Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-03

< Talk:Spam blacklist | Archives
(Redirected from Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/03)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Hu12 in topic Additions: Done

Additions: Done

Latest comment: 16 years ago244 comments52 people in discussion

urlsnip.com

Used to insert a blacklisted viartis.net link into an article. I have the removal diff but I don't know when it was added or by whom.[1] --A. B. (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Already here, see above :-). Thank you. --.anaconda 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

lastmeasure.zoy.org

Another shock site, currently used in vandalism by Tooj117 sockpuppets at the English Wikipedia. Example. Lastmeasure is the "THIS PERSON IS LOOKING AT GAY PORN" website. No encyclopedic value.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

cdjuridico.com

Website for selling CD/DVDs about law.

Articles:

I give up listing more diffs. You can see more on these articles:

Users (may me all the same user):

Mosca 17:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Quite clear pattern of abuse. Eagle 101 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The following 39 domains were spammed across 68 articles on en:wikipedia.org from 80+ anonymous, dynamically assigned Malaysian IP addresses:

  • 40weekspregnancystages.com
  • about-credit-card.com
  • about-credit-report.com
  • aboutbodybuilding.net
  • acneskincareinfo.com
  • air-purifier-and-filter.com
  • all-soccer-info.com
  • asbestos-mesothelioma-cancer-info.com
  • atkindietplan.com
  • atkins-diet.cc
  • benefit-green-tea.com
  • breast-augmentation-and-enlargement.com
  • breast-augmentation-implants.com
  • cabbage-soup-diet-plan.com
  • carpetsearch.org
  • cell-phone-blog.net
  • credit-cards-n-debt.com
  • diabetes-diabetic-diet.com
  • dietpills-information.com
  • digital-camera-technology.com
  • dsl-broadband-isp.com
  • dsl-link.com
  • edi-guide.com
  • fitness-health-plan.com
  • grapefruit-diet.org
  • hdtv-lcd-plasma.com
  • lasik-surgery-info.com
  • lasiklasereyesurgeries.com
  • lowcarb.ca
  • satellite-service-providers.com
  • skincaresinformation.com
  • south-beach-diet-information.com
  • southbeachdietprogram.com
  • tech-guide.org
  • teleconferencing-technology.com
  • the-atkins-diet.info
  • the-atkins-diet.info double Eagle 101 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • vpn-info.com
  • zonedietinformation.com

See: en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#39 domains, 80 accounts, 68 articles (permanent link) for links to all 80 anonymous IP accounts' contribution histories. 99% of the edits come from these addresses were spam additions. That discussion also lists the articles spammed as well as Google Adsense account numbers where available. Links have been removed from all pages. --A. B. (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Adfunk spam on Wikipedia

The following 10 domains have been spammed across at least 47 articles on en:wikipedia by at least 6 accounts:

  • adfunk.blog-city.com
  • f1rezone.tblog.com
  • fiucer.blogsome.com
  • wtslink.com
  • mylink.tblog.com
  • tech2.blogsome.com
  • yellowpages1.blogspot.com
  • health1011.blogspot.com
  • ekhye.blogspot.com
  • internumber.blogspot.com

Adfunk has at least 11 affiliated sites and I recommend blacklisting them now as well:

  • evo.blogsome.com
  • engine.blogsome.com
  • adfunk.blogsome.com
  • ms1.blogsome.com
  • gnharrod.com
  • gangstarz.info
  • tech.shoutpost.com
  • mytaxi.blog-city.com
  • myl6.blogsome.com
  • prdeal.com
  • blog.myspace.com/adfunk
    • Note: blog.myspace.com domains are already blacklisted

Given all the controversy over myspace blogs, it's possible blog.myspace.com may come off the blacklist at some point. I recommend specifically blacklisting the blog.myspace.com/adfunk ___domain so that it stays on the blacklist if this happens.

