just slowly add them back over time. Having all three blacklisted so that they can't be added at all would seem to be the ideal way to deal with this issue. Due to the copyright violations, and their being fansites, none of them have any redemptive value anywhere in the the project except on their own article (and even then, much like some other similar sites, we discuss but don't link to). -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 13:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done -- needs major link cleanup!!! (>300 links) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

oriflame-cosmetics.com

Link
Spammer
Previous spam report

Over the last two months, this user has been hijacking the company link on the Oriflame article, and replacing it with a link to a retail site that appears to be a distributor for the products of the company. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Note: After this report, the anon added the URL again, and later the newly created user account added it. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Update: Noddy has continued to make multiple reverts to re-insert his spam link. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 04:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

rewards1.com and prizerebel.com

The links have no useful purpose on Wikipedia, and are repeatedly spammed on articles due to their referral programs. Dancter ( talk) 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Tewks Corporation (Princeton) spam

Spam domains

Google Adsense ID: 4579053572796794


Related domains


Spam accounts
  • former Tor exit node


Public domain registration data

Tewks Corporation

PO Box 175
Princeton, New Jersey 08542
United States

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply


footbo.com

The following discussion 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.

Link
Accounts

At least two spam-only accounts and an anon IP have been adding links to this site, which is a social network/UGC site. The website itself is of little use and does not satisfy WP:EL - the stats are covered by much more reliable sources, and player biographies are frequently copyvios of Wikipedia itself, e.g.:

  • Pedro Pelé footbo.com/Players/Pedro_Pele/Wiki/Current_Revision
  • Emanuel Pogatetz footbo.com/Players/Emanuel_Pogatetz/Wiki/Current_Revision
  • David Villa footbo.com/Players/David_Villa/Wiki/Current_Revision
  • Gaël Clichy footbo.com/Players/Gael_Clichy/Wiki/Current_Revision

Should be blacklisted IMO. Qwghlm ( talk) 12:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Blacklist it because it is a social network site and it has no useful information. Hubschrauber729 ( talk) 18:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Don't blacklist. Have some useful and original content. Is gaining a lot of traction in the football field. Also has some strong contributors, including at least two football stars and several top journalists. Some content might be taken from Wikipedia, but it looks like this is completely done by users. Striker2008 ( talk) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC) — Striker2008 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Should not be blacklisted. I added some links as I found this new social network very useful and its community is growing very fast. Should leave links at contributors, such as Michael Ballack, Raphael Honigstein and others. Hubschrauber729 I assume you should not delete these useful links until the dispute is settled. Soccerbabe23 ( talk) 22:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Should be blacklisted; social networking sites are not of use to articles, unless the subject of the article is a notable social networking cite. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Should not be blacklisted, how do you decide what is a notable social networking site? look at this list List_of_social_networking_websites - what makes each site on this list notable? IMO it's a matter of growth that indicates interst. Xtalya ( talk) 07:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC) — Xtalya ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment Two of the three opposers to blacklisting have made no other contribution to Wikipedia except this discussion topic and are most likely sockpuppets; the other is one of the users adding links to this site. Qwghlm ( talk) 08:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't blacklist - I am genuinely trying to write a profile for Footbo, and keep on getting smacked in the face with cods and haddocks, which wouldnt be a problem if i wasnt addressing the issues that are being raised. But i did, I re-wrote, added relevant references and the profile then got an "ok" from a patroller, only to be deleted by another wikipedia user. Not only that, but i feel that those promoting the blacklisting have their own commercial agenda, most likely sockpuppets for other relevant football sites that don't like the idea of another site actually being good. Inspiredminds ( talk) 08:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Oh, please. Site is now blacklisted.  Done OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:58, 25 September 2008 (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.

mugencharacters.ucoz.com

  • plus Added, listed here for logging / transparency. Guy ( Help!) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Policyownersfordemutualization.blogspot.com

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Policyowner

Since 2006, Policyowner and his socks have been pushing his POV and repeatedly adding links to his blog. KnightLago ( talk) 18:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done In the future, you don't have to endure such BS. 4 warnings and it's time to blacklist. Blacklisting usually works much better than blocking when spam's involved. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply


