MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2009

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

Proposed additions

Personal website

Jkositcin (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) keeps adding their personal website (www.canberrastreetlights.webs.com) and has done so using IP's in the past (under different domains[1] [2]) with warning always going unnoticed. Having started Wiki by adding my own site years ago (I believe back in 2006) when I was informed that I couldn't add a person site I asked why and learnt from that but this editor has been persistent and clearly ignoring the warnings. Bidgee (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added. There may be some uses for this site here, but if so, pages can be whitelisted one at a time as requested by regular editors. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


allbeerblog.com

Domains:

Related domains:

Accounts:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


madden-school.com

Domain:

Related domain:

Accounts:

Spam page:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


powersportszone.com

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


mobilefleetservices.net

Domain:

Related domain:

Account:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


mumbaiside.com

  • Google AdSense ID: 8087461422250027

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


engineers-excel.com

Domain:

Google AdSense ID: 3368126634848274

Accounts

LinkAssessment: [4] --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


bruceblinds.co.uk

Domain:

Related domain:

Possibly related domain:

One of the IPs, 82.45.56.110, added this link several weeks after spamming a bruceblinds.co.uk link. This link was heavily abused by other IPs and will be submitted here in a separate request.

Accounts:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added bruceblinds.co.uk and bruceblinds.com --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Replica handbags spam

Domains:

Account:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


familyext.net

Spam domains

Spam account:

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 May 2009

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Spamalot spam

Domains

Google AdSense ID: 3379101039655138


Related domains

There are hundreds more if one digs:


Accounts


Reference

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive May#Spamalot --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


theofficialboard.com

links
Accounts

The link has been re-inserted by the anon, and removed by multiple editors over the past 1.5 months. The user was blocked for 31 hours on May 7th for spamming the link, and returned today to add it yet again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also spammed:
Cross-wiki accounts:
Reference:
Related domains (same server):
 Defer to Global blacklist --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now blacklisted on Meta.[6] --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


More cypher-zone.com spam

Previous blacklisting entry:

More domains subsequently spammed:

Additional Google AdSense ID: 3074622278821659

Related domain:

Spam accounts:

Deleted spam page:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


123Decal spam

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


lisakelsey.com spam

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Organized Change Consultancy Inc. (San Diego) spam

Spam domain:

Related domain:

Account

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


More accounts:
Deleted articles:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


focconline.com

  • Google AdSense ID: 4503785428773206

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


wholesale-shoes-store.com

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


cure-tinnitus-guide.blogspot.com

Refers to:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional IP:
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


hypergamer.net

Spam domains:

Spam articles:

Spam account:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


onlinepharmacylinks.com

Spam accounts
Spam article

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


myspace.com/prophecytrackz

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

allidietpill.us

This link has been repeatedly added to orlistat by various Pakistani IPs over the last few months. Deli nk (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts:
Related domain:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


lionballmotor.com

Spam domains:

Related domains:

Account:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


longislandstart.net

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


greysanatomywatch.info

More Adult Friend Finder referral spam from New Zealand.

Spam domains:

URL redirects used for referral spam:

Previously reported and blacklisted:

Related domain:

Spam accounts: Spam accounts:


Previous reports:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


sleaklight - oscarorihu spam

Spam domains:

refers to:
redirects to:
redirects to:
refers to:

Related domains:

Possibly related domains (same server):

Spam accounts:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Lizzyc3 spam

Spam domains:

Google AdSense ID: 9801623333618188

Related domains:

Spam accounts

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Putinbayonline.com spam

putinbayonline.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

This site has constantly been spammed at South Bass Island by a range of IPs and the occasional new editor; see a few recent examples of the dozens of occurrences here, here, here, and here, or you can simply view the history of the article because it's pretty much all spam.

About a month ago the similar website ohio-put-in-bay.com was blocked for spamming, and many related sites have been blocked in the past. It appears all these websites are produced by a website developer at charleskreed.com. Extended discussion at Talk:South Bass Island and Talk:Put-in-Bay, Ohio has opposed the inclusion of this link. Administrators User:Bkonrad, User:Rhobite, and User:Nyttend have been involved and tried semiprotection in the past, but spamming resumes as soon as the semiprotection is off. --NormanEinstein (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, charleskreed.com is just the web site designer; I think the problem lies with the sites' owner, Edgewater Investments (affiliated with the Edgewater Hotel). This is based on several hours of looking at whois data, IPs, e-mail addresses, Google searches, etc. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 years of Edgewater Hotel (Put in Bay, Ohio) spam on Wikipedia

A cheesy, unsavory approach to marketing your businesses:

Spam domains


Related domains


Spam accounts
Domain registration
Edgewater Investment Group. Inc.
PO Box 267
Put In Bay, OH 43456
US
References:
See also:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, A.B., for tackling this and for being so thorough with the research. --NormanEinstein (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More spam today:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added putinbayattractions.com. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


canadiancrc.com

Multiple IPs and users (e.g. User:Smith research, User:69.172.85.86, User:67.204.1.129, User:S-MorrisVP, User:JaniceMT, User:69.172.84.98, User:69.172.112.194, User:67.204.59.249 and others have been adding links to copyrighted newspaper, and other media/documents that this activist group hosts on their website over a long period of time. In addition to the copyright issues is the spammy way they go about this: editors add the articles hosted on their website rather than the original legitimate source, and even change legitimate links to similar articles hosted there. Some of the articles have portions highlighted to point out the "important" parts of the article per CCRC. There are COI [14]and sockpuppet issues[15], and User:S-MorrisVP was recently blocked for edit warring with other IPs assisting her. User:WLU and I (to a lesser extent) have being going around deleting and/or properly linking various examples, so there are less now that there were. Blacklisting canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/ would at least stop most of the copyright infringement problem. Not sure if this is possible or desirable, but thought I would ask.

--Slp1 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where possible, I've removed CCRC "summaries" and replaced with the link to the actual document ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). The number of times I've had to do this suggests that someone was spamming the CCRC version as preferred.
complex 20:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm also concerned about this, although it's important that the main website still be linkable in the article about the organization itself. If it's not accepted here (although this subsection is 100% copylink concerns), then this might be a good candidate for XLinkBot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Existing links will be "grandfathered" in place unless deleted.
These people have certainly been a disruptive plague on our project:
  1. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of S-MorrisVP
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive98#User:67.204.1.129 and S-MorrisVP reported by WLU (Result: 24h)
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive99#JaniceMT reported by WLU (Result: 31h)
  4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive393#Children's rights
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive537#User: S-MorrisVP
  6. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive540#Apparent threats ("We know who you are, by the way")
  7. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Canadian Children's Rights Council
  8. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 23#S-MorrisVP
  9. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JaniceMT/Archive
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


workaversionmf.bravehost.com

Site has been spammed to the

original research. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


GCH Solutions (Malaysia) spam

Spam domain
  • Google AdSense ID: 9709147048303550


Related domains
  • Google AdSense ID: 1897626331430771

adsenserevenue.blogspot.com}} adsenserevenue2u.blogspot.com}}

  • Google AdSense ID: 9709147048303550
  • Google AdSense ID: 1333083902234195
  • Google AdSense ID: 1397246789040147
  • Google AdSense ID: 2998218343365303
  • Google AdSense ID: 7925061275844795
  • Google AdSense ID4957537674986951
  • Google AdSense ID3844952858841506
  • Google AdSense ID: 9969833705315444
  • Google AdSense ID: 9709147048303550
  • Google AdSense ID: 0758222948753174
  • Google AdSense ID: 1283244843712249
  • Google AdSense ID: 9709147048303550
  • Google AdSense ID: 1397246789040147
  • Google AdSense ID:4957537674986951
some pages redirect to:
  • Google AdSense ID: 9969833705315444
  • Google AdSense ID: 9709147048303550
  • Google AdSense ID: 9614024080649860
  • Google AdSense ID: 9709147048303550
  • Site down
  • Google AdSense ID: 1397246789040147
  • Google AdSense ID: 9709147048303550
  • Google AdSense ID: 2598213574183961
  • Google AdSense ID: 9770792196970228
  • Google AdSense ID: 0578211723640364
  • Google AdSense ID: 9709147048303550
  • Google AdSense ID: 7925061275844795
  • Google AdSense ID: 6673071939466991
  • Google AdSense ID: 6253096844076995
  • Google AdSense ID: 6595522404813398
  • Google AdSense ID: 7161551316226501
  • Google AdSense ID: 6887620651959854
  • Google AdSense ID6887620651959854