For more information including links to contribution histories for each spam account, see:

Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Links have been removed from all pages except en:User talk:Tech2blog. --A. B. (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: some of the domains listed are actually sub-domains of large hosting services such as blogspot or blogsome. I recommend blacklisting only the subdomains as listed above. --A. B. (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  Done I've blacklisted only the domains that were actually spammed. Eagle 101 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks -- and I'm sorry about forgetting to take the www's out. --A. B. (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Maximus ___domain for blacklisting: xatpro.com

Other Maximus Business Solutions domains were blacklisted earlier this month; see:

In tracking down unrelated Adfunk spam on en.wikipedia, I found that an IP had added a link to a known Maximus ___domain last May at the same time as one to a ___domain I missed in my earlier request.[26][27]

  • xatpro.com

Currently, there are none of these links on any pages. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, is there current spamming of this? I mean May is quite a while back... Eagle 101 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This spammer has been so prolific that I can't say if that link's been added since May. It very well may have. I've waded through hundreds of article edits looking for Maximus spam. If you look at the WikiProject Spam discussion, there are probably more domains I missed and there are surely many IP accounts I've missed. The Maximus spammer has been active with 11 different IPs just in this month -- that I know of:
It's safe to assume that we will being playing Whac-a-mole with these guys for a long time. I recommend blacklisting that link, but it's certainly OK if it's not for now.
--A. B. (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  Done - Ok, sorry for missing this one! It sorta got swept under the carpet, blacklisting due to multiple IP ranges. Eagle 101 03:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Netbizsolutions.com spam on Wikipedia

At least 15 dynamically assigned, one-session use IPs spammed 6 domains across at least 38 articles on en.wikipedia. In all but one case, these IP addresses' contributions were 100% spam only.

Domains spammed (6):

  • affiliatedirectorysite.com
  • furniture-asian.com
  • netbizasia.com
  • netbizsolutions.com
  • sixco.ws (similar to tinyurl.com)
  • templatesnew.com

Affiliated domains -- I recommend blacklisting these now as well (5):

  • activehits4u.com
  • fluxservices.com
  • hostnetbiz.com
  • impotenceherbs4impotency.info
  • impotenceherbsextract.com

For more information and for links to all the accounts' contribution histories, see:

title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=110095227#Netbizsolutions.com_spam_on_Wikipedia_using_punctuation link]

Currently, there are none of these links on any Wikipedia pages. --A. B. (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Quite clear spamming from multiple IP ranges. Eagle 101 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm only adding those that have actually been spammed. Eagle 101 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lost .eu "game"

Links to "lost .eu" have been repeatedly removed from the dab page Wikipedia:Lost and snuck into a number of other pages with similar names. People from http://www.lost. eu are attempting to get sign-ups for some sort of social experiment contest, which is offering $5000 for the most sign-ups.

See, for background:

--Leflyman 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

notdone - Try dealing this with the normal means of stopping vandalism and spam. (ie, blocks, warnigns ect). If more IP addresses start popping up, drop a note here. Eagle 101 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting -- I was tracking down unrelated laptopnik.com spam out of Malaysia and Singapore today and found that in addition to those links, someone using a Hewlett-Packard IP,128.88.255.35, tracerouting to Singapore had added lost.eu links. Leflyman's 72.138.68.246 spammer is a Rogers Cable customer in Canada. Neither IP is listed on any prominent open proxy/abusive IP lists[28][29], the first thing you think of when you see such geographically diverse spamming. That this is some sort of a contest would explain what we're seeing. Based on this, I think blacklisting is going to be our only sure fix short of blocking everyone but 127.0.0.1. --A. B. (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  Done - if this is what we really think this is, lets go ahead and blacklist, we can take it off when the contest ends. Eagle 101 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
--Leflyman 03:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning those, any idea on how long the "game" is going to last? Eagle 101 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

geocities.com/xpw5yearslater

Same content was previously hosted on another blacklisted site - www.declarationofindependents.net, and was repeatedly inserted into Tommy Dreamer by various IPs. 81.153.129.208 02:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done - clear evidence above of multiple IP ranges. Eagle 101 02:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

modiarte.it

  Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

mondeducirquelausanne87.blogspot.com

  Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

charlie-parker.org

  Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

kit-direito.com

This ___domain redirects to "cdjuridico.com" already blocked. Its the same user with another IP [42] For details see previous post #cdjuridico.com —Mosca 08:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done redirect site to already blacklisted site. Eagle 101 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

