Talk:Spam blacklist

snippet for logging: {{/request|515435#section_name}}

If you cannot find your remark below, it has probably been archived at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01.

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

There's a medium-sized linkspam effort against Wikipedia underway from "gocurrency.com", "fxwords.com" , and "forextradingllc.com" (the parent organization of these.)

• fxwords.com Wikipedia references(48 links)
• GoCurrency.com Wikipedia references (5 links)

These sites have no real content; they exist to draw Google and Yahoo pay per click traffic. GoCurrency sales pitch: "Advertise with us! One of the fastest growing websites in its category, GoCurrency traffic has increased by twelve times the amount from May through October of 2006. Get on board to reach a unique global audience of 690,000 unique users with 2 Million page views per month!" gocurrency.com/advertise-with-us.htm Fxwords is a glossary of financial terms, which gives them an excuse to link from Wikipedia for many of the words in their vocabulary.

Some editors are cleaning out the links, per a discussion in Village Pump, but a link block might be in order. (User Nagle on Wikipedia; having trouble logging on Meta.)--71.139.171.30 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. Please, don't give direct links to these sites, they make this page uneditable. MaxSem 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

We are not trying to spam Wikipedia. Yes we are adding links. But they are to decent additional definitions in the case of FX Words - if this is not wanted that is fine but too completely block us seems a little obsessive. GoCurrency provides travel information but more helpfully a free converter for people to use on their sites with other tools we have paid to get developed.

Hey, addition of unwanted links IS called spamming. See relevant policy. MaxSem 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ongoing, repeated spam across multiple pages on multiple projects from a number of different Southwestern Bell IPs. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] ...you get the idea. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You get the idea?????All those pages from worldtopix.com are HIGHLY RELEVANT to the content,and provide a lot of information not found on wikipedia.It is a contribution,not spam,obviously!!!So,what can be done to unblock worldtopix.com url on wikipedia?Please answer this question.Thank You.(worldtopix.com editor). 13 January 2007

Please see the section on links to be avoided in the English Wikipedia guideline on external links, particularly points one (there is no reason the information couldn't be found on Wikipedia, and I doubt you verified that it wasn't in the Swedish articles), three (please consider contributing beyond simply adding external links), and possibly five (my filtering kills the ads, but the source code gives the impression there might be quite a few of them). Then continue down to Advertising and conflicts of interest and read the sentence "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." Read the section's main article on spam and how not to be a spammer and note point two and the point about adding the same link to many articles under point five.

I would also expect you to familiarise yourself with Swedish Wikipedia's views on external linking. (This may require you to learn Swedish first, which may seem harsh if it's a foreign language to you, but remember that you made the decision to add the links there, and when spamming in Rome...) In particular, note the bit that says that "svenskspråkiga webbplatser bör föredras framför sidor på andra språk" and "undvik att länka till webbplatser du själv har stark koppling till." Also note the bit on the appropriate number of external links.

—LX (talk, contribs) 17:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Especially on the Dutch (nl) Wikipedia but also on the English (en), French (fr) and German (de) Wikipedia's someone anonymously (see [25], [26], [27], [28] and maybe other IP addressed too) or with the user name 'Wichm' (see [29] and [30]) has added several dozens of external links to his own pages on Internet starting with

www.xs4all.nl/~wichm 

or

members.chello.nl/a.wichmann  

On the Dutch Wikipedia in the last few months several people informed him on his talkpage ([31]) and the IP-talk page ([32]) that he shouldn't add external links to his own pages and that he should stop spamming Wikipedia. He was informed on January 4 on his talkpage that I would request these links to be added to the blacklist if he would continue spamming. On January 6 he replied that all his links are relevant. Even after I confronted him with the evidence that his links are labeled by the local wikipedians of Wikipedia's in these 4 languages as spam and/or not-relevant he keeps claiming that he only added a few links and those had additional value. In total the number of links to his pages is probably more like 50 instead of only a few! And on January 10 he again added a link to one of his pages. [33] So I think it is now time to add the following lines to the blacklist:

www\.xs4all\.nl\/\~wichm 
members\.chello\.nl\/a\.wichmann

to stop this spamming. Only on the nl-Wikipedia some 25 different articles were involved and on the en-Wikipedia the number is probably smaller but still significant. Protecting pages is therefore no option. - Robotje 12:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just checked the English Wikipedia -- 38 links total today across a wide range of articles.

• en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#cross-wiki spammer: xs4all.nl/~wichm and members.chello.nl/a.wichmann

I agree that the blacklist is the best way to stop him. Many thanks, Robotje -- we didn't even know this guy had broken into the kitchen until we saw your listing here. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

A site which hosts personal attacks on Wikipedia editors (including me), removed here [34], also spammed to my talk page and other places, some remain in archives [35]. Per ArbCom ruling we do not link to sites which attack Wikipedia editors, and this is not a source for anything anyway. --Just zis Guy, you know? 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. The given links are clearly unwanted, and a cursory check of the site did not give any indication there is much useful for Wikipedia c.s. to link. - Andre Engels 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, kind sir. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Over many months, rosewater and dog pill peddlers spammed these links using 10 different accounts to many articles over a wide range of topics (from en:Rosewater to en:White Rose (oil field) to en:Sufami Turbo). Final warnings don't work -- spammer was at it again today within the last 24 hours. [36] See en:ET:WPSPAM#royalessence.com and .medi-vet.com for links to user talk pages, edit histories, etc. Also, check this out (registration required/discretion advised) [[37][38].