Accounts


Public domain registration
gch solutions
64, 2nd Floor, Lorong Tembikai 1,
Kawasan Perniagaan Sg, Rambai,
Bukit Mertajam
Penang,14000
MY

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


medpharmacy.stimulhosting.com spam

Spam domains:

Related domains:

Sharing the medpharmacy.stimulhosting.com server and not yet blacklisted:

Sharing the same customer service phone numbers: (646) 205-2937 and/or (866) 417-5821:

Accounts
Earlier report

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


CaveCash Entertainment spam

Google AdSense ID: 8176133252090422

Related domains:

Account:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


OneGlobal News Network spam

Spam domains:

Related domains:

Account:

Deleted material:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


netswebdesign.com

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gondwanastudios.com

User added 39+ links to their own website which sells models of the dinosaurs the articles were about.    7   talk | Δ |   07:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined -- user has received one warning. Let's see if that stops him. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gotrekking.org

Links
Accounts

Ongoing spamming, beyond multiple warnings. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference:
Also spammed:
Related domains:
More IPs
Cross-wiki:
Good catch, Barek.
 Defer to Global blacklist --A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


All domains now blacklisted on meta per meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/gotrekking.cl --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


pulsemusic.proboards.com

A highly used forum to "verify" album sales. Forums are not

reliable sources and should not be used in articles. Since they are used as references, User:XLinkBot does not revert the addition of this site, and it was suggested to bring it here. — Σxplicit 00:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

 Done There's been similar issues with forums and self-published sites used as sources for record sales; see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2008#ukmix.org.2Fforums and MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#worldwidealbums.net. Spellcast (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adjix.com/e912.atu.ca in Windows Registry

Multiple IP's keep re-inserting a link to http: //adjix.com/665w in the Windows Registry article. Not getting the message despite 2 week bans on IP; edit warring to keep spam in article.Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adjix.com is also being spammed to Spyware, Weight loss and Six Flags. --Zundark (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that adjix.com is just an advertising supported link shortening service like tinyurl.com. The top level domain adjix.com cannot be completely blacklisted, adding the spam links to the blacklist though. Mfield (Oi!) 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done specific links blacklisted, not blacklisting adjix.com top level domain as is link shortening service with valid uses. Mfield (Oi!) 17:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

phishcops.com spam

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian disease spam

Persistent dynamic IP spam, 12 spammers so far. See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 11:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More domains
  • newly spammed
Google AdSense ID: 7652081594934001


IPs
  • This IP is Japanese; all of the others are Ukrainian, which makes me think this may be an open proxy or a zombie PC
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
92.113.174.119 (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)
I'll take this to meta. MER-C 08:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisted at meta. MER-C 06:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


paypal.com/mrb/pal

Resolved
 – Appears the second entry was added after the most recent linkspam entry, but before this report was made. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're still having a problem with users adding links adding referal data to the PayPal article (example).

The odd part is that the blacklist already contains the following entries: 

\bpaypal\.com/(?:c2|row|us)/mrb/pal
\bpaypal\.com/mrb/pal

My guess is that the above two entries in the blacklist require \b at the end of each line, but I'm not an expert at Regex, so maybe there's a different issue here? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update, it appears that the second of the above two mentioned entries were added after the most recent linkspam entry ... a quick test in my sandbox indicates that it worked, so no action required here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Paypal_referrals, this link has been spammed on more projects so I have requested global blacklisting. EdBever (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


forums.flopofthepops.com

Seems that

reliable sources and should not be used in articles (more information regarding this issue can be found above). — Σxplicit 06:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

 Done Since the IP continued adding it after a block, it's now been added to the blacklist and the block extended. Spellcast (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals

newenergytimes.com

Resolved
 – Site removed from blacklist per the consensus below. ViridaeTalk 03:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site was added to the blacklist, originally without discussion or evidence other than a mention in a "courtesy notice," about lenr-canr.org, that "newenergytimes.com seems to be apart of the same problem." There was no apparent declared basis for the listing of NET other than an alleged fringe POV bias. (The copyright violation argument made with respect to lenr-canr.org, which might be considered to "rub off" on NET -- i.e., similar arguments could be made because they do republish material published elsewhere, sometimes -- has been discredited.) The site is notable, and was previously used as an external link in