tvsylt.com

Constant linkspam in many articles on de.wp by several IPs from the 80.130.*.* range, e. g. 80.130.112.205, 80.130.92.34, 80.130.115.117, 80.130.108.19. Please take it on the blacklist at least for two months or three. --Gardini 11:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

notdone - Could you try a block of 80.130.0.0/16 first? Try it for like 31 hours and see if he comes back or not. Eagle 101 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? (scnr) You advise us to block 64K IPs belonging to a big provider to try (!) to keep out one single spammer, wo is doing this for almost a week, for one single day? Sorry, but if Gardini or I would do this block, probably at least 10 other admins would undo it immediately. Needless to say that the blocked page is totally unsuited for linking it in an encyclopaedia. --FritzG 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Problem is this list is not just for encyclopedias I believe that several hundred wikis use this. I am not aware of how large the host is. Some of them have little to no contributions. See some of the blocks done on en. I've found that very short blocks tends to stop them. Though if you guys are unable to deal with it using your normal admin tools, I will blacklist, its up to you folks. I'm just suggesting alternatives.Eagle 101 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this link might be useful on any Wikimedia project, so it would be nice if you blacklisted, since the spammer continues with his wicked craft: 80.130.82.210. --Gardini 11:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And again: 80.130.73.81. --Gardini 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
And it doesn't come to an end: 80.130.71.98. I'd also like you to remark this edit. Would you be so kind to blacklist this URL for one eternity or two? --Gardini 20:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done - sorry I did not see the new developments. Thanks Gardini for telling me about it on my talk. Eagle 101 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*.gratuliermir.de

Hi all,

crosswiki-spam by *.gratuliermir.de, where * stands for a geografical ___location, like:

gratuliermir.de is gaining content (fotos etc.) from jeder-tag.de (already blacklisted), see code from this example: wismar.gratuliermir.de. Thank you. --Gunnex 17:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure there is an active attempt to spam this? Looks like different contributors to me. 4 different IP addresses for each wiki, unless those IP addresses are being used by the same person. Eagle 101 17:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eagle, *.gratuliermir.de flooded - for example - almost all the language wikipedia´s related to the article Bamberg. In the meantime, i did some reverts... The spamer is reverting correction at language wikipedia´s with different ip´s. Following - for example - the spam-contributions by ip 84.139.246.17: bgwiki, cawiki, etwiki, eswiki, frwiki, idwiki, itwiki, lawiki, nowiki, plwiki, ptwiki, rowiki, and - interesting - eowiki: inserted link to jeder-tag.de before blacklisted. --Gunnex 19:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done, clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 19:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, that these photos are very beautiful. Why don't you like them? --84.242.65.251 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (User:Kirk from CsWiki)

You might think that, but the problem is not how "beautiful" the photos are, but rather the pattern of spamming that has been going on. Eagle 101 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

mannbeisstfilm.de

Persistent spamming on de:WP in several cases: [43] (already been cautioned) [44] [45] [46] (1 edit) [47] (1 edit) [48] (1 edit) There are more IPs with just 1 edit, but I can't be bothered to find/list them all. Thanks. --Michael 09:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done (sorry I missed this earlier) Eagle 101 19:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

internet-history.tz4.com

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

pavelnedved.110mb.com

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 15:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

statisticsoftheworld.page.tl

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

parkourstyle.com

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

texaspoker.tk

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Some more, that I've just noticed. Eagle 101 16:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ainfos.ca