--A. B. ^(talk) 06:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. I can however not follow the link that you provided - et: is the language code for Estonian, so I am brought to et:WPSPAM, which does not exist. - Andre Engels 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry -- it was late when I typed that. It should have read en:WT:WPSPAM#royalessence.com and .medi-vet.com --A. B. ^(talk) 05:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Automatic redirecting site similar to shorl.com used to bypass blacklistings. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Was already here. I fixed it, thank you. --.anaconda 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There has been a long-running dispute on a number of articles both extant and deleted in respect of a campaign by a small group of poeple to abolish the General Medical Council. The blog, abolishthegmc.blogspot.com, has been linked to the GMC article, two new POV forks created today, other articles on related matters. en:Talk:General Medical Council/Archive 1 shows the kind of thing. [39] is a typical edit, reverting removal of the blog for the umpteenth time. We've had to protect the GMC article in the past to stop this vandalism. Since the blog is tendentious in the extreme and is never ever going to be a reliable source for anything, I wonder if you wouldn't mind blacklisting it please. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Automatic redirecting sites similar to shorl.com used to bypass blacklistings. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done, thank you. --.anaconda 15:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ad-riddled site added to numeorus articles, often by banned edit warrior en:User:JB196 and his many socks and IPs. see [40] for an example of JB196 re-inserting these links as anon, and here [41] as a sock.

1. www.declarationofindependents.net linked from User talk:EthandeSade
2. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/187/homicideonmaff.html linked from Nelson Erazo
3. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/3pwcloses4gd.html linked from Pro-Pain-Pro Wrestling
4. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/awaaz.html linked from Azriael (wrestler)
5. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/chrisfeedback.html linked from Chris Candido
6. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corinopcwst.html linked from Steve Corino
7. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/index1.html linked from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell
8. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/todgordon.html linked from Tod Gordon
9. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/alex.html linked from Alex Shelley
10. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/roderickstrong.html linked from Roderick Strong
11. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/carnagecrew.html linked from Matt Knowles
12. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/rickyvega.html linked from Ricky Vega
13. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/machete.html linked from Ricky Vega
14. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/jaylethal.html linked from Jay Lethal
15. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/rf.html linked from Rob Feinstein
16. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/johnsu.html linked from John Stagikas
17. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/kevingoalreached.html linked from Kevin Matthews (wrestler)
18. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/nigelmcinterv.html linked from Nigel McGuinness
19. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/reviews/mic_reviews/mctapereviews/ecw112396.html linked from Mass Transit incident (ECW)
20. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/reviews/mic_reviews/mctapereviews/fh.html linked from Mass Transit incident (ECW)
21. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/specialsubmits/xpwhistory.html linked from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell
22. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/specialsubmits/quebec.html linked from Jacques Rougeau
23. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/spotlight/april.html linked from April Hunter
24. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/spotlight/maff.html linked from Dan Lopez
25. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/spotlight/johnwalters.html linked from John Stagikas
26. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/spotlight/chrishero.html linked from Chris Hero
27. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/spotlight/cmpunk.html linked from CM Punk
28. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/tammy.html linked from Tammy Lynn Sytch
29. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/xpwbarberaug.html linked from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell
30. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/xpwbarberaug.html linked from Tommy Dreamer

Cleaning this lot up now. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - Andre Engels 08:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

From en-wiki: "The owner of www.makeminemarvel.com - which is an entirely non-notable blog is spamming various marvel comic pages from various ip addresses including www.makeminemarvel.com. He has been doing this for 3-4 months and refuses to stop. He takes no notice of comments or warnings left on the various ip pages. I emailed him directly and he indicated that he has no intention of stopping. Can it be added to the spam blacklist? --Larry laptop 15:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)" --Majorly 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done

--M/ 15:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Repeated porn linkspamming, always vandalizing and replacing existing articles, like here or here or here. Persistent and frequent. Fan-1967 02:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. - Andre Engels 08:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• odele.ru
• chr.ru
• atst.ru
• iapb.ru
• kamaztorg.ru

I previously requested here that these sites are blacklisted. Although en.wikipedia did do a IP range block[42], the spam has returned, most recently through sneaky template spamming (discussed here) which introduced 3500 links. example1, example2. We are monitoring the astore.amazon links, but please now blacklist these Russian affiliate sites. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. I checked on the Russian Wikipedia whether these didn't happen to be 'good sites with bad', but at least the first 4 gave the impression that the few links that were there had to be spammed (links to the home page from various city articles, in one case to three of them from the same article). The last one seemed to be validly linked once, but we cannot get rid of *all* collateral damage. - Andre Engels 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• poldow.com
• nbaoh.com
• nobelpr.com
• npcart.com
• nobmer.com

These have been linked by spam bots of several IP addresses the last few days (see contribs [43] and [44]). These may also be part of the same or similar behavior:

• brainparad.com
• nobel-winners.com

(these last two seem to be just plagiarizing Britannica online; some of the earlier ones may be doing the same) 24.6.152.39 17:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done I have blocked the first 5 you gave. Brainparad.com seems to be set up different from the other five; I therefore do not have the impression it is the same people being behind it. Their actions may be bad, but we are here to stop spam, not to judge the internet. Of nobel-winners.com I could not even ascertain its existence. If you find it's being spammed, refer to this message and I'll blacklist semi-automatically. - Andre Engels 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Brainparad.com & nobel-winners.com seem to be exactly the same, but they have no advertising and are not selling any product. However, they do seem to be copying britannica without permission and claiming the content is GFDL. Compare [45] and [46] for an example. J.smith 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Recently vandalised the [intercourse] page, and also the [Sex Position] page... <shudder> -82.39.71.86 01:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks like that website redirects to aim-search.com. I support blacklisting that subdomain. However, I can't tel whats on www.jino-net.ru since it's in Russian. J.smith 02:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - Andre Engels 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