talk) 15:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Support delisting. The admin who added it to the blacklist has been involved in content disputes involving the topic and is currently the subject of an RfC for exactly such admin actions while involved. I haven't seen any evidence that the link was used for spamming. While there may be differences of opinion about whether to include the link in various places, those are content decisions, not to be decided by blacklisting. Arbcom has decided "In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual" (Fringe science). (involved editor)(23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to vote either way, as I am too involved in previous requests regarding this site. There is a minor (cross-wiki) spam case on newenergytimes, but that one is, though it looked promotional, really not a large enough scale problem to allow blacklisting of this site (5-6 additions cross wiki, and we are not talking about the meta blacklist anyway).
Newenergytimes.com and lenr-canr.org contain freely available copies of documents. Due to the nature of such sites, they may show a preference (see [WP:UNDUE]]) for certain information (without the site maintainer being able to do something about that). the main problems being, that the only documents on such sites are those documents copyright could be transferred for (where certain authors or journals are more willing to transfer copyright, and generally, journals with a higher citation index will have more problems transferring the copyright), and only documents which the site maintainer knows existence of (in good faith, I presume they have a full overview), &c.,&c.
That said, for these two links, there have been editors who have shown a massive preference for using documents on this site, while I have the feeling that they hardly linked to the original literature. From that point-of-view, I do believe that blacklisting of these sites, maybe with the disclaimer 'at that time', was warranted.
I hence believe that this site can be useful (but not necesseraly necessery, as the originals can in most cases still be linked), but when used, the information on these sites should be used with due care! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Beetstra. Properly, as you know, you should not reject the unlisting, because of your prior decision; however, if you choose, you can reverse your prior decision. Normally, I'd ask you on your Talk page to do so, but there are, again as you know, complications with that. As to due care, of course. Links to this site would only be used on
talk) 12:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I am neither declining nor endorsing de-listing per my involvement (I have given my thoughts more often). I found it however appropriate to give my 2p in order to broaden the view (that's why I say, that if de-listing is decided, that then due care is necessery; and I am giving another interpretation of an above statement: blacklisting of a site is not a content decision, the material on blacklisted sites can still be used as a reference (see my post "my thoughts" on your talkpage of 6 April 2009, 13:27 (I hope this is UTC)), they can only not be linked to anymore on the blacklisted site). I let the decision of de-listing entirely to other admins, preferably ones that are not too involved in other discussions regarding this case. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, except that it is a content decision if it is based on content arguments. The appropriateness of a link is the appropriateness of a kind of content. I'm seeing no argument here that the link needs to be blacklisted to prevent linkspam, and "linkspam" is, technically, not a content argument but has to do with numbers of links being added without review. --
talk) 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That this list is named 'Spam-blacklist' does not mean that it is, for long, used for links which have been abused, which can be abused (but have not yet been!), broad rules which block out a lot of abuse (spam),
undue weight. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Great. Now what does this have to do with the blacklisting of this particular site? Links to it were long used for various purposes. The editors of
talk) 18:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Do I have to repeat that (just to be sure, there is at least one editor with quite a preference for using information from these sites, over 40% of the link additions by this account were to newenergytimes.com and lenr-canr.org, I am sorry, but I do not believe that the articles on these sites have a high citation index (of course there will be exceptions), and I suspect that the number 3 and 4 on the list of this editor are also not having a high citation index, and possibly even the 5th, and by now we are over 50%)? To me this reeks of using selected information for
undue weight. And please, at least lenr-canr.org is NOT the most significant web site that is a source of information about cold fusion, that are the originals of the copies contained there. But as I said, I'll leave the conclusions to others, I only state what I see and what data I have. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
See also Bugzilla bug 14719 (link) and the discussions to rename this list linked over there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, Beetstra. We've talked about the word "spam," and agree. However, here, the issue is not the name of the blacklist or "spam," but the usage of the list, and usage guidelines are clear. Sure, the name should be changed, I agree completely, because "spam" unnecessarily is insulting to editors, and it is often inappropriate, even if the blacklisting is necessary. But that's not today's issue at all. Please do realize that substantial change to the blacklisting guidelines should be widely discussed, it's quite a serious issue, and I think that most editors are unaware of this expanded mission, where a handful of administrators can make far-reaching content decisions that even ArbComm would stay away from. --
talk) 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Arbcomm does not make content decisions, that is done by editors. No need to drag ArbComm in here, Abd. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood, Beetstra. I wrote that ArbComm does not make content decisions. But apparently a handful of administrators think that they can do this, here, on the blacklist page, where those watching an article won't see it, and it seems that you (and at least one other administrator) believe that, as applied to newenergytimes.com, making these decisions site-wide and enforcing them with the blacklist is appropriate. Just so the issue is clear. I could present evidence countering your impression about weight and editors, but it is actually moot. The site should not be blacklisted, whether it is actually used or not, unless there is a linkspam issue. If it's blacklisted, the editors of the article, for the most part, won't even have the opportunity to consider it, and IP editors are at a severe disadvantage (you won't even consider a whitelisting request from an IP editor).
Oh, yes, I forgot to mention, indeed: again, blacklisting a site is not a content decision, the information can still be used to write part of an article and it can still be referenced. And the accusation that we do not consider IP editors' requests is just ridiculous. If they request "please remove it, I want to link to it", yes, then we decline, if they come with a reasonable request, then generally we either say them to consider asking a wikiproject for more back up, if the request is proper, then we certainly consider it. But most of these requests are done by IPs who were involved in the 'spamming' originally. And you are again going completely off topic, this is NOT the place to discuss blacklist practices, that is below. Here we discuss newenergytimes.com, and if we have sufficient reason to remove it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I looked, references and external links were content. You know and I know what happens to whitelist requests from IPs, and I haven't said this is improper, with proper blacklistings. This blacklisting wasn't. To demand that there be "sufficient reason to remove it" .... is evidence of a poor practice here, biased toward original decisions. Because of the shotgun nature of the blacklist, the issue should be "sufficient reason to keep it." --
talk) 11:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This issue has been discussed numerous times, and there is still no convincing argument to remove from blacklist, per concerns of
WP:UNDUE as noted above. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, the issue with this site was discussed only once, where a decision was made, and that was here, and is cited above. The blacklisting guidelines suggest blacklisting as a measure of last resort, to stop massive linkspam. The decision to use a link or not in an article is up to the editors of that article, subject to wider consensus on appeal. Blacklisting makes the decision, for all practical purposes, top-down, i.e., generically, without regard to the specific page linked and the needs of an article. The arguments about possible site bias have a basis, possibly, but are matters that we have generally chosen to leave to editorial consensus, not to administrative action, and blacklisting is an administrative action. Ohnoitsjamie has it backwards. If there is no necessity to blacklist, blacklisting should not be used. Period. It is only if there is necessity, but also some possible use, that debate over usability becomes relevant.
Beetstra has somewhat confused lenr-car.org, which is mostly a "library," containing documents published elsewhere, with newenergytimes.com, which is a site of original publication, plus containing archives of documents published elsewhere. As an example where newenergytimes.com would be particularly valuable as a source would be with respect to news and views of the community researching low-energy nuclear reactions; it is an edited publication with a responsible publisher. It is reliable for that; however, this issue should not be decided here. It should be delisted because there was and is no legitimate basis for listing. --
talk) 18:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It may have only been discussed, but these sorts of links have been discussed ad nauseam. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to a place where a decision was made by more than one administrator or group of editors other than those involved in fighting spam. No linkspamming was involved here, see Beetstra's comment above. The link is the kind allowed or even encouraged by WP:EL, particularly when viewed in the light of the recent ArbComm ruling on Fringe science. And whether the topic is fringe or not is actually much more complex than it might appear at first glance from popular opinion. See the recent peer-reviewed literature in the field. But this is actually irrelevant here. This is abuse of the blacklist to control content, I'll stand on that. Disagree? Change the guidelines. --
talk) 11:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Please make content-based arguments ("UNDUE") on the relevant article talk pages. Blacklisting is not used to enforce content decisions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should deblacklist it even though it's a blatantly iunappropriate source for any article, so we can go back to having fringe kooks edit-war for inclusion all over the place. What a great idea, I wonder why I didn't think of that? Guy (Help!) 15:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Guy, that was actually helpful to delineate the issues and behavior.
  • It's an appropriate source for Cold fusion and certain related pages, if nothing else, to show the point of view or opinion within the cold fusion community. As the admin who blacklisted out-of-process, we know your POV, but I wasn't expecting you to continue the "kook" business. And I *thought* you'd said you would be hands-off with anything involving cold fusion or me. That promise of staying away did seem to carry some weight at the RfC on your abuse of admin tools.
  • There wasn't edit warring over these links, at the time of the blacklisting or shortly before it, by anyone. You later edit warred over a lenr-canr.org link that had been whitelisted, at Martin Fleischmann. Your position was rejected by consensus.
  • All over the place? Where, except for
    talk) 19:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:DEADHORSE again. You think it's an appropriate source, but I don't and a lot of others appear to agree with me. It's a fringe website, of no provable reliability, it is of no relevance to a Wikipedia article on a scientific subject. You seem to be on a crusade to redress the "balance" and undo the "damage" caused by the arbitration case, but it is useless to say this because experience and the subpages in your userspace suggest that you never accept a consensus that goes against you. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't necessarily accept a decision by a single editor or administrator that I disagree with, and because I don't make an immediate fuss, screaming and waving my arms about it, but follow, one step at a time,
talk) 10:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
There's no cold fusion true believer article. Why pretend that links to this fringe site are appropriate anywhere? Nevard (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ArbComm has already answered this question. It's ridiculous to have an article on cold fusion, which is the subject of ongoing research, as encouraged by the U.S. Department of Energy, as supported by various governments, as is appearing in peer-reviewed publications, and with references in recent reliable source specifically to New Energy Times and the editor, Steve Krivit, and not reference this major news source in the field, with a full-time professional investigative reporter hired to collect and report exactly that. Nevard's position on "fringe" has already been rejected by ArbComm and the community, and the designation of cold fusion as "fringe" is becoming increasingly shaky. So let's move on and use editorial consensus at the article to determine what links are appropriate, not the blunt instrument of the blacklist. --
talk) 11:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Support delisting. The spam blacklist should not be used to make content decisions, particularly ones based on the
WP:IDONTLIKEIT criteria of a few editors thinking a site is "fringe". *Dan T.* (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Support delisting. Please don't use non-relevant system tools to add weight to editorial positions. --Wfaxon (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delisting Not a RS and there has been no tool or blacklisting abuse. Abd's views give one very slanted point of view. Verbal chat 13:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The situation with newenergytimes.com is similar in some ways to that of lenr-canr.org, and in the only request for whitelisting filed yet on these two sites, a decision was made that one page from lenr-canr.org was, indeed, usable, and that was confirmed by editorial consensus, and stands. "Reliable source" is actually a separate issue, not all links used, by consensus, are to web sites considered, automatically to be reliable source, in the end, it is a page-by-page decision. However, as to tool and blacklisting abuse, the blacklisting of newenergytimes.com was done by an involved administrator, who directly blacklisted without discussion, asserting his own POV in later discussion. Because directly editing the blacklist page is an administrative privilege, this is use of tools while involved, and is abuse, absent emergency. This request, here, is not about admin abuse, and the original listing and its circumstances were raised only to give the history; the listing was confirmed by Beetstra in the first delisting request; he is now the responsible administrator, and he is neutral. He has recused, but is now more informed on the topic, and has expressed opinions that are far less negative on delisting than one might think from Verbal's comment. --
talk) 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I dispute Abd's statements (JzG has not, it appears, acted inappropriately), and lenr-canr.org should also remain blacklisted. These are all separate issues, and conflating them doesn't help. Verbal chat 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Isn't reliable source" is not a legitimate reason for blacklisting, because that is a complex judgment which should be made by editorial consensus, with regard to a specific page and a specific reference or link, not by use of admin tools like the blacklist. It can be a legitimate reason for not delisting but only if there is linkspam making the continued listing advisable. --
talk) 17:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
There has been no abuse since blacklisting, I'm amazed. Isn't that the point? I don't see any editorial consensus for using lenr-canr or NET on the CF page, and it seems the reasons were valid - as has been discussed above and elsewhere. Verbal chat 18:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting to be a disturbing pattern of distracting sarcasm, Verbal. There was no abuse before blacklisting. (I'm not saying never, the article has a long history, but nothing was going on when the links were removed and the site was blacklisted.) Lenr-canr.org is used at
talk
)
Content argument. See my response to Ohnoitsjamie above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delisting I agree that this is not a
censor. Sanction the behavior, not the content. Ronnotel (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks, Ronnotel, I agree completely on the principle, indeed, it's what I and others have been arguing for months now. As to RS, this is a decision which isn't made globally with sites like this (which include quite a bit of detailed and sober content, as well as possible fringe opinion), the decision should be made in context, looking at specific references and text, by editors familiar with the issues, and if others are to become involved -- which they can at any time -- ideally it is as we all are informed by those who are familiar. Is
talk) 21:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
New Energy Times appears to be closely held and it's difficult to determine whether its editorial process is independent and to what degree. It appears little different from a self-published periodic blog therefore it should not be regarded as a reliable source. However, there's scant evidence of aggressive self-promotion so it's an inappropriate candidate for blacklisting. We don't blacklist on content - we blacklist on behavior. Ronnotel (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, we agree on our business here. I raise arguments about "fringe" only because they are asserted against this site. It's not a blog, per se, rather, it's clearly a highly specialized publication, the ownership is a nonprofit, donation-supported. Krivit is paid as a journalist/editor, which does make it in some ways like a blog, though the kind of blog that shades into usability, where the blogger is an expert (as Krivit has become and as he is recognized in reliable source as being). The biggest problem about considering them RS in general is that they mix editorial comment with news reporting; the page I cite below is full of researched fact that could be useful, but then there is what amounts to argument at the end, showing a kind of "balance sheet" for cold fusion vs. hot fusion. The raw facts reported, as such, are probably correct; but the putting together of those facts is clearly intended to create an impression that represents a POV on the comparison. Where I believe we agree completely is that decisions about this as a source would be made by editorial consensus among involved editors, and that the issue of whether or not a site or page is "fringe" or "unreliable" only becomes relevant here if it is necessary to balance content with the difficulty of handling extensive linkspam. I.e., if there is linkspam, the site may be blocked, and, initially, the blacklist volunteers need not make any determination of "reliability" or "fringe." But if there is then a request to delist after linkspamming, some showing is routinely and properly required of at least some possible usage, and I've preferred to establish this with, first, a narrow whitelisting, then move from there. But in this case, there was no linkspam even alleged, the copyright violation claim was bogus, and that left "fringe." Which is actually irrelevant.
The actual argument made in refusing the first delisting request was that using the site could result in
talk) 16:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The actual argument was more that the site was used in
WP:UNDUE violation. The site was not blacklisted based on their alleged POV. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, no. Please read the actual arguments made in blacklisting; further, please review the history of the blacklisting administrator as presented in
talk • contribs
)
Abd, I am defending the point, that there were editors in the past, who have had a strong preference in using material on sites (including this one) over other sources. This site and others, though containing correct information, were deemed not a reliable source (and even when published by a nobel prize winner in a subject, it is self published information, not peer reviewed information, it is probably right, but .. well). Editors who were using this site, have subject bans on them. I am defending the abuse of the site. It may be that the original stated reason is not correct, but we are not a bureaucracy where procedural errors should be reverted on sight. And please, don't tell people not to comment or give their view if they disagree with the requests or remarks placed. And yes, the citation still stands, not attributing anything, and certainly not in the same way as it was used earlier.
To expand the remarks:
Twisting and turning again, Abd? We are talking about the DELISTING REFUSAL, READ IT!!! Or are you only reading things you want to use, ignoring the rest? I ask you again to stop that point (I think this is the second time!). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent). I think I may have at some point above misrepresented Beetstra's position, but this has become so complex that I can't follow it. As to anything I've said about Beetstra's position, please disregard it, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. But as to the arguments Beetstra reiterates or newly states (some of the above are entirely new), this has gone so far afield and is so shotgun in nature that I'm not responding. It is not relevant whether the original blacklisting was proper in procedure or not, because Beetstra confirmed it, becoming the responsible administrator. However, Beetstra is advancing arguments that depend on his judgment of content, a debatable judgment, and, as noted by many above, not appropriate as a cause for blacklisting. --