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

dcestonian.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

cosplayx.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

katardat.org

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

anarkismo.net

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

nefac.net

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

bonsaimenorca.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

napolinelmondo.org

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

petrophoto.net

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

asociacionjacob52.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 16:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

harmonica.it

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 16:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

wga.hu

wga.hu

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)wga.hu
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm modifying this blacklist to wga.hu/html/t/tintoret as I might have gotten some collateral on the english wiki, we will find out soon enough if the ___domain will continue to give us problems. If it does I will make this block broader. Eagle 101 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

petrophoto.net

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

indiabroadband.net

Adsense pub-9588274242501467

  • {{en:linksearch|*.indiabroadband.net|indiabroadband.net}}
Spam sock accounts

en:User:202.177.186.18
en:User:210.214.91.194
en:User:61.17.226.112
en:User:202.177.185.81
en:User:210.214.91.202
en:User:202.177.186.169]]
en:User:210.214.91.188
http://www.bsnl-broadband.com
http://www.bsnl-internet.info
--AndrewCates 18:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 16:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

make-money-online4.tripod.com

Extensively spammed (usually being inserted over and over into each section of an article) by three different anon IPs on the English Wikipedia.

221.215.219.130

  • Money

221.208.14.248

  • online auction business model
  • Money, Money, Money

159.226.112.12

  • Business
  • Make
  • Make Room! Make Room!
  • Online auction business model

Notinasnaid 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 19:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

visitdaugavpils.lv

  Done cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

cosplay-world.com

  Done cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

ulkerfenerbahce.com

  Done cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

antu.com

  Done cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

bukkake.com

  Done cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

go-sierra-nevada.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

narutokage.135.it

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

go-passau-land.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

elrelojdesol.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

bratz.tv

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Incest porn linkfarms

Quote http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=111578479

>> I came across this yesterday and haven't had time to deal with it. See en:Special:Contributions/213.184.238.38 -- we had another Belorussian IP add such links earlier in 2006. Can someone get his 3 December links blacklisted? I won't have time. Given the incest/kiddie-sex connection, it's probably mandatory to get rid of these immediately and permanently under Florida and/or U.S. law (the legal jurisdictions for Wikipedia's servers). Thanks! [--A. B.]

These domains belong to a network of linkfarms, with hidden links in their HTML code between themselves and to various pornsites: 

guatemalahist\.com
namibianhistory\.com
croatiahis\.com
zimbab\.net
xz5\.org

The links above were added directly by en:Special:Contributions/213.184.238.38, below are additional links I've gathered from scanning some of their pages. 

z4o\.net
pxy1\.net
agablog\.com
akoblog\.com
familyincestbiz\.com
ackue\.info
aepwd\.org
aexqq\.org
aqhfc\.info
cqfnc\.info
cqhfs\.info
cxqqc\.org
foxqq\.org
xcjas\.com
xcjei\.com
xcjin\.com

Femto 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done - I'm going to do them all, looks like the intent of this was to spam us. Eagle 101 17:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

tutorialspoint.com

tutorialspoint.com

(LinkSearch: meta | en | es | de | fr | ru | zh | simple | c | d | Wikipedias: top 25 · 50 · major wikis · sc · gs)(Search: Google | en (G) | fr (G) | de (G) | meta (G) | backlinks | → links ←)tutorialspoint.com
(Reports: Report ← track | XWiki | Local | en | find entry)(DomainTools: whois | AboutUs | Malware?)

Spam, (WPSPAM case), continues: en:Special:Contributions/59.144.76.115

example activities on other languages:

Femto 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Apr#tutorialspoint.com_talentgroups.com_amrood.com note --Hu12 18:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

bonuslover.com

Spam see [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]

See also:

[54] 87.74.10.185 11:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 17:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

jeffsfamilypharmacy.com and others

  • jeffsfamilypharmacy.com
  • thereddoorstore.com
  • bluevelvet.com

Spammed over a long time to the English Wikipedia, by the following: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

  Done Eagle 101 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

obsessedwithwrestling.com/columns/jonathanbarber/

Multiple IPs linkspamming to articles written by banned user JB196, who has a long term abuse report. Please just block that part of the site, as the rest of the site is used in many other articles.