Ochre Media Private Limited

Spammed domains


Related domains


Not blacklisted for now

These have been found useful by regular editors:


Pages deleted as spam


Spam accounts


Previous spam complaint

I am blacklisting these domains because of a persistent spam issue going back to 2007; the site-owner has ignored repeated requests to stop. Some of their material may make useful references, however, so I recommend administrators approve whitelisting requests for links to individual pages when submitted by established, regular editors.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply


 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

nig.gr

nig.gr: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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

On Encyclopedia Dramatica's Talk:Grawp page, it's claimed that this is a redirect to those x.on.nimp shock sites - If so, it should be blocked as a malicious redirect. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

done here, although it was already listed on meta.. -- Versa geek 01:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
nig.gr stole my blacklist? Guy ( Help!) 11:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Why should an entry be added here when it's already on meta? -- Conti| ✉ 12:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

lankapura.com

User page spammers

See WikiProject Spam report. No regard for sockpuppetry policy. MER-C 10:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC) reply

 Done by Beetstra. MER-C 09:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

tanolis.onesite.com

Repeatedly spammed by sockpuppets and IPs of indef-blocked user User:Pakhtun Tanoli (blog contains 'the right version' of the Tanoli article, per his/her POV). -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 15:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I have opened a request at meta [12] because he has also spammed the link at simple wiki and at spanish wiki -- Enric Naval ( talk) 19:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It has been added to meta, you can archive this. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Excellent. Thanks very much. -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 18:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Jed K spam

Domains
  • Already blacklisted

Google Adsense ID 1745586463776725


Related domains


Accounts

-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply


 Done -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

realestatewizkid.com

Accounts

Only seems to be spamming one article but temporary page protection has been tried and now the spammer is back again so asking for blacklisting. -- SiobhanHansa 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply


Related domains
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply


 Done Thanks for reporting this. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC) reply

pokerplayersalliance.org

A large number of links to this site, a poker players' advocacy organisation deeply opposed to control of online poker, have been added to politician biographies. In each case it appears that the text is similar: a couple of sentences sourced to the group's website stating that a group member has blogged or spoken out against the politician. No independent sources are cited, only the negative content about the politician at the site of the organisation originating the negative comment. Example:

* Poker rights blogger Rich Muny, a board member of the one-million member Poker Players Alliance, rated Bachus "F-" on support for poker rights.<ref>http://theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org/congress-and-internet-poker-rights TheEngineer's Blog: Congress and Internet Poker Rights, July 10, 2008]</ref>

As this is a WP:BLP issue and the user has repeatedly reinserted the links and text, I have temporarily blacklisted. We now need to decide whether the site should stay blacklisted. It is an advocacy group seeking to redefine poker as a game of skill in order to avoid gambling controls, and does not appear to be a reliable source for anything other than itself. The idea of including, in political biographies, a pressure group's assessment of the politician's status as a supporter of poker "rights" seems to me to be unsupportable. Guy ( Help!) 08:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