talk) 04:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This response is absurd and rediculous Abd .. You really can't stop. You represent my position wrongly at one point, apologise, and then you do what? You do the same thing again, twice!
  • re: "But as to the arguments Beetstra reiterates or newly states (some of the above are entirely new)": There is nothing new there, that has been said by me over and over, even in the previous de-listing request: There are/were editors out there who have a huge preference for using links on sites which are, to say the least, problematic
    WP:UNDUE
    violation (guess what, some of these editors are banned from the subjects involved .. WHY, I ask you?). It is simply not true, it is not new, it is because you have ignored my remarks regarding that.
  • re: "It is not relevant whether the original blacklisting was proper in procedure or not, because Beetstra confirmed it, becoming the responsible administrator.": I have not confirmed that the original blacklisting was proper in procedure (I did however , I have cited policy, and said that the original reason does not need to be relevant). But that does not make me the responsible administrator! It makes the policy the responsible part that we have to look at, and the editors responsible! That conclusion is rediculous, absurd, and laughable!! What are you really trying to accomplish here, Abd??
I again ask you: stop with this type of twisting and turning information or writing interpretations which YOU think people said, as again you are wrong. I until now thought I was maybe unclear, but I am wondering! Strike 3, Abd? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Stopped, whether right or wrong. Now, the topic here? --
talk) 14:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Fringe?