See this 2006 comment from the December Blacklist talk archive. These interconnected companies have rich payment schemes. (They're the "next big thing" in affiliate marketing and multi-level marketing). We've gotten spam from several unrelated spammers[47][48] and now[49] I thought these had been blacklisted earlier; in any event I'd like to request you do so now. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 21:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

modlibrary.net/proxy/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5kZWNsYXJhdGlvbm9maW5kZXBlbmRlbnRzLm5ldC9kb2kvcGFnZXMveHB3c2QuaHRtbA--&hl=1111101001 is a proxy link to a recently blacklisted site. This is an open proxy not a redirector, unlike tinyurl it adds a banner and post-processes the site. Unquestionably needs blacklisting.

Ditto www.waterfordhomeschool.org/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5kZWNsYXJhdGlvbm9maW5kZXBlbmRlbnRzLm5ldC9kb2kvcGFnZXMveHB3YmFyYmVyYXVnLmh0bWw-&hl=1111101001

Just zis Guy, you know? 11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done, thank you. --.anaconda 11:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just a routine addition of a new Tiny URL domain name. All the existing domains are blacklisted, so there should be no requirement for diffs. Heligoland 12:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done, thank you. --.anaconda 12:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This site has been added to the Ping article on the English wiki three times from different IP locations and always with an anonymous user. --Mdwyer 20:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ping&curid=24265&diff=100898516&oldid=100896319
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ping&diff=prev&oldid=100292946
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ping&diff=prev&oldid=99441676

Currently two links on en-wiki. [50]. Website has max amount of AdSense. J.smith 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done Withdrawn. I'll try page protection, first. --Mdwyer 17:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

More massive pornlink spamming/vandalism of articles, from multiple IP's, like here and here. Fan-1967 02:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

shumiloff.jino-net.ru has been blocked. Blocking the whole site would give too much collateral damage, I think. - Andre Engels 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

An annonymous user keeps adding the links back to the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frozen_shoulder page, despite numerous warnings. There has NEVER been any response, they just keep adding it back. Since the IP addresses are from the NZ area, I think the adds in in violation of WP:EL, specifically adding links to youself. --Mdwyer 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done - it is my opinion that soft-protection should be tried first in such a case. - Andre Engels 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The eighth URL that leads to the same warez paysite. Spammed by one-use-only anons at a rate of maybe one or two per day. Appeared shortly after the first seven were blacklisted. Could you do the honors? --Kizor 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Latest round of the search engine linkspamming of sex articles on en, like these. Fan-1967 03:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.clandrake.org, "your preferred proxy destination" (same text as at least one of those blocked earlier today). There's a whole list of them at http://www.publicwebproxies.com/web_proxy_servers_1.html, actually. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Added most of them. Thank you. --.anaconda 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Spams a wide range of articles with a number of domains:

• asiannet.com , colonhealth.net , deerelkhunting.com, etanklesshotwaterheater.com, firsthearingaids.com, malektips.com , medicalhairtransplantation.org, nolico.com , pressreleasegold.com , southbeach-diet-plan.info, toxicblackmoldhelp.org, treatacidreflux.org, treatgenitalwarts.org, treatnailfungus.org

The owner's list of domains was identified 29 November 2006; we've seen him slowly roll them into Wikipedia one by one since then,

Additional sites are owned by the same owner and can be expected to appear soon. All are useless junk. If you're willing, I'd like to ask they be blacklisted now so as to save aggravation over coming weeks. Here they are:

• aatrax.com, abilogic.com, alaska-adventures.net, alaskatrophyadventures.com, allthewebsites.org, bangkoksmiledental.com, biohealthchip.com, cancerhelponline.org, captainjacksalaska.com, cureheartburn.essential-sugar.com, datingsoftware.org, delllaptopreviews.info, disability-resource.com, drug-rehabcenter.com, fishswiftsure.com, fjaproducts.com, GlycoExpert.com, globaltelesis.com, h57-hoodia.net, homehealthcaredepot.com, investigation.com, jpidata.com, kenai-guides.com, kuuloakai.com, link-pimp.com, linkhelpers.net, medipro.com, mysolitaire.com, online-shopping-catalogs.com, phonecardsmile.com, profish-n-sea.com, purehealthsystems.com, riverpirate.com, seattlefishing.com, selfhealingexpressions.com, skagwayfishing.com, skincancernet.info, skoobe.biz, smartwomensupplements.com, surgeryconcerns.com, tgfusa.com, thehyips.info, yearstoyourhealth.com

User contributions:[51][52][53] -- more domains being used and as yet unidentified. Still spamming today[54] after many warnings and a block. See my user subpage, User:A._B./pressreleasegold.com for more detail if desired. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Disruptive spammer and occasional vandal spams this link using 9 different accounts (that we know of) to multiple articles. Warnings and a block have only made this person feistier. Here is the busiest of the 9 accounts' edit history; see the detailed summary at en:User talk:76.213.157.206 for more edit histories and accounts. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was suggested I post this case here - the full discussion can be found at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#joseplacido.net. Basically, two sites joseplacido.net and .com seem to have been created only to redirect to the Wikipedia page for José Plácido Caamaño. Also, the link was added to that page and the page for Placido Domingo. Is it just weirdness or something worth adding to the blacklist? 24.26.130.181 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

From what I have been told, it looks like a hijack attempt (one of which succeded on the NL page). The .com version of the page should be blacklisted, too, then.24.26.130.181 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ecessive long term spammer Owns and spams All of these domains on a multitude of articles on the English Wikipedia. (whois confirms the same owner as does these being adsense account pub-3279714273926761). Obviousy he's adept at abusing and disrupting Wikipedia. Even wrote a how to article on it Future of Sports Search Engine Optimization . Please strongly consider these, the abuse by this individual cleary is becoming unmanageable.