This fantasically ridiculous. Remove the blacklist immediately. Adding a link to a blacklist over a stupid edit war is absurd. This is a major organization supported by literally thousands of reliable sources, as anyone can check in two seconds. 2005 ( talk) 10:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
You appear not to have read the above. The listing is at this point temporary to control a fairly widespread WP:BLP abuse issue, and more importantly the only article other than these biographies from which this advocacy organisation's site is linked, is the article on the organisation itself. There is no collateral damage, the only articles affected are the ones where soapboxing was being inserted. The organisation has an article, that is not being deleted, what is in dispute is the relevance of that advocacy organisation as a source of encyclopaedic content. Thus far I have yet to find an instance where its use as a source was appropriate, other than its own article. Guy ( Help!) 11:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
False. I already had to fix an inappropriate edit you made, which was a statement of what the organization claimed about itself. So your statement is plainly false. Your opinion of its appropriateness of the links is irrelevant. That is for a discussion, not for you to judge by fiat. Your statement that this is an "emergency" is utterly absurd, as the editor adding the links has only done so in ONE article in the past ten days! Remove the block immediately, and follow proper procedures please. Warn the USER, or even block the user. "Spam" blocking the organization becuase of one editor who seldom edits is absurd. 2005 ( talk) 11:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:ABF much? I whitelisted the "about" page just now. I can edit and save the article. So, to address the statement you say is false, which article links to this organisation's website, other than the article on the organisation itself? The linksearch above suggests there are none, the only articles I found that linked to the website were biographies where the inappropriate advocacy had been introduced by the single-purpose account. This has been posted for review on the admin noticeboard (I did it at the same time as I took this action), blacklisting seems to be the lightest-touch way of controlling the problem. No articles protected, no users blocked, only one article with valid links and those whitelisted. What's the problem that needs fixing here? Guy ( Help!) 11:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
What are you talking about? You know very well about the online poker article. You just edited it! Now, the single purpose account is an issue with 'that. And the point is the domain now can't be added to articles where it should be. Blacklisting the domain makes no sense at all. Take action against the user, or that specific subdomain, not the main domain. What is the problem with that? 2005 ( talk) 11:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I have to agree with 2005, the designation of the PPA as "It is an advocacy group seeking to redefine poker as a game of skill in order to avoid gambling controls" is incorrect, as per Baxter v. United States poker already is defined as a game of skill. The PPA represents a lobby in the interests of the individual rights of poker players (its chairmanship features a combination of Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians) that includes the legalisation of online poker, and the lawful regulation of said poker so as to prevent criminal enterprise.
Don't use a cannon to kill a mosquito, in this case blacklisting an entire website from wikipedia due to the actions of a single SPA on a single wikipedia page. If you can point me to any precedent of such a measure other than simply sprotecting the article and blocking the users involved I would like to see it. –– Lid( Talk) 12:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I think you're missing the point. The links in the article on the group are still there, there are no other links anywhere in Wikipedia following the removal of the WP:BLP / WP:UNDUE violations. Where is anyone being prevented from adding reliable independent sources by this blacklisting? I see no evidence of that. No articles are protected, no users blocked, no encyclopaedic edits prevented. This seems quite low impact to me. Where are you suggesting that this site should be linked? Guy ( Help!) 14:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Why don't we simply change the blacklist entry from *.pokerplayersalliance.org to theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org? As far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with the Poker Players Alliance itself. -- Conti| ✉ 14:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Exactly. We don't block wordpress because somenut.wordpress.com spams his blog. It's a simple solution that if there was discussion beforehand would have been easy to come to.
You know the site was legitimately, non-spam linked from the online poker article. Similarly you know it could have been linked from the Annie Duke article as was suggested on the talk page before you removed it. "Duke testified before Congress on behalf of the Poker Players Alliance..." and then a ref to her full testimony would be logical. Similar comments could be in many articles. Likewise refs or external links regarding a lawsuit or legislation the PPA supports could be valid links. Your argument that spam blocking it is okay because it has not been heavily linked realy is about as backwards logic as possible. Now there are at least three editors who think this a bad idea and only you supporting it, so just change it to the logical action to block the "theengineer" subdomain and we can move on. 2005 ( talk) 21:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Um, for values of "legitimately"£ that fall outside of the actual values of legitimate. We don't link advocacy sites like that. And we don't use provocative edit summaries to reinsert material on advocacy sites sourced from the sites themselves, we use reliable independent sources. Guy ( Help!) 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I've been bold and modified the blacklist entry accordingly. The only site that was spammed was theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org, and I don't see a reason to blacklist more than that. -- Conti| ✉ 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. 2005 ( talk) 23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't believe that it was only theengineer subdomain that was abused. I've also found a blog, which I'll add now. Guy ( Help!) 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
Sounds fine by me. My point was that theengineer.pokerplayersalliance.org was the only subdomain of pokerplayersalliance.org that was used for spamming. -- Conti| ✉ 18:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
But I don't think it was. However, I have to wade through a bunch of diffs to confirm or exclude that impression. Guy ( Help!) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I've just checked all the reverts you made on various articles, and the theengineer blog was used in all of them. The blog you also blacklisted was used as a reference two or three times, and only once was pokerplayersalliance.org itself used as a source [13]. And in that case, it actually seems relevant. I'm not saying that the reference should be reinserted, since I'm not sure how much of a reliable source it is, but it was definitely not spam. -- Conti| ✉ 13:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed removals Information