discussion of whether NET is "fringe" or not

Whether or not NET is fringe, I have said, is a complex issue, and is actually irrelevant in this case (it might be relevant if there were extensive linkspam). But because some editors think it important, I'd ask them to review this: COLD FUSION IS HOT AGAIN - Presented in 1989 as a revolutionary new source of energy, cold fusion was quickly dismissed as junk science. But today, the buzz among scientists is that these experiments produce a real physical effect that could lead to monumental breakthroughs in energy production. Scott Pelley, reports. Denise Schrier Cetta is the producer.[25], and this short video from CBS. As to NET being reliable source, my judgment is that there are difficulties, and NET should be used with caution, because it editorializes in the articles. However, facts stated seem to be accurate and reliable, so this could be reliable source on the level of newspaper editorials, i.e., handle with care. See http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2009/60MinutesTurnsUptheHeat.shtml Further, NET, like lenr-canr.org, is a repository of copies with usage rights of documents that are, indeed, reliable source, some of which aren't available directly or easily. --

talk) 15:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • This website is fringe. It supports a number of fringe views, and has little or no mainstream balance. It also has no identified editorial board or peer-review process. It is useless as a source, and has been abused as such by people advancing fringe beliefs. It's just a personal website. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, Coppertwig, articles are to be based on the sources. Those sources include reliable sources, as defined in our
    reliable sources guideline. The information on NET is either a copy of something that can be referenced elsewhere (the original), or which is not peer-reviewed material which can never be a source of proper information. Please base the information in the article on that information published in said reliable sources. That the site is fringe or not is a difficult case, but even when not fringe, the site was abused on a significant scale to impose a fringe view on Wikipedia. There are better sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There is no better source for current news on the field. The report linked above is original reporting, by an investigative reporter, Steve Krivit, funded to do just that. No fringe view was "imposed on Wikipedia" using this site. Indeed, the alleged fringe view is coming like a freight train, and NET is just a webzine that reports on the field. It's a specialized publication, and there is an apparent POV, so, as has been stated, it's to be used with caution, as I stated above. A link to the article on
talk) 05:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It probably isn't relevant, but I read the article you referenced, and it was more than an "apparent POV" - it was very biased and I'd seriously question using it as a source. I haven't read other articles on the site, though, so maybe they aren't normally presented in that fashion? - Bilby (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some are, some aren't. What NET does is to mix factual reporting (which is quite reliable) with editorial comment (which is Krivit's opinion). The investigative reporting is good, the opinion is, arguably, fringe, though it's the view of an expert in the field, as can be shown by reliable source, and, what the report shows (and others, recently) is that "fringe" seems to be disappearing, it's a relic of 1989-1990. As I wrote, if an article like this is going to be used as a source, it should be used with caution. There are other documents hosted there which are simply usable as convenience copies, and others which are original publication, some of which is usable, and this should all be up to editorial consensus, not to all-or-nothing decisions by editors not considering specific cases. I gave the link precisely to show the range of what is there. If you read it, you can see that Krivit actually interviewed the major players. I'm going to point out, though, that "bias" can be in the eye of the beholder. Krivit's an expert, the opinion of an expert can appeared biased -- and it may be -- but the bias can be that of the natural bias of knowledge vs. ignorance. I can make statements here that, even if sourced, will be considered biased by many or even most. That's what happens where there is a true controversy! --
talk) 14:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
He did interview people, but the way the article was put together was more than somewhat questionable (and this isn't really the place for that discussion, as you say). However, that's simply my opinion - I just wouldn't recommend using that article as an example of the site's quality, as if the argument is that there is no better source of news on Cold Fusion, then that article makes me concerned about the quality of the best source on the topic. But maybe others would think differently. - Bilby (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link was asserted as an example showing both sides, the value and the problem. You have to consider the context: as a "fringe science," its very right to exist is in question. If it's total junk science, what's the value of a news source that just shows, "junk science." Boring. No, the New Energy Foundation was started up by someone who thought the matter worthy of attention! That creates a natural POV. Question is, does NET exclude negative opinion, and the answer is no, they report it. You can find criticism of cold fusion experiments there. But, sure, Krivit has his opinions and he expresses them. The section at the end of the article I found actually offensive, the report on hot fusion. It's pure POV advocacy. But that's okay in editorials! We used editorials and opinion columns as source for some facts, with caution. I'd certainly prefer to see Krivit separate reported fact from editorial opinion, maybe I'll ask him to do that.... --
talk) 15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Continued discussion of delisting request
Closed as consensus supporting removal, blacklist entry removed. ViridaeTalk 03:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The site was removed from the blacklist; I've asked him to formally close here... --
talk) 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


losethegame.com

I know this has been brought up before, but I just did a comprehensive Google search on the site losethegame.com, and there are literally two mentions of Wikipedia on the entire site, one of which is a link to the Wikipedia page on

Google bombing. The stated reason for blacklisting the site was that it promoted vandalizing Wikipedia through a plugin for Mozilla Firefox. If this ever were true, it clearly isn't anymore. Eebster the Great (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • To be fair, The Game pretty clearly meets the WP:Notability at this point. I understand that it is a recent phenomenon and that Haywood's spamming may have spread its popularity, but it has been reported in numerous newspapers, and more importantly, is omnipresent online and offline. None of this legitimizes any spamming from the site, but I don't really see that as such a problem anymore. Eebster the Great (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, some of the additions of losethegame.com were NOT to pages which even have anything remotely to do with either Jonty Haywood or The Game or Lose the Game. Additions include a high school, G. Bush etc. I don't think this is necesserily to be removed from the blacklist as the possible abuse is likely and widespread, I would really suggest that specific links were whitelisted where needed (on The Game and Jonty Haywood, e.g.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, links were added by those playing the so-called game, as a way of tripping up other players. That was the problem, and the probability of such abuse has not gone away. It has no value as a source outside of the two articles mentioned above, and the request does not suggest any possible utility. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original reason for blacklisting Haywood's site (see here) no longer applies. The "strategies" section that suggested spamming Wikipedia (a good reason for blacklisting!) has been removed. I can only find two recent cases of users trying to add the link on COIreport, and the most recent was in March 2008 when a user tried to add the link to this page:[26]. The addition to the Fairless High School was a special case. It was not random spamming, it was due to the school apparently banning their pupils from playing The Game, and the user was trying to link to a specific part of the site that says this. The Bush addition was encouraged by the old "strategy page", which is gone now. I don't think there is a real risk of link spamming anymore. If a full removal isn't agreed on, a whitelisted link on the page of The Game (mind game) would be welcome. Fences and windows (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it still does. Of course it is not being abused anymore, the link can't be added anymore, and the risk, even if not actively promoted by the site, still exists. There is no use of this link outside of The Game and Jonty Haywood, and whitelisting has been applied for that. As such, no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humansfuture.org

Hello, our website conducts a broad range of programs and activities to promote an understanding of the factors in the social, genetic, biological, medical, physiological and technological fields that may have an impact on the future of mankind.

There was a huge misunderstanding by a member of the website team who tried to force adding the website to some wikipedia articles by prohibited means, we apologize for what happened and ensure you that such a behavior will not happen again.

Please remove it from the blacklist.

Thank you

--41.232.196.72 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment I would not recommend removing this site from the blacklist. For one, there was an obvious attempt to spam links through the use of a series of sockpuppets. This action was compounded by the subsequent use of the "co.cc" redirect service to add more links after "humansfuture" was blacklisted,. Beyond that, however, the site itself does not appear to meet the

reliable sources requirements, nor is it particularly useful as a stand-alone link. If we permit these links, the only benefactor would be the website itself. --Ckatzchatspy 20:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


Our member believed that the external links removal was an action of a bot and was obsessed about defeating it by trying differnt wrong ways, we have noticed that later and we apologize for it. Our website didnt have any problem in meating the wikipedia requirements when it was added long time ago to the external links of this wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_transhumanism
You still can find it there under the name "Future Human Evolution Gateway" and it redirects to our old domain "human-evolution.org", we have just moved that website to this new domain "humansfuture.org" so why is it now considered as unuseful ??? We believe that there is no need to blacklist our website and the wiki pages which have our old link must be corrected to redirect to the new one. Thank you. --41.232.196.72 (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the link. As it turns out, that link was added as part of a block of over thirty URLS, by an editor (User:Auroranorth) who has since left the project after an extended series of blocks and "sockpuppet" issues. There is no indication that any of the links were reviewed for appropriateness. --Ckatzchatspy 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You welcome Ckats and just for the record we have no idea about that user "Auroranorth", dont judge the website and its team by an ignorant's mistake, and please be fair because half of the listed websites will not pass if reviewed for appropriateness.

You have just mentioned earlier that it is possible to use other services to forward to a blocked website, so what is the point of the block after all ?