72.36.195.242 [63][64]

217.160.226.33 [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81]

72.36.223.93 [82][83][84]

More IPs were used, but based on previous experience that should be enough? 81.155.77.73 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 05:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ffring.com and www.ffring.com

IPs and accounts spamming this unnecessary Final Fantasy fansite in articles concerning this video game series. Sometimes link to their site main page, and sometimes directly to some video game trailers hosted on their site. They change serveur and site name.82.66.36.11 08:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 05:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

moviesbuzz.com

Spammed by several single-purpose accounts:

Very low content/high ad site. The little content that is present is copyvio (based on what I have checked), much of it taken from Wikipedia. Many of the links added in fact led to articles copied from Wikipedia without proper citation. Recent addition: added content copied from music buzz and added link to the website - even though the content itself had originally been copied from the Wikipedia article being spammed. That IP in particlarmusicbuzz. Other examples: Alicia Keys copyvio. Today's version - spamming both the talk page and article. Lots of links to galleries of Indian movie stars with only a handful of pictures and no other redeemable content: [140] Nposs 22:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done - multiple IP range spam. Eagle 101 05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

pornoass.iespana.es

from IP 87.118.108.81 also from this IP came the already blacklisted diff diff diff

  Done. Block that IP address. --.anaconda 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

pages.citebite.com

URL-shrinking service; the user inputs a quote and a URL and gets a URL that mirrors the original, but with the quote highlighted. Veinor 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 22:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

gamefreaks365.com

Spammed by an anon quite a bit (see en:Special:Contributions/70.224.58.15) and also by others to a number of gaming articles, e.g. [142], [143], [144] - link list on en after reversionof the anon's edits was: 

  1. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=105 linked from XaviXPort gaming console
  2. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=110 linked from Matt Leto
  3. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=170 linked from Metroid Prime Hunters
  4. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=55 linked from XGameStation
  5. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=68 linked from GameZone
  6. gamefreaks365.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=71 linked from Talk:Comparison of handheld gaming consoles
  7. gamefreaks365.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=446 linked from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time
  8. gamefreaks365.com/newsarticle.php?sid=1833 linked from Eidos Interactive
  9. gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=1091 linked from Avatar: The Last Airbender (video game)
 10. gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=1120 linked from NBA Street: Homecourt
 11. gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=393 linked from Alex Kidd in Miracle World
 12. www.gamefreaks365.com/forums linked from Wikipedia:Dead external links/301/g
 13. www.gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=1109 linked from Def Jam: Icon
 14. www.gamefreaks365.com/screenshots linked from Wikipedia:Dead external links/301/g

Also some on nl: and maybe other projects, I'm checking. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me the ones from other projects? Eagle 101 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the ones from nl:, three Alex Kidd related nl:Alex Kidd The Lost Stars, nl:Alex Kidd in Shinobi World, .nl:Alex Kidd in Miracle World. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I will look at this further in a few hours Eagle 101 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  Done Ok I will blacklist, sorry for the delay later today when I have time to log it and all. Eagle 101 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ruswar.com

  Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why this useful site is considered to be a spam? Who decide it for all people? Did you look the site youself? Or maybe you been on a war? This collection of RARE war PHOTOGRAPHY and DOCUMENTARY is unic non-commercial project, built by veterans of Afghanistan war. It looks like somebody has a personal problems and no respect to died soldiers. God has no forgivness for such vandalism. If it dos not mach a language criteria??? just remove the link from unappropriate page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bladerunner4545 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've already replied on the request for removal below, but basically it has been spammed across multiple wikis. I'm leaving this up to another meta admin to choose to remove it or not. Though I will ask you to please tone down the language, I don't have a "war" against much anything. Thanks. Eagle 101 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Eagle 101, Wikipedia is public project initialy created to help people find useful information. 1)By designating www.ruswar.com as a spam and removing from related pages you cut off people from the access to the source of valuable materials. Ruswar.com not only provides Copyrighted unique Photos and Documentary of Afghanistan war 1979-1989, Salang road, Soviet Army, it also helps people around the world to keep the memory of the past - Langauge is not the issue. 2)If one terrorist oriented person did not like the photography of Russian Army and the mission in Afghanistan, it's not the signal to you to label ruswar.com as a spam. 3)You undertook liability to make this action without discussion with other 40 administrators and consideration opinion of the page's authors. Moreover, it is a shame and a sin to call charity work - SPAM.