MyOyVey

Why has myoyvey been removed from the Yiddish articles, and put on spam block since the website is all about Yiddish-- Java7837 ( talk) 02:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Stale
    and also not the right venue, it's on the Meta blacklist. Guy ( Help!) 10:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

telogis.com

Requesting white-listing for usage in the article Telogis -- bapinney ( talk) 04:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Any idea why it was blacklisted? I understand the domain was hijacked at one point, but it is valid right now. Guy ( Help!) 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • no Declined due to lack of reply. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

ezinearticles.com

I'm not really sure why this domain is blacklisted. I wanted to add a link to one of their articles to the entry on Account for profits, only to be informed that the site tripped the spam filter. I was able to find another copy of the article I needed, but I still don't understand why it is necessary to blacklist this whole domain. -- Eastlaw ( talk) 21:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

See m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05#ezinearticles.com, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#ezinearticles.com links and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar#Spamming through ezinearticles.com to Wikipedia: James B. Allen spam for why I think it's unlikely to be removed. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply
 Not done Stifle ( talk) 15:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

www.vincent-van-gogh-gallery.org

Can you please help us remove the block of the www.vincent-van-gogh-gallery.org and revert the edit on the Van Gogh site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmuseums ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Blacklisted globally because of m:User:COIBot/XWiki/anderszorn.org. Requesting user is the one who added the links. You need to go here to request unblacklisting. MER-C 04:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Or request local whitelisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, but you'll need to provide a strong reason. Stifle ( talk) 15:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • no Declined since the requester is the same spammer that got the site blacklisted in the first place. (shakes head in disbelief). Guy ( Help!) 21:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

sexhealthguru.com

According to Siobhan, we were blacklisted because after a warning was issued to me (user jrsvc), additional links that were considered spam were added to the website by other IP address. These IP addresses belong to employees of my company, and that linking activiy was not intended as malicious or disruptive - my content editors thought they were legitimate additions. More importantly though, none of the people who made those additions had seen the warning issued to me - the edits that were made after the notice to stop were made by people who weren't logged in and therefore never saw the notice.

I log-in infrequently, and didn't see the warning until well afterwards. Once I saw the notice to stop, I did, and I made sure that everyone in my company understands that they are not to made additional posts to wikipedia. I think our site has value, and offers something different to Wikipedia readers interested in sexual health. We have the largest library of health videos on the web (nearly 1,000 titles, viewed over 150 million times this year, which is about 15x the closest competitor in health video). We are also the only health company that's exclusively focused on providing health information to 18 to 40 year olds, in a media format (video, application, etc.) which really takes advantage of how that generation actually uses the web. Sexhealthguru represents less than 20% of our video library. Our next website, Pregnancy Health Guru, will feature over 100 videos from doctors on pregancy - far and away the largest on-line library of its kind.

I'd like to think that users will find us to be a valuable resource, and that we'll be added organicall to wikipedia - plus, to be very honest, I really do not want the blacklist affecting my search engine status, which is external to Wikipedia.

I'd appreciate it if you would recind the black list on sexhealthguru.com I assure you that you'll have no additional problems of any sort from us. Thanks Jrsvc ( talk) 12:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but at this time your request has been no Declined. If there are parts of your website that qualify as " reliable sources" then editors can request specific pages on your site to be whitelisted. --- J.S ( T/ C/ WRE) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply

www.LiveAdmins.com

The following discussion 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.

I am Paul Aucoin, a representative of LiveAdmins here on wikipedia for the proposed removal of the domain LiveAdmins from the spam list.