We just want it to be removed because it is not good for its reputation and because the site is growing quickly which may allow it to be used someday on wikipedia in a good and useful way, but for now we ensure you that no one of the team will try to add it by any mean. Thank you

--41.232.196.72 (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think instead of that, we'll ensure that no one will try to add it by keeping it on the blacklist.  Not done
    talk) 13:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]


Stifle, If that is your way to ensure that no one will ever add any website to wikipedia then why didnt you keep all the other sits in the blacklist too ?

We believe Ckats has a personal problem with the website or someone of its team, if that is the case please let us know what is wrong in here ?

--41.232.198.207 (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider removing it from the blacklist and if the spamming ever happened again, simply block it FOREVER, OK ?

--41.232.198.216 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


eu-football.info

Please, remove this site from blacklist, because it has useful and detailed information.

This site may be useful for that users who want to get additional detailed information about played matches of the national football team. This unique detailed information contains line-ups with full names of players and their clubs. Users will be thankful to Wikipedia for this link to additional statistics.

Please, unlist at least one link eu-football.info/_list.php?id=123 at the page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_national_football_team

Although there is detailed info about all european national football teams on this site.

Pleaser09 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This domain is blacklisted on Meta-Wiki; you can inquire at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above link has been whitelisted after a separate request.
talk) 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

luv-emo.com

I'm not used that much to wikipedia, so I apologize if I got this whole process wrong.

Rather than writing lots of bs as some before me, I will keep it short. First, this is my site. I heard wikipedia doesn't even listen to site owners, but rather than putting someone else to beg in my place I prefer to say upfront who I am. Second, I admit I am an idiot that wanted to exploit the wikipedia traffic for personal benefit. But I was 15 and a "visionary". This was my first website and I was crazy about it. I added my link to the emo page as a low-life spammer several times and eventually got banned. Ofcourse, I tried with one of my other blogs to do that as well, journeyetc.com. But I don't care about that, luv-emo is my number one site, my masterpiece, my contribution to the internets. I also had a friend that I hosted on my server (vipflux.com) that copied my tactic. See here Take a look on my website though and you will find among some highly-demanded crap some useful information. My site was the first to lay the things straight (read from "Why Emo is not emotional" on front page). Also I have a very high-quality 'screamo' page (if anyone is into it, will appreciate it for sure). Regarding the adsense part, cause I know wikipedia is against sites that use advertising, I must tell you that I can't put it down in exchange of a removal, sorry. There are costs involved with running this website and being from a poor country, I have to help my parents somehow as well. I think I matured a lot from that time, and won't commit more mistakes. :( The site was accepted into dmoz [27], featured on askmen [28] and linked by numerous others as a useful resource so please consider it well.

Best, Mircea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mircixy (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

paadalvarigal.com (removal request)

Recently paadalvarigal.com site is added to blacklisted. Tamil songs lyrics is useful to categories where it describes about a film. In each tamil film there will be atleast 4-5 songs. When describing about a film, tamil songs plays a vital role. This site is making a collection over lyrics, where one can find all lyrics in one place. You can check how many people actually mark this lyrics section as spam/useful if you indeed give them an option to mark themselves. All people who visit paadalvarigal.cm through wiki will be those who expects lyrics. If adding adsense is a problem, then i will remove those adsense too. Just let me know how to proceed. I am a novice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.36.192 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done, see
    talk) 09:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]


iso8583.info

Hello.

My site provide free on-line service for Encode and Decode ISO 8583 messages, Decoder have a samples of packed messages. It used very often by WiKi ISO 8583 page visitors. Also site provide encoding and decoding for different ISO 8583 dialects.

Please remove my site from spamlist and please correct link to site if it placed incorrectly.

Thank you. Alexander iso8583.info (Cheef000 (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

no Declined We don't remove blacklisting entries at the request of site operators. Wikipedia is not a link directory. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thesufi.com

QUESTION- How to get my website removed from Spam List My website thesufi.com was blacklisted for spam in October since i put it under various articles as an external link. it is not an offensive website with no ads etc. i guess it was partially my stupidity also since i listed it under 10 articles (though all relevant content).. anyhow, i have been trying to find a place to post it so the admin people can review my appeal and remove it..i have read extensively but it is still so complicated for me. can someone please help and guide me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedkrashid (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you ignored many requests to stop and even had your IP blocked twice:
Your latest edit today indicates you still intend to force this link on us despite requests to stop.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Waleedkrashid>>> Thanks for your reply. I am a newbie and honestly I am still confused how wikipedia works. I could not understand how people ask questions to wikipedia and if I am editing here in the wrong place, my aplogies in advance.

Yes, I accept that I provided external link for my website 4 or 5 times in October 2008, but my website provided very relevant link for those sufi music artists/sufi authors. It is the one of the biggest resources on web and my object was to provide actual ebooks, music and videos for download related to those artists, whose article are on wikipedia. Though I do accept I should have seen your response after posting 1 external link and should not have actually done it for many articles.

As for your the second part, I did tried my first adding of external links yesterday after 6 months, but that is exactly when I realised that thesufi.com has been blocked! I was not even aware that there has been a problem. I can remove it if you say. As you can see I tried in first time after Oct 08 and only tomorrow I realised that thesufi.com is in local blacklist.

Can you please help me what shall I be doing now? You can see thesufi.com, which provided ebooks and sufi music for many articles on wikipedia. It is not a spam/porn kind of website.

Also is the blacklisting something permanent? I do hope that you will reconsider the decision after some time. I have contributed some good articles however, it is only the external website thing that actually got me in this troubl. If you unblock happens, I will not edit/add anything ever.

Thanks and regards

Waleedkrashid (talk)Waleed 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedkrashid (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision might be reconsidered if an established Wikipedia editor feels that linking to the site would be useful and would contribute to some Wikipedia articles. We don't do delistings at the request of site owners.
    talk) 09:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]


Waleedkrashid> Thanks for the prompt response. Yes, I will like the editor to check the thesufi.com. If he/she belives that thesufi.com provided good resource for these articles, its blacklist should be removed. I again confirm that none of the articles in which i provided thesufi.com as external link was irrelevent. Also none of the existing external links provided the ebooks, music collection and literature offered by thesufi.com, that is why i added it as i would be very useful for the wiki users.

Please tell me if I need to contact the editor for this appeal? What is the process?

Thanks for your help.

Waleed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedkrashid (talk • contribs) 10:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the site, it is interesting, but I'm not convinced that it warrants removal from the list or linking from Wikipedia. --Ckatzchatspy 16:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Waleedkrashid>> Very pleased you looked at thesufi.com yourself.

First, let me just give you 2 examples for articles on wikipedia, for which I added thesufi.com as a good external resource earlier:

1. Pls see article 'Sufi Music' on wikipedia. I added thsufi.com/sufimusic since it hosts the biggest free mp3 collection of sufi music in the world and I added it for users who can download mp3 music on this genre.

If you google for 'download sufi music', you will see thesufi.com getting the top rank.

Thesufi.com/sufimusic is the biggest resource on sufi music as seen by google and that was the only reason I put in wikipedia under the article 'sufi music'. It cannot get more relevant than this. Also you can see that I do not use any adwords or advertising on the website. It is a clean website with no pop-ups or dodgy things and it is totally non-profit.

2. I wrote up the article 'Tadhkiratul_Awliya' on wikipedia, please have a look. It is a book by a saint 'Farid al-Din Attar', on whom there is great material on wikipedia. As I reference, I added a link to thesufi.com, where one can download the entire ebook and therefore it provides citation/reference also that the material of my article is correct. However, thesufi.com was removed from the external link earlier. Since I needed a reference for my article; I thought the best way was to put a link for users to download the actual entire ebook and read for it themselves. Now, though the article 'Tadhkiratul_Awliya' remains, you have removed the refernce/link to download this ebook.