• onlineloanofficers.com [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]

• shaadibliss.com [71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92]

• crazysportsfan.com [93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135]

• gurusofdating.com [136]

• yourmoviepal.com [137][138][139]

• presidentpolls2008.com [140]

• amifobornot.com [141][142]

• nflsystems.com [143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150]

• camsfaq.com [151][152][153][154][155]

• didbarrycheat.com [156]

• lasvegasbuyeragent.com [157]

• sportus.com [158][159][160]
• easybaseballbetting.com [161][162]
• gapsn.org [163]
• wes.org [164]
• city-data.com [165]
• poojabatra.com [166]
  

I hope All could be added to the list. Thanks--Hu12 17:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• This is the result of some amazing detective work by Hu12 and is actively being discussed on the enwiki Admin noticeboard. There is unanimous support for a ban on the user. The spam is being cleaned up slowly (there is a lot of it). Just zis Guy, you know? 20:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This website has a large button on its front page soliciting viewers to spam the URL on Wikipedia, and indeed it's happening: [167] [168]. In addition, there is advertising of it on Wikinews: this is just one of the examples. I think it's in the best interest that we do the best we can to stave off as much insertion of this URL as we can. Messedrocker 21:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Added to the BL, removed the link from the Wikinews' article. Thank you. --.anaconda 21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is already a filter (?:cup|league|football|wayne|premiership|steven|united|athletic).*years\.com for football (soccer)-related sites with little content and heavy advertising. The same people behind the site seem to have created more sites of a similar ilk and spammed Wikipedia with them recently, including:

• manchestercityyears.com [169]
• arsenalfcyears.com [170]
• birminghamcityyears.com [171]
• plymouthargyleyears.com [172]
• sunderlandafcyears.com [173]
• fulhamfcyears.com [174]
• portsmouthfcyears.com [175]

Could the established filter be extended to take these sites into account? A full list of sites this entity produces is available from e.g. [176] Qwghlm 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Has been getting constantly added as link spam to Rugby World Cup and 2007 Rugby World Cup, despite constant warnings to stop. Has been added by multiple IP's. - 132.181.172.129 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• hotmailpk.com
• apnamess.com
• newbestweb.com
• myspace-wallpapers.com
• www.bookclub9.com

All receiving multiple entries by the same user on the English Wikipedia. Diffs can be provided as necessary. The first three are owned by the same person. Ral315 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Few additions, but apparently cross-language, was added twice at en [177], [178] at twice on fr [179], [180]. Maybe other languages affected as well. Ahoerstemeier 11:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done, thank you. --.anaconda 11:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Site advertising a French airport taxi business. Spammed by Israeli IP addresses, several of which run web servers (serving up a blank page on port 80), presumably open proxies, to multiple language editions using poorly auto-translated link captions.[181][182][183][184][185][186] —LX (talk, contribs) 14:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done, spammed also on the French Wikipedia. --.anaconda 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are numerous links to web sites affiliated with this organization and its webmaster.See these links for interesting background: first[187], then [188] (be sure to hit the links at the bottom), then [189] and [190]

"NICOclub's Nissan forums and Infiniti forums and all affiliated sites are the property of HDS Holdings, LLC. They are independent publications and are not affiliated with or endorsed by Nissan Motor Company or Nissan North America."

Domains involved: 240sx.org, 240sxconvertible.com, 240sxtech.com, 350zclub.org, altimacoupe.com, g35club.org, gtrclub.org, HybridAltima.com, infiniticx.com, infinitionlinemechanic.com, J30club.com, M30club.com, Muranoclub.com, m35forum.com, m45forum.com, maximaclub.org, nissancommercials.com, nissanforia.com, nissanonlinemechanic.com, nissantech.com, nissanterranaut.com, nissanversa.org, Q45.org, QX56club.org, RB26DETT.com, VQ35DE.com, vh45de.com, vq35hr.com, azhitman.com/, homephotog.com, Z32club.org, webbrainiac.com

There is a remaining domain, nicoclub.com, but it's a link within en:NICO Club -- we need to get rid of that article somehow first (the organization may be notable, which makes that tricky).

en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#NICO Club links has the full story, including accounts doing the spamming, etc. We gave them one more chance and they blew it this morning.[191]

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals.

\.middlesell\.com

My name is Jared Fausnaught and I propose that this be removed from the Spam blacklist. I am one of the managers for Middlesell.com. Our website is not a spam site, it is a student portal. Please see for yourself.

Also, I would like to know why this was originally added here in the first place.

Regards, Jared

If you're bored, here are a few of many links you could peruse:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#University_of_Mary_Washington
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dannyisme#.22Right_to_Vanish.22_abused
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.131.148.171
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B.#University_of_Mary_Washington
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Analyzethis
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.111.70.130
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.111.71.54
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.111.74.57
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.111.85.50
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.131.148.171
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.202.109.43

--A. B. ^(talk) 06:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Has been blocked upon a request saying that it were a commercial site (a lie), and there were too many links to it (too many being about 50) in the Wikipedia.