Our site appears on this archive::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_1

We accept our mistake. Due to the in-subordinate behavior of an employee in the content distribution section, our domain was listed in as spamming. We are a successful running business and Wikipedia is a reputable knowledge base, so being black listed here doesn't reflect well on our business. The employee no longer remains with the company and we ensure that nothing like this will happen again.

The name WebGreeter is owned by LiveAdmins LLC for its greeter service.

The employee made external links to the posted content and the content was too not on wikipedia's standards. The external link was made to a newsletter on our domain. We request that our site be un-listed from this spam list.

Paul Aucoin,

Media Services.

LiveAdmins LLC.

Paul.Aucoin.la ( talk) 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC) reply

LiveAdmins is a self promoting business entity, that does its own promotions utilizing white hat methods, but for this one account, an employee made repeated mistakes. We would like his contributions towards Wikipedia be rejected altogether, i.e. deleted and the name of LiveAdmins be removed from the spam list. The knowledge center of LiveAdmins will be improved with non-promotion content and then if required external links according to wikipedia's standards will be made.

Paul.Aucoin.la ( talk) 02:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Note regarding reason for request: Paul.Aucoin has posted more to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 September 12#re-posted......Yes i would like some information. There are currently no external links he wants added to Wikipedia. Among other things he wrote "We want to improve our standing on the internet and being blacklisted on something as important as wikipedia takes us back on more then a hundred years of clean effort." PrimeHunter ( talk) 12:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank You for this modification.

Paul.Aucoin.la ( talk) 15:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • no Declined - first, we don't generally remove links from the blacklist on the request of the site owner, second, you have not said where such a link would be of legitimate encyclopaedic use. This is an encyclopaedia, not a link farm or SEO service. If you want a link repository you could try the Open Directory Project which exists for exactly that purpose. Guy ( Help!) 17:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply


Well first, i am not the site owner, i am a working in the media services of this company. Secondly it was some worker from this organization because of which we were black-listed in the first place. "you have not said where such a link would be of legitimate encyclopaedic use" could you please elaborate this line because its still a lot confusing. We respect Wikipedia as a knowledge resource and would like to amend all wrongs in all ways possible.

Paul.Aucoin.la ( talk) 06:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

If you are mentioning us being listed on dmoz dot org, we already are. The entire idea that started this thing was that we have a novel service by the name of webgreeter i.e. web greeter. We wanted to have a definition of web greeter on wikipedia. The external links therefore caused the problem.We would like to request you now that all content externally linked to Liveadmins domain should be removed and a second chance should be provided to correct or wrongs. Please consider our request.

Paul.Aucoin.la ( talk) 07:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Still no Declined. All the reasons you give are great reasons why you would want to have links in Wikipedia, but do not address the reasons why we would. Guy ( Help!) 22:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Sir with all due respect our conversation is not synchronized. I am just elaborating the thing and according to our knowledge how it went bad. Now we want to fix this, and are asking you to tell us how to fix it. We do not want to have any links in wikipedia at the moment. We want to start over, with a clean slate and then following the correct guidelines make the definition submission again which is still missing from wikipedia. We will do what ever you ask of us to fix this problem. I am still not clear on the line you wrote down in the previous post " but do not address the reasons why we would.". What reasons are these that your are talking about, is it that

you want to have links to us in wikipedia. or that you want a reason why we should be un-listed.

Paul.Aucoin.la ( talk) 07:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • It's like this. Your site was spammed. The spammer was then said to be "an employee" who is "now terminated". Now you come here as a representative of the firm and ask us to remove you from the blacklist. And when we probe a bit we find that what you really want is for the advertisementarticle that was created on your company, to be reinstated. If I had a pound for every time we've been round that loop... The bottom line here is that the reasons you give for your request are all about how removal would benefit you and do not address at all the reasons the site was blacklisted or how removal would benefit us. Sorry, but that's how it is. Wikipedia is not a company directory and not a link farm, we are not part of your company's SEO, we are not here to be part of your marketing efforts. The blacklist feature exists to control abuse, abuse happened, it is being controlled. You say it would no longer be a problem? Maybe you are right, but we've been bitten somewhat too often to take that at face value. Guy ( Help!) 10:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply


Sir , thats where you are getting it wrong. We have on our part digged deeper on how this mishap took place and found ourselves at a mistake. Putting up a definition of what a webgreeter is on wikipedia is perfectly legal but the way that one person "our ex-employee" carried on with activities was shocking even to us. We don't want the content re-instated, we want it removed. We are not appealing for any sort of links. I understand your concern that you might have come across bad experiences in the past, but there has to be an alternate to fixing this. We on our part are willing to do everything that we can to fix this. How about a suggestion, you can put us through a test, monitor our behavior and if we adhere to all the guidelines you can them proceed with the removal. I know i am not in the position to negotiate but we are trying our level best. The company has nothing to do with spam, or promoting it in anyway. All activities that were ever carried out in the 7 year history are legal and nothing like this has ever happened.

Paul.Aucoin.la ( talk) 07:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply


As far as the reasons of the blacklisting are concerned, what we have found so far are that external links were provided to non-helpful and possibly promotion based content and as for what will wikipedia gain from delisting us, well i am not sure on this. This is because wikipedia is a very powerful information resource which is related to commercialism in no way. Therefore liveadmins is just an entry for you on your spam list and there could possibly be no benefit in removing it. If you see any possible way in which we could even in the remotest way possible be helpful, please do let us know.

Paul.Aucoin.la ( talk) 07:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for your time, but there is still no reason here to remove an abused link from the list. We have recently taken steps to ensure that web crawlers which honour robots.txt do not index these pages and debates, so any collateral damage should tail off rapidly. I think we're done here. Guy ( Help!) 13:15, 22 September 2008 (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.
I understand your concern, and thank you for listening to me. I was expecting a little co-operation though still no hard feelings. We still respect Wikipedia and apologize on our behalf. On my behalf thank you for listening to me.

Regards, Paul Aucoin LA

Paul.Aucoin.la ( talk) 07:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

www.israelinphotos.com

For some reason This site seems to have been blocked, that i've found while trying to add an external link (photo gallery: "israelinphotos.com/gallery2-Augusta-Victoria.htm" to the term Augusta Victoria and it's just one of the many terms on wikipedia that lacks information (mostly pictures) that could be found on israelinphotos.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myariv ( talk • contribs)

information Note:This link was blacklisted at meta after it was spammed to multiple Wikipedias( [14]) so cannot be removed here. The request for delisting would need to be made at meta. However given that your only edits other than this request have been to add the link to articles (an action for which you received a message asking you not to continue) it seems unlikely your request would be granted. We encourage editors to add photos for which they own copyright to Commons so they can be used directly in articles and add to generally available free content. In general external links to the site would do little to help Wikipedia in its mission to build a GFDL encyclopedia. -- SiobhanHansa 18:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • no Declined per above. Guy ( Help!) 16:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/b14

It seems that the aboutmyarea domain is on the blacklist and I don't understand why. These are all community-run websites, with local information placed there by local people. If you want Wikipedia to be able to link to community information in entries about UK localities, then the AboutMyArea site is a valuable resource. Other sites like BBC or the local council are all OK for links, so the local community site should be OK too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kings Heath community webmaster ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The problem with this site are not that the information is not suitable, the problem was that there were several accounts whose only goal was to add links to this site ( link pushing). If you have specific links which are suitable on specific pages, I suggest you request whitelisting of those specific links. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
I thought there was also an issue with the links themselves. The prior request to de-blacklist and the only request to whitelist that I could find were both declined. Given the replies on those requests, I would suspect that dmoz may be the better way to link to these sites. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
no Declined, not a reliable source. Stifle ( talk) 14:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC) reply

petitiononline.com

Apparently this domain is marked as spam and I'm not sure what the reason might be. I was trying to add (POL)/STOPCB/petition.html to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bangle page. TIA Stemel ( talk) 17:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