I say it again that I provided all links since I realised that it will provide users much better information/music collection which is missing. There was no other intention and I do hope you look into this and reconsider your decision.

Thanks & regards

  • As per above, we don't unlist sites on the request of owners. When an established Wikipedia editor, that is to say someone who has been editing for some time on a variety of pages, requests it, we will consider delisting.
    talk) 08:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]


Waleed>> I understand that you don't unlist on the request of oweners. First, as I explained above, I think the initial blacklisting of thesufi.com was not justified.

Anyways, how will I get an editor to support my case? Is there a way I can find an editor, who has knowledge on theology and religion, so he can actually understand that my website actual provided good relevent information.

Regards

Wakeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.136.80.162 (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Try
    talk) 09:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

rossgarnaut.com.au

I'd like to request that this website be removed from the blacklist. While the rossgarnaut.com domain is still held by person(s) unrelated to Ross Garnaut (Australian economist and author of the Garnaut Climate Change Review) the Australian domain name has now been purchased by Ross Garnaut and his website has been created and published. The website contains up to date information regarding Ross Garnaut's appointments as well as copies of his economic papers, CV and assorted publications. It is a valuable resource for economics students and the general public interested in the Garnaut Climate Change Review and Ross' work in other areas. It would be much appreciated if it could be whitelisted Garnaut Office (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone please help with this request? It would be very valuable to be able to have this website as an external link on Ross Garnaut's wiki page. Garnaut Office (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is blacklisted at meta; you would need to ask at
talk) 15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

learningrussian.net

This site is an educational resource with lessons written by professional language instructors. Wikipedia articles related to Russian study would benefit from unique explanations of Russian grammar and a different angle on the topic. The resource provides content that can expand complex Russian grammar concepts which otherwise would not be explained due to formal wikipedia format. It is unclear why learningrussian.net would be blacklisted as I see nothing wrong with the site.

This was extensively spammed, see
talk) 17:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
What are the steps to involve an established user to remove the site from blacklist? It appears that spamming was caused by one editor (IP: 118.93.*.*) during a limited time frame in the past. Blacklisting a site because of possibly malicious activities of one party is a bit too harsh for learningrussian.net. Please evaluate the spamming activities more accurately, and weight in the usefulness of the site contents to become more clear on the issue. It looks like the site should not be on the blacklist at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.201.216 (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would happen when an established user (i.e. a user who has been registered and has some level of contributions) finds a need to link to this site, and then requests it.
talk) 15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ratekhoj.com (removal request)

I would like to request whitelisting this site as it is a reliable source for information on banking in India. It updates interest rates on fixed deposits, home loans, car loans, personal loans, insurance and credit cards regularly. It has a comprehensive database of bank locations in India including their locations, IFSC codes, and MICR codes with contact details. It is a valuable source of banking news, data, and information and I request that it be whitelisted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srivant (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.yourtanpura.co.cc

Hello all, I don't know why this site comes under the blacklist in wikipedia. But I want to tell that this site is a popular site of a software which is very useful to people who are practising and performing carnatic music. With wikipedia unlisting this site, it disables people from knowing about this software. Please note that it is NOT a spam site or a even a profitable site. So I kindly request the whosoever concerned person to remove it from blacklist.

Thanks and regards

A fan of the site. {{Done}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.83.243 (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is blacklisted at meta as *.co.cc. See [30]. You'll need to ask at
    talk) 09:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Ever lasting Blockade?

My website realgems.org (I avoid writing the full URL because of blocking) was whitelisted on German Wiki (months ago). Because of the "automatic Wiki Spam engine" my international excternal link additions were put on Wiki's black list since DECEMBER 2008.

Since then my URL is internationally blocked, except German Wiki. German admins thought and think that all my former link additions to international Wiki pages were OK, and whitelisted my URL.

Question: How long will my URL be blocked by the U.S. administrators so that all other countries don't re-install my links? My website cannot be compared with other spamming sites but was put into the same negative pot, together with porn sites and other bad spammers! :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.N. Berg (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 

   I think the best forum to discuss this would be at this page, where you can request your website be removed. TNXMan 15:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


ThanX, man, but I tried that several times. No result. No, negative result. The US leading boyz told me to become active on Wiki - then they would "overthink" the blockade. Well... I did it. Only possible on German Wiki because there my URL isn't blocked anymore. I uploaded a few articles on minerals. No reaction from the US side although this and that is even better than the English articles. What can we say... —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.N. Berg (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


You might compare e.g. the EN and DE WIKI versions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benitoite and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benitoit especially re the weblinks... and the contents!

So what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.N. Berg (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.N. Berg (talk • contribs)

caesarstone.com

Hi. In the entry for engineered stone, there is a section to link to manufacturers. Some of the manufacturers have links out to their websites. I tried to add an external link for CaesarStone, www.caesarstone.com, but I was blacklisted. When I checked the blacklist, I found that the CaesarStone US site: www.caesarstoneus.com is blacklisted. I do not understand both of these sites are blacklisted, but I think that this entry would benefit from allowing the visitor to link out to all of the manufacturers listed on the site. Dupont has a link to an article in Wikipedia, and Zodiaq has an article. Cambria, which mentions that they are the only US manufacturer of engineered stone has an article. To give users access to more manufacturers of quartz countertops, I would like to be able to add an external link to Caesarstone from the engineered stone page, and I would like to be able to add an article giving more information about quartz stone surfaces, and Caesarstone's original quartz countertop. Please remove the global and US websites from your blacklist and allow me to add these articles. Thank you, DeenieGuss (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would it benefit Wikipedia to link to this site?
talk) 18:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I believe that the more complete the information which can be found on Wikipedia, the stronger the user experience. Providing external links is another source for Wikipedia users to find the information they are looking for. CaesarStone is the original manufacturer of quartz stone countertops, and would like visitors on Wikipedia to be able to access their site to learn more about CaesarStone.
In addition, I am interested in adding a wiki for CaesarStone. In the current wiki on countertop, there are three references to CaesarStone. I would like to include information on CaesarStone within Wikipedia.
In looking further into why CaesarStone was blacklisted in the first place, I see that it is on a list of companies blacklisted because of their association with the SEO company Seology. CaesarStone has terminated their relationship with Seology, and would like to join the community of contributors to Wikipedia.
Thank you, --DeenieGuss (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offence intended, but when I look at the site, I see a benefit to CaesarStone for being listed here, but little or no benefit to Wikipedia for including the listing. Furthermore, the additions you have described above have the initial appearance of being promotional in nature; again, they would benefit your company far more than they would benefit our readers. --Ckatzchatspy 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. While there certainly is benefit to CaesarStone to be listed on Wikipedia, my first reason for starting this post was to get CaesarStone off of the blacklist, and be allowed to start a wiki about them. I believe there is benefit to Wikipedia to clear CaesarStone from the blacklist. CaesarStone was the world’s first company to use quartz as the main component in its manufactured surfaces. They revolutionized engineered stone technology with the use of quartz to create a new surfacing material.
Historically there is value to seeing how this industry started, and how engineered stone surfaces have increased in popularity since their start in 1987.
Additionally, it is interesting to learn that CaesarStone is located on kibbutz Sdot Yam just south of the Israeli town of Caesarea. It is the main industry of the kibbutz, which was founded in 1936.
I think this combination of a successful industry on a historical kibbutz is of value to Wikipedia readers. I hope you agree. --DeenieGuss (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinion on this discussion at this time; but I wanted to add some reference links for others to more easilly see the history of this blacklisting.
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: After posting the above links, while researching the history of the blacklisting of this url, I realized that caesarstone.com is not blacklisted on the english Wikipedia; the links are instead on the meta-wiki blacklist which is shared by multiple Wikimedia foundation wikis.
The archived original blacklisting request can be found here: here, which can be reached from the log at meta:Spam_blacklist/Log/2008/02.
As the URLs are blacklisted on meta, and not on this project's local blacklist, any removal request should be directed to meta:WM:SBL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, Thank you for directing me to meta. I will send a removal request to them. Before I do that, I want to be sure that it is clear that CaesarStone was unaware of Seology's spamming activities and has terminated their association with Seology. I am working to request that Seology remove all references to CaesarStone from their website. --DeenieGuss (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nochex.com