This is not a commercial site. It exists for more than a decade, and its content was always free, is free, and will remain free, as one of the makers told me. Unlike typical commercial news and newspaper portals, they never expire/delete their aticles. There is no comparable source (by size and depth of coverage) about art, artwork, artists, museums, exhibitions, etc. online in German language.

Imho, only about 50 links from the WP to a site having hundreds of thousends of free articles on paintings, artists, etc. etc. is really not too much. Disallowing such links completely, appears insane to me. --Purodha Blissenbach 11:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Usually I agree with Purodha Blissenbach, in this case I strongly disagree. Kunstmarkt purpose is to sell art. The pictures there are not free, but under copyrights. It's a sad situatiion that we have such strong copyright-laws on photographs of art and I understand the problems wiki-contributers have. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a link-container, therfore kunstmarkt has to stay on the list. --Hedwig in Washington 09:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kunstmarkt.com does not sell art. They do sell advertizing space to art exhibitors, galleries, and the like. Of course what they publish is copyrighted, and free. This is the exact same situation of Wikipedia articles, which are copyrighted, and free. So where's the problem? --Purodha Blissenbach 10:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S. even if they were selling art, what is the problem linking to one or another of their excellent artists bios, which are free, and granted to stay as long as the Website exists? --Purodha Blissenbach 10:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's a 100% commercial site, that's what I say. I really have a big problem with commercial website that have 50 entries on one(!) Wikipedia. We do not provide advertising webspace. That's not what I'm working for. And you are a hardcore-wikipedian, you know how much crap is already in "our" articles. We need to maintain high standards, otherwise we'll be nothing else than myspace, ebay or the yellow pages. Regarding the bios, it's our work to write an article about an artist, not generating a stub in the Wikipedia and linking to external information that we should provide. --Hedwig in Washington 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree on better having own quality articles in the Wikipedias than links. When there is no one (up to now) who writes such an article, or when there is another ressource having (a considerable amount of) material for further reading, an image galley, etc., then there is no point in not linking to it - wether or not the site offering it is considered commercial by some or not - as long as its content is free, reliable, and good. If we are not even ruling links out because target sites are doublessly commercial, such as http://mircosoft.com/ or http://ibm.com/ or http://daimler-chrysler.com/ , even less can we generally forbid links to pages which are non-commercial, or at best dispudely commercial sites. We DO provide advertizing space. Recently there was an advert of a record company to be found on the top of all pages of all wikimedia foundation supported wikies, alongside with an advert fo the Wikimedia Foundation. Also noone, or at least not me, would not put any blame on you, if you did not suggest http: /kunstmarkt.com/ pages for further or supplementary reading in articles authored by you. But your intent to disallow the same for all other authors of all Wikimedia wikies, based on personal prejudice as it appears to me, is counterproductive and detrimental to the value of Wikipedia as a ressource for free information. --Purodha Blissenbach 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The good news is, that both of us try to improve quality. The microsoft/daimler/whatsoever-links are not good examples. That's different. Maybe you have a look on the DE-Wikipedia where I deleted all most of the kunstmarkt links. You'll see that most of the articles are stubs or better stubs. The people go the easy way and that's another point. You are right, prejudice is counterproductive, but how's free of that. My decision to ask for further blocking is based on WP:WEB, the articles where the link has been and the website kunstmarkt itself. I do not try to fight for an old decision I made to have look like I was right then. It's not that I want to harm the kuinstmarkt guys or Wikipedia. For Wikipedia I try to do all I can to make it a better one. --Hedwig in Washington 13:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reading the above arguments makes me regard this blocking even more questionable. You didn't only remove "most of the kunstmarkt links" - you deliberately cut off each and every editors freedom to insert such links in any of the wikimedia wikies. Removing links to (usable) external ressources from stub articles serves the purpose of excessively downgrading the use of such articles for everyone. Readers now do not even find wanted information elsewhere. Editors of little knowledge willing to improve the article are deprived easy access to some of the information they should need to know. Editors who did not have the ressources to make a better article, but want to keep a note for others, likely feel set back when their effords are being wasted, and maybe leave the Wiki again in frustration. As I said, I don't mind when such a link is removed when it became superfluous after a stub article evolved, and the place a link points to isn't offering additonal information any more. I do mind global blocking of a useful ressource for everyone on every wiki based upon no real ground. Blocking is a countermeasure to linkSPAMming, i.e. excessive and/or unrelated, likely automated, mass-insertion of links. It has to be a last-resort type of decision, because otherwise editors freedom would be hampered. With about 50 articles in a half million+ having links to pages of a specialized thematic website of comparable size (332600 pages according to Google) I think you cannot speak of masses of links, and you never sugested, these links were made automatically, for ill reasons, nor that they were totally useless. So removing the blackmailing and restoring editors choices is imho the only sensitive solution. --Purodha Blissenbach 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Kunstmarkt.com is a news site. There is no organised spam from this site to be found. --88.76.209.112 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The total ammount of articles is not an argument to block or leave it alone. I would agree on the stub use, but the result will be that the stub stays a stub. There will be no effort to improve, that is what I've learned in the Wikipdia so far. Create a stub, slam a few links into it and forget it. That's how it goes. And the Internet is no the only source we can use, there are still books around! I really don't think that somebody will leave the Wikipedia if one website is blocked. Nobody who is interested in Wikipedia work would do that. Every(!) possible information from this site has to be in the article and not on external websites. There is no need to allow a website for selling art on the Wikipedias. I'm sorry for any hardship that may occure here or there, the greater good is the Wikipedia itself. We are running in circles. --Hedwig in Washington 07:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is not a website for selling art, even though Hedwig in Washington keeps repeating that. Even it it was, this is not a cause for blocking. The opinion, editors were lazy, is not a valid argument for blocking a web site. There is no proof of SPAMming, not even a potential for suspiction therof. All there is, is a personal prejudice of a single user, who, so it appears to me, wants to use the power of blacklisting as an educational measure against disliked editors. Let's suggest Hedwig in Washington to make articles better instead of calling for unjustified site blocks. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree; this should be removed. The spam blacklist should be specifically for spamming, not a repository of every commercial site on the web. Commercial sites that aren't being spammed should be included or not included in the normal manner---by just editing the pages, or talking on talk pages if there's a disagreement. --Delirium 07:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