The petitions themselves don't act as reliable sources; if the petition has resulted in any changes, then it would likely be reported in a news service - which would be far more appropriate link to use as a reference. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes... still don't get why it was blacklisted and why it is not admissible in the "External Links" section.. sure, we're talking of BMW designers, so who cares, however I do believe that the link, as unreliable as it may be, is still _relevant_ to the subject and, more importantly, I don't understand why that website is banned. Stemel ( talk) 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • no Declined. The request is a classic example of why the site is blacklisted, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not for attracting signatories to online petitions, especially ones which say Please [...] fire [name of article subject redacted], and DO NOT allow him to design [ruin] any more of your wonderful BMWs - that would be a gross violation of WP:BLP and anyone adding such a link would be liable to be blocked outright. Lucky it's blacklisted, really :-) Guy ( Help!) 13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply

ehow.com

I tried to add http://www.ehow.com/how_2123610_host-star-wars-marathon.html as a reference to the Star Wars marathon article. I'm not sure why the link was not permitted, as I could not see eHow listed on the Spam blacklist. Interestingly the website seems permitted on the eHow article itself! -- JediLofty Talk to me Follow me 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Good grief. Even if that article is kept, a link on "how to host a Star Wars marathon" is not really the kind of thing we are looking for, I think. Guy ( Help!) 21:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Really? There were some interesting elements in the eHow page that are pertinent to the article. -- JediLofty Talk to me Follow me 08:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • YA RLY. External links are there to support the content with detail that would be incuded if it ever became a great article, but Wikipedia is not a howto, not even a howto for the really tricky things like, you know, watching all the Star Wars movies back to back. Guy ( Help!) 10:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
If you think that a specific document on ehow.com is an appropriate reference, then please request whitelisting of that specific link. I am sorry, but the whole domain is not removed because of one link, there are too many problems with the site. As such, no Declined. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

www.modern-war.suite101.com

While trying to update the number of Russian soldiers killed during the Battle for Hill 3234 I got a Spam notice that a portion of my reference was blacklisted, my reference was www.modern-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/composition_of_forces_at_hill_3234 while the blacklisted portion was www.modern-war.suite101.com I ask that at least the reference not be blacklisted because as it is the article gives inacurate information stating that 6 soldiers died during the battle based on an outdated source, while my reference confirms that actualy 9 soldiers were killed (including their names). Thank you for listening. Guyver85 ( talk) 03:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC) reply

  • That does not appear to be a reliable source, however well-researched. What sources does the page cite for its figures? Those sources may be reliable. Guy ( Help!) 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • no Declined due to lack of reply. Consider listing at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist if you just want to use one page. Stifle ( talk) 11:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

www.vuze.com

Cannot add official site for Vuze (client) page under external links without delisting. At least delist it for that page. Thanks! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Deferwhite It was heavily spammed before (see [15]) so de-blacklisting leaves us wide open to further attacks. Suggest requesting the exact page(s) you need at the whitelist instead. -- SiobhanHansa 11:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you. I've done that. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Hmm, I've just had a look at the initial report, and I don't see the spamming. Actually, I don't see any spamming whatsoever. I've looked at about half of the edits of the IP's listed, and not a single external link was added by those IPs. Special:Contributions/60.52.74.63 was listed, for example. What on earth do those edits have to do with spamming? They look like helpful contributions to me. -- Conti| ✉ 11:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
My reading of the report is that it's edits like these - [16] [17] [18] [19] - that were the initial link additions that were spamming. The edits by 60.52.74.63 cleaned up those initial edits and the similarity of the IP address -given the edits as well- is an indication that it is the same editor under a moving IP. Which is one common pattern seen in link promotion (and other editing).
Certainly several of the editors mentioned in the report seemed simply to be adding the official site to the Vuze page - which is unlikely to be spamming. And it seems the problem is with people promoting things published through Vuze rather than Vuze trying to promote themselves on the Vuze page. -- SiobhanHansa 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Ah, I missed those edits, thanks. I still don't see much of a spam problem, tho, only a few articles were spammed. Anyhow, those edits were made a year ago, so I think we can remove that entry now. We could always readd it if someone starts to spam that URL again to those few articles. -- Conti| ✉ 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
 Stale Stifle ( talk) 11:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