This site was blacklisted with several others last year ([31]). I think it's after getting mixed up with several other bad sites. This is a reputable site (it's even accepted for payment on eBay) and I propose to remove it from the blacklist.

talk) 18:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Hearing no objections, this is  Done.
talk) 10:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

put-in-bay.com removal

The link to the Put-in-Bay Chamber of Commerce, http://www.put-in-bay.com, has been blacklisted, even though talk has heartily agreed with its inclusion. Spammers have long been busy at Put-in-Bay, Ohio, but this link almost never sees action except when spammers remove it in favor of their own websites. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it from the blacklist already. (if this saves, it's confirmed, as I un-nowiki'd the URL above.) --Versageek 17:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleSoft-Planet.com

I would like to request inclusion of this site back into the index. This site was created by a PeopleSoft consultant 4 years ago and is a valuable source of PeopleSoft information. It is not a spam site and has plenty of independently verified valuable information. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.4.30 (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original entry:
This included both peoplesoft-planet.com and windows-vista-update.com, this IP's other request (see the section below). Both domains share the same Google AdSense ID and revenue account. This spam originated in southern California as does this request. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. This will be considered for delisting only on the request of an established editor.
talk) 15:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Windows-Vista-Update.com

I would also like to request inclusion of this site back into the index. This site was created 3 years ago and was one of the earliest sources of Windows Vista information. It also is not a spam site and has plenty of independently verified valuable information. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.4.30 (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original entry:
This included both windows-vista-update.com and peoplesoft-planet.com, this IP's other request (see the section above). Both domains share the same Google AdSense ID and revenue account. The spam originated in southern California as does this request. The domain-owner's accounts ignored at least 4 warnings as well as many, many edit reversions, so they were more than amply informed as to our rules about this sort of thing. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases I ignored edit revisions because there was no explanation as to why the sites were removed. There were no comments regarding the perceived quality of the sites. For all I knew, they could have been removed by a competitor.
I still haven't been told why the sites were removed, just that I was persistent in representing them. I am open to letting the whole issue go but I would urge that you look at both sites and consider their age (3 + years of updates). They are not spam and are represented by a webmaster who can debate and defend their quality. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.4.30 (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were left multiple messages with links to our rules. Go back, re-read the messages left for you and read the hyperlinked material:
As for the reversions, plenty of explanations were left in the reverting editors' edit summaries: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]
I'll let another admin decide this issue but you should know we do not normally remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
Unlike Wikipedia,
DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/
.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.4.30 (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, per A. B.
talk) 15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Amazon.com. site for classic book by economist, ch. 1 excerpt + review

astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807 Unique source to be used in fn. 10 of Theory of the firm. Identify as Amazon site. Readers arguably should have the choice of viewing this scholarly source. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already
talk) 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Discussion

Malicious sites

Can a site be blacklisted for being malicious? prowrestling.com is one, a Google test shows 6.97% of the pages on the site resulted in malicious content being downloaded to the users computer without their consent. My own personal experience with the site was the same, I would have to run my McAfee security sweep after visiting the site due to the problems the site would cause. Here is the Google report [40]. I have brought this up at the wrestling project and so far they seem to agree about not using this site. TJ Spyke 02:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sites that are found to be malicious, or host exploits need to be immediatly removed and blacklisted to protect wikipedias users. Another check for this can be found at http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/default.aspx . --Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Dont know if this is the right place, hope someone will see this. Was adding a link to the section on Stepfamily. It has been there in the past, but know told that The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://www.st

What the hell.

The links would have been: s t e p f am i l y . a s n . a u

s t e p f a m i l y z o n e . c o m .a u

I can be contact at <email address removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.106.232 (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://stepfamilyzone.com.au http://stepfamily.asn.au http://www.stepfamilyzone.com.au

They aren't blacklisted, as can be seen. I'll email the editor. --

talk) 17:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

there was a technical problem which was solved a few minutes after it occurred. -- seth (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, out of this there may have been some improvement to the article. Turns out that the site the IP editor was concerned about had been removed in spite, apparently, by an editor whose own addition had been reverted as linkspam, and it wasn't noticed. The article was also a linkfarm, and some work has been done on that. All's well that ends well. --
talk) 18:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Adsense partner-pub-5896236991546092
Accounts
203.87.106.232 (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)
Seems this anon IP is adding sites that are only from the same site owner, "Stepfamily Association of South Australia Inc" (Adsense confirmed). Administrative Contact is the same also (aka 203.87.106.232)--Hu12 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Resolved
 – It's been fixed --Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrators, We got a big problem in Spam-blacklist's Turkish page tr:MedyaViki:Spam-blacklist. The problem is, the list doesnt' work. I mean, anyone can write the web page in blacklist with having no problem. Could you please look for the problem and write what the problem is in my user talk page (in Turkish wiki). Greetings from Turkey.--Onurkayabasi (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right, only administrators can edit it. Because of that i requested you to find the problem&solution and write me to make it changed. Im not an administrator but administrators asked me if i could find the problem and tell any solutions for that, but i couldn't find and wanted your help. And i think you can find the problem by looking at the source page. Thanks for sharing your time with this.--Onurkayabasi (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We found the problem and make the list work again. Thanks for your helps--Onurkayabasi (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia mirrors

What's the feeling about placing wikipedia mirrors on the blacklist? I know they aren't normally "spammed" by single editors and aren't malicious, but they do tend to show up in articles inserted by well meaning folks and can create circular references. We discussed it on AN but I wanted to kick the real answer back to you guys. Some of these have something on the order of 500-1000 links (probably a lot more if I went through everything on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks) and it might be nice to know that manually removing them wouldn't be in vain after a few months. Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky because some of these sites leave editing on and so may become divergent sources in their own right. Any site hosting only static Wikipedia article mirrors is another matter, but most include some kind of embellishment that could be viewed as adding value. I'd say treat them on a case by case basis. Dcoetzee 09:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to blocklist internal WMF/interwiki links?

There's a very banned user (banned WMF-wide, per Jimbo) that keeps popping up here linking back to the one site he's apparently still active on. He will link his sig as an IP user as something like

T) 14:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

We used to have
meta.wikimedia.org? --Hu12 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Usernames are added to the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist now, (meta). Kylu (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page size

Please split discussion into sub pages - the page is very big and cumbersome, and therefore very slow to load and scroll. I'm on a fast connection with a fast PC, and I'm finding it frustrating, so other mortals must be having a torrid experience. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt, something needs to be done here. Set up one of the bots maybe to archive threads older than 5 days or something. 2.5 Mb for a page is way too much. —
 ?  02:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I just archived some sections, which may help. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much much better A.B. I would have gone ahead and archived some, but I don't know what you guys are still working on - so I thought it would be better if one of you guys did it. thanks. —
 ?  06:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
There is also the issue where people have added additions/removals in this level 1 section (Discussion). Perhaps subpages for additions and removals?

Google Trends

A.B., Stifle, Guy, Dirk, Hu12, and any of the other "regex" geeks, I've got a question to dump in your lap. I did a search as best I could given this sections difficulty at the time, and couldn't find anything. I've noticed that Google Trends (google.com/trends) has been brought up in a few places as a reference, and it begs the OR/SYN policy more often than not. Any way we can get a spam warning of some kind set up for this? I know that there will be times it's re levant, but it may be better to push the exceptions into seeking individual whitelist in the long run. Just a thought, I'll leave it up to you pros to do as you think best. thx. —

 ?  02:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

That's probably a job for
talk) 09:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


FYI: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 30#User talk pages with spam notices categories

You are invited to contribute your comments to this discussion, pro or con. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2009&oldid=1107990940"