#These sites are redirecting requests from Wikimedia sites to a third-party site\.
\.namebase\.org
wikipedia-watch\.org    
google-watch\.org       
cia-on-campus\.org      
\.scroogle\.org
yahoo-watch\.org

I came across an article with these external links that weren't links, then viewed the source to see why. They are listed as <nowiki>, and the Talk page has a discussion about them being here because they redirect. However, after clicking the links from an editing preview page, they don't redirect. Regardless of whether we agree with the content of the links, I don't see why they should be blacklisted, since the reason they're blacklisted is not (at least now) the case. Nathanm mn 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

A news article reports that MSN Messenger is blocking www.scroogle.org. If true, could MSN be importing the spam blacklist? What are the liability implications for the Foundation if a domain is on this list that cannot accurately be described as spam? 216.60.70.68 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Request denied (again) - same reasons as before. Raul654 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

What reasons? The stated one on the Spam blacklist is wrong. They don't redirect requests from Wikimedia, I tested it. Nathanm mn 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nathan, please be aware that any link to these sites on enwiki would be immediately reverted, and any editor repeatedly inserting or re-inserting them would be blocked from editing and most likely permanently banned. This is per ArbCom ruling. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why are they still blacklisted though, when they no longer redirect? And technically, they are not spam. --Majorly 14:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. Ashibaka 02:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

So basically, there's an ArbCom ruling to censor these links because they disagree with the content? That's what it sounds like to me at least. Nathanm mn 08:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Used in de:Rainer Riehn. Can't see what's wrong with that page, seems to be an application form to a reliable newsletter. --85.180.179.248 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

ohost.de is being used by spammers as well. You might try whitelisting on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Diskussion:Spam-whitelist. (No decision yet, if another admin does want to remove this from the blacklist, they have my blessing) - Andre Engels 11:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This site is in the blacklist for a long time, it was used in many articles. I think its a good animals information website, and it surly doesn't belong to the blacklist. 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Sep#Spam_or_not_spam.3F for the background on these people. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes I've seen it already.

• Many sites have links from more than 16 articles.
• Many sites have AdSense... Even more agressive from this one.
• For searching animals pictures, the site is very useful (with all due respect, in my opinion, google images is not the best place to search images...)
• There are exactly 2 articles that are parts of a Wikipedia article in the "Domestic Cats" section, and both of them have links to the original.
• The site has some useful articles that can be added to wikipedia as more info to the surfer.

I've seen many spam sites that don't belong here, I believe this site shouldn't be one of them...

Not done - first specify a specific page and a specific link you want to put there, then I will consider. Not out of the blank. - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK my friend, for example:

Animals Article:

• Animals Pictures and Information - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com
• Animals useless facts - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/rec/415-1
• Creating new breeds - Frizzle chicken - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/rec/297-1

Snakes Article:

• Dealing with non-venomous snake bites - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/rec/408-1
• Treating and Preventing Venomous Snakes Bites - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/rec/382-1
• Venomous Snakes breeds info - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/cat/18-Snakes-Venomous/
• Non-Venomous Snakes breeds info - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/cat/17-Snakes-Non-Venomous/

I couldn't add these links without changing the url to a fake one... so please remove the "[remove this]"...

I can give more examples but i think thats enough...