badastronomy.com

This site seems to have been inadvertently blocked due to the domain badastronomy.info being used as linkspam. Badastronomy.com is used as a reference source in several wikipedia articles and deserves to be unblocked. See Phil Plait#Badastronomy.com for a description of the site. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 10:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Currently badastronomy.com redirects to http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/ Can the discovermagazine.com URL not be used instead? Generally we shouldn't use redirected URLs. -- SiobhanHansa 17:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply
While a blog is equally questionable maybe closing this as no Declined, no point in delisting something that is a redirect. -- Herby talk thyme 11:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The Discover magazine website only has the most recent badastronomy articles (March 2005 and later). Articles written prior to that are still on the old site. The old homepage is at <domain>/bad/index.html. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 23:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I am restoring this discussion from the archives because I feel that it is not yet resolved. -- Lasunncty ( talk) 10:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Maybe a whitelist request is then more in place for <domain>/bad/index.html, as the rest of the site is a redirect? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It's blacklisted on meta (not here) as a Universe Daily spam site. You'd need to go to the meta blacklist if it is now (or always was) in the right hands. Right now it redirects to blogs.doscovermagazine.com. Guy ( Help!) 12:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  •  Defer to Global blacklist Stifle ( talk) 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

www.aceshowbiz.com

Please take this site of the blacklist. I would like to add the page of Maroon5 Biography in the site to references in jp:マルーン5. -- 121.83.95.168 ( talk) 12:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Can we add this to "perennial requests"? It's not going to be removed any time soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.128.74 ( talk) 15:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

How long do I have to wait？　 58.190.13.144 ( talk) 13:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Taking a site off this blacklist should not make a difference to the jp.wikipedia site. You should check if the site is listed on the local jp blacklist or at meta:Spam_blacklist and make a request at the appropriate talk page. If all you need is one url from the wite you might ask for local whitelisting on jp instead - more likely to be granted than removal of an entire domain that's been spammed. -- SiobhanHansa 17:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I realized that I was wrong. I should have gone to meta. Thank you so much. -- 58.188.155.182 ( talk) 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn. Stifle ( talk) 09:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Lost the game

I tried to add a link to www.losethegame.com on the wiki page for the Game. I understand that people may add this link in to spam other pages, but for the actual website of the game, it's perfectly valid. Is there any way to make an exception? PloKoon13 ( talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It's not really the "actual website of the game", since it's not an online game and it doesn't even have an official publisher/creator as far as I can see. This site is a site about the game, though it does claim and appear to have objective information about it. At most, specific pages on the site could be a citations for specific content on the WP page. I wonder if there are alternate sources (maybe the site in question provides leads)? DMacks ( talk) 16:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, gotcha. I'll see if there are other websites around, but I think that one is as close as an 'official' website the game is going to get. :P PloKoon13 ( talk) 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Not everything has to have an official website. Mr. Z-man 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC) reply
As one of the largest 'the game' fansites it might be useful to include www.losethegame.com as an external link on The Game (mind game). - Icewedge ( talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply
No, we don't include random fansites. Guy ( Help!) 11:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
An examination of the site in question reveals that (1) the content is quite limited and useless to Wikipedia and (2) the "Strategies" section includes a downloadable Firefox plugin for vandalizing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply
no Declined. Stifle ( talk) 15:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

members.aol.com

When I first became a Wikipedia editor, I added very-pertinent "External links" to articles, which were hosted at "members.aol.com/..." - However, they were reverted by a bot (which, by the way, has since been shut down). Also, I noticed that this page contains an "External link" to one of those sites. [20]

The web page that I want to link to was created by an individual, and was featured at LewRockwell.com, shortly thereafter. It is directly pertinent to this existing Wikipedia article, and would make an ideal addition, to the "External links" section there.

I also tried to do a search (it was a little difficult) on the global blacklist, and while hometown.aol.com was list, members.aol.com was not. Has this been removed from the "blacklist"? If not, ihow can exceptions be made?

This web page is a widely-read resource, dedicated to that book. Thanks, Pacificus ( talk) 05:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2008&oldid=1109330379"