Not done Looks to me like 'where can I add a link to this site on Wikipedia', not 'where can I find a good link for this Wikipedia article'. In other words, spam. Given the reason for the addition, I need more convincing reasons to remove it. - Andre Engels 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I requested this a couple months ago to be removed from the Blacklist.[192] I thought the original request was laughable and unfair.[193]. His response was "Spammed on a daily basis to lots of articles, its owner has also admited to spamming it." It was spammed? All articles with links to the site were completely relevant, and had just as much right to be in the article as the TV.com links. I thought the purpose of the lniks were to add other sites that gave more about it's subject. Just because TVRage was an article that has been deleted off of Wikipedia (something I disagreed at the time, but now that I understand the policies more clearly see that the site wasn't notable, and didn't meet en:WP:Web. I don't think that should decide whether or not the site is a "spam" site or not. The links weren't added on a daily basis. To "lots of articles"? So? Unless they were irrelevent, I don't see a big issue that couldn't be discussed on the Talk Page. The "owner admitted spamming it"? Um, that guy wasn't an owner. He was just affiliated with the site. Right here- h t t p : / / t v r a g e . c o m / p r o f i l e s / J o h n Q . P u b l i c / b l o g s / ? v t i m e = 2 0 0 6 1 1 2 2 (remove spaces) you can see that he left. He was shortly banned from Wiki, and is no longer associated with the site. I see no issue with him. This site isn't constantly spammed. I admit to adding a couple links to sites with no links at all, so I thought it could improve the article at anycase. (I discuss on Talk Pages now when it comes down to External Links). I really want the opinions of others, not a simple "REJECTED" See here where it was requested. I have see where it was. I read it. Links to two articles where an indef. blocked user spammed isn't a very good excuse. --Linalu24 20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wholeheartedly agree with you that TvRage should be removed from the blacklist or added to the whitelist (either way the result would be the same). But to add to your argument, you should indicate specific articles that would benefit from information from TvRage. Also a TvRage article should now be created seeing as how TvRage has been climbing in web traffic rank according to its alexa listing (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=tvrage.com). 129.7.254.33 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Linalu, I think a better place to rehash a dispute that occured on particular Wikipedia is to take it back to that Wikipedia. I suggest you open the discussion at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam and get consensus there. Also, in a previous post, you mentioned you were active on some other Wikipedias? You might have people on those other Wikipedias leave comments on your other user talk pages, then include those talk page links en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam remarks. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Having trouble seeing how this is considered spam, but it's been recently added to the list, despite being pretty widly used (mostly on en.wikipedia) This site has a large number of user including a substancial number of musicians whose postings here had previouslly made it possible to link to copyrighted matrial this site had direct posting from the origional copyright owners and such was not a violation. There may have been a little spam from some, but the benifits that come from blacklisting this site are vastly outweighed by the problems that are caused... -- (sorry, no username on meta)

I agree. Many celebrities, especially musicians, maintain MySpace pages and blogs, and the English Wikipedia, at least, allows these blogs to be used as sources. --Maxamegalon2000 02:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

And I'm now unable to revert vandalism on any page that has a link to a MySpace blog without either going at it one section at a time or deleting the link, and deleting the link would itself be considered vandalism. I'd definitely like to see this hostname removed from the filters. --Psiphiorg (en.wikipedia.org) 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the usefulnes of this site in general, and I'm not aware of any SPAM using it. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Aha. Requested by Jimbo. You may be wasting your time here. Just zis Guy, you know? 19:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, this will mark the first time I disagree with Jimbo on something. MySpace blogs are very useful because they can be first-hand sources from many famous people (who have official MySpace pages). Will someone please whitelist this? --Liface 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Currently link articles in en:wikipedia:

• current list of articles that include the link *.blogs.myspace.com -- 1 link
• current list of articles that include the link *.blogs.myspace.com -- 201 links

Here's the breakdown:

• 5 links in 5 Image pages
• 42 links in 42 Article talk pages
• 19 in 17 User talk pages
• 42 in 40 User pages
• 1 in a Wikipedia talk page
• 49 in 45 Wikipedia pages
  • 9 links in old articles for creation requests
  • 32 links in AfD or VfD pages and logs
  • 8 links in other Wikipedia
• 52 in 43 Article pages

--A. B. ^(talk) 08:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've put the list on a user subpage: en:User:A. B./Sandbox9 to give people a sense of the kinds of linked articles and the quality of the links. It can also serve as a clean-up list. --A. B. ^(talk) 08:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There's also a discussion about this at WP:Reliable Sources I've like to see this removed from the blacklist. If the authenticity of the MySpace owner is verified, I don't see why this can't be used as citations - 60.240.174.126 10:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I guess this is a final decision then as not only has it been blacklisted the link has just been deleted from Eat Static breaking the reference it was part of which was to a blog on an official MySpace by a recognised authority (band member) - which is normally allowed by policy. I only found out it was blacklisted when I tried to restore it.82.41.98.219 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just look at some of the MySpace blog citations Wizardry Dragon has been indiscriminately removing from articles even though their authenticity has been verified. [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200] and there's a lot more if you look at his contributions. - 60.240.174.126 02:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted an edit to the Lance Bass article that included a link to a MySpace blog as a citation, but I had to remove the link and just include the URL as text. I suppose until this site is removed from the blacklist, this is what we will have to do in order to properly cite our sources. --Psiphiorg (en.wikipedia.org) 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I cannot understand why official sources are being blacklisted, this must be the single stupidest thing that I have ever seen Wikipedia do. Very confused and disappointed. --210.10.183.24 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello there. I recently wanted to update my user page and... tahdah! the entire domain of prv.pl seems to be blacklisted (and so is my former personal site of http://halibutt dot prv dot pl. The problem is that the www.prv.pl is simply a free-of-charge domain provider, perhaps the most popular in Poland ([http://www.google.pl/search?q=prv.pl&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:pl:official&client=firefox-a 2 million hits in Google). Hence the prv.pl suffix is used by, I guess, some 1 in every 4 home pages in Polish. I know some of them might include some malicious codes or something nasty, but blacklisting the entire domain is equal to blacklisting pretty much of the entire Polish internet. Regards, Halibutt

P.S. It's not a major problem for me since I moved to halibutt.pl, but I guess it might be a problem for many more people, especially when it comes to citing sources from such sites.

Done. Block restricted to bxava.prv.pl only. Checking on the Polish Wikipedia showed that the site was linked on a good many articles for apparently valid reasons.

I came across this using a bot on the Italian wikipedia, and noticing that several pages where failing because of "spam error". This site is a web space provider for small user pages and such. If I understand the comments correctly, it was blocked for a single episode of spam three months ago not on wikipedia, but on another wiki. Since it's a webspace provider, it actually has many sites on it, also useful ones like the one linked from it:Fisica delle particelle and others. Is it possible to remove it? it:User:Alfio 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. - Andre Engels 08:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

A whole hosting provider is blacklisted and it has some useful websites hosted on it (for example, adventurelt.awardspace.com, which is a Lithuanian website on adventure games with a database of such games and could not be linked to from Lithuanian wikipedia as of now due to this restriction; the issue was already raised in the Lithuanian wikipedia, 1). If there are spam websites hosted on awardspace, they should be blacklisted separately instead of blacklisting whole awardspace. Lietwiki 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's a association for people of handicrafts. Nothing else. Why is it on the blacklist? 85.2.29.76 07:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was being repeatedly added to multiple pages on the German Wikipedia. See the contributions of de:Benutzer:85.176.182.162, de:Benutzer:85.176.154.161 and de:Benutzer:85.176.155.214. - Andre Engels 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've been using this link on the page for Hostel Part 2 since June 2006 without incident. I understand that myspace or myspace blog links may be irrelevant in a lot of cases but I think in this case, the director's blog on his official myspace is a reliable source.

66.32.119.27 20:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Seelie at wikipediaReply

• I'll get back to you on your Talk. That could, if it were appropriate, be sorted via the local whitelist. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is the legitimate home page of a legitimate high school. I don't know why it's blocked, maybe an issue with the hosting service, but I haven't been able to complete my edits to the school's wiki article because it contains a link to the school's website, which is a most necessary external link. Oknazevad 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (sorry, didn't realize I wasn't logged in the first time.)Reply

I was working on a english wikipedia article on livevideo.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livevideo.com and I couldn't link to the website because "livevideo" is blacklisted. Please look at the wikipedia article and go to the website. -74.137.227.184 05:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello A little correction, it's \.gamend\.net with only one e. Thanks !

fr:Utilisateur:Chico75

Please unblock www . w9rh . org . I have an article that links to referenced material using citeweb. It worked earlier today, subsequent edits not even concerning this URL now return blocked. I don't know why it was blocked but the site is legit 209.225.111.86 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC) User:Anonym1tyReply

Should work now. --.anaconda 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why is it listed? it is a site that has a big music archive --24.232.234.212 01:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

please unblock (first of all all magazine-articles): artnet sometimes has excess value, e.g. artnet.de/magazine/features/brauneis/brauneis06-30-06.asp -> great article & songs from the artist. there is no reason to block such an interesting page..!?!! 138.246.7.114 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Partially done. I have restricted the block to only artnet.de/artist - Andre Engels 11:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why? Because there is sometimes between all the ads maybe an information? That doesn't make sense. --Hedwig in Washington 07:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because it blocks the pages that were spammed before, and not the one that is mentioned here. - Andre Engels 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I obey whatever the META Admins decide! I checked that link and it seems to make sense! 8-))) --Hedwig in Washington 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Was curious as to what happened to the sledtv.org site, then i saw that it had been blacklisted, did a little poking around and never saw any removals but one and no infractions, warings etc, why was this blacklisted? I believe it should not be, and should be reversed

It was blocked as being one of a series of URLs, added by the same spammer from different IPs. Examples given were [201] and [202]. - Andre Engels 08:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to revert a lot of vandalism on the Rake Yohn wikipedia page and I keep getting the spam blacklist thing. What's going on? --164.82.144.3 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Chronic spamming by en:User:Dck7777, en:User:Wog7777, and a bit by en:User:70.18.40.105. Total 118 contributions, all linkspam, all took forever and a day to cleanup: after reviewing, every link that proceded pattern http://ibtimes... was linkspam, and has been removed: [203]. However, link with pattern http://www.ibtimes has quite a few valid links: [204]. I'm thinking it likely has something to do with how the link is placed to viewers on the outside vs. how they see them internally. Perhaps you could simply block http://ibtimes: it might be enough to slow the spammer down. -Patstuart 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It appears to not be working. I ran a test page, and didn't get any problems: what's more, there were two more spammers added to the list of socks. All come from New York City. Patstuart 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Spam blacklist policy discussion

I just did an edit to a page -- and was informed that it could not be posted because there was supposedly a blacklisted link. I had not added ANY links in my minor edit, and the link specified did not show up anywhere on the page when I searched for it. What's the problem ?? Davilance 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This means that this article already contains a blacklisted link. To be able to save this page, you'll have to remove that link. Actually, MediaWiki tell you which link triggered the spam filter along with error message: The following text is what triggered our spam filter: blah blah blah. MaxSem 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Should there be duplications on the list? --HappyCamper 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

No... whats the duplication? J.smith 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

On eN WikipediA, we have a very notorious troublemaker by the name of Lightbringer. One of his MOs is to add utterly unreliable and defective "sources" and external links to the articels he attacks. While this isn't "spamming by multiple sources", would some of the more egregious ones be allowed to be blacklisted? As above, there's no reason to link to these servers from any articel as they're all fringe conspiracy theories. 68.39.174.238 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hard to say. Why not submit them and we can review them one at a time? J.smith 17:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm having a problem reverting a vandalism due to this filter (see [205]). --141.158.218.244 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I tried to add a link to the 'List of Treaty Titles for Monarchs' page on this page, but the update failed due to a link I didn't include (to an elzibethtudor site) how should I address the 'blacklisting after linking' that apparently happened, and how do I get my link added? I'm user Bo on wikipedia.