OK, here are some comments from a bystander. I'm not an admin and I don't make decisions here -- what follows is strictly my own opinion:
First of all, attacking Eagle 101 is wrong -- he's just following the rules in response to a request from others. Just as I was following the normal protocol when I deleted your links from the English Wikipedia; once a link is blacklisted, you can't edit any pages that contain it until the link is removed, so I was removing the link to free up the pages.
I looked at your photos and I liked them. I would not have requested they be blacklisted myself. Having said that, take a look at these to guidelines from the English language Wikipedia:
  • Conflict of Interest Guideline -- in a nutshell, never link to your own website even if it's non-commercial and even if the links otherwise meet all of our requirements
  • Spam Guideline -- if you start adding a bunch of links to your own website, it's going to lok like spam to us. If you start doing it across multiple Wikipedias, then it really rings alarm bells. When one IP address adds only links and does it across multiple Wikipedias, it's classic spam >95% of the time.
  • Civility Policy -- please do not bite off Eagle 101's head. He's a real person, just like you. Besides, if you'd like to see your links on Wikipedia, it's counterporductive
  • What Wikipedia is Not -- especially the section that says [[en:WP:NOT#SOAP|Wikipedia is not a directory or link-farm. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
  • External Links Guideline -- most useful or interesting sites do not meet our standards of "encyclopedic". I have two great web sites myself that are well-respected and widely cited in their niche yet they do not meet our guideline (and don't have links on Wikipedia).
  • Finally, you're bound to wonder "Well what about all the links to really rotten sites that Wikipedia has? My site is much better. Why have links to those others?" The answer is that on the English Wikipedia alone, we have 3 million+ links, many of them low quality (even if they're not classic "spam") and we welcome all the help we can get to reduce the problem. There a just a few dozen volunteers working on link improvement. As you see noncompliant links, please delete it (just don't go on a deletion spree out of anger -- see en:WP:POINT).
--A. B. (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A. B. to clarify, I am the one that listed that, I blacklisted to stop the cross wiki spam. I'm willing to take it off in a few weeks and try again (see if spamming keeps up or not). Eagle 101 16:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend not removing as there is clear evidence of cross-wiki spam. Naconkantari 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. misa.pimpblog.nl
  2. vesna.reciter.com
  3. viva.reciter.com
  4. www.blogagotchi.com/bobovina
  5. www.blogagotchi.com/busek
  6. www.blogagotchi.com/cher

Spammed the sonikmatter wiki (and many others - google any of the links +mediawiki)

Examples 1 and 2

The Puppeteer 01:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a user account, try blocking the user on that wiki. Either that or demonstrate on this page that there is cross wiki spam (at least 3 or 4 wikis will do). Thanks! Eagle 101 02:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
User accounts are randomly generated by bots. The user has been blocked, but the bot will just create a new account with random numbers.

For evidence of cross wiki spamming, see the following links

  1. Google Search misa-pimpblog-nl
  2. Google Search vesna-reciter-com
  3. Google Search viva-reciter-com
  4. Google Search www-blogagotchi-com-bobovina
  5. Google Search www-blogagotchi-com-busek
  6. Google Search www-blogagotchi-com-cher

203.59.114.60 02:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, what am I looking for here with these google searches.... Eagle 101 17:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

*.astore.amazon.com

please, check these edits: diff and diff. That's shoking, they have added (or modified) links to Amazon through the "partner program", in order to get money from the books buyed by wikipedians. Can you go to all the others wikis to control if the links to Amazon are 'clean'? Thanks, thanks a lot! --81.211.181.164 00:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC) - PS: they are everywere: [145], [146], [147]. --81.211.181.164 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So wait... this is a request to add or remove? Eagle 101 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
add to the Spam blacklist; thanks. --81.211.181.164 02:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
moved to right place, support the request--Jollyroger 16:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I support the request to blacklist this ___domain. It consists solely of affiliate sites - even if you consider Amazon.com a useful link there is no value added by this sub-___domain. We have removed thousands of these links from the English Wikipedia. The links are a bit difficult to track down now they have been removed, but here and here are just two examples. another example and another. And more discussion here. There have also been links to astore.amazon.de and astore.amazon.fr and astore.amazon.co.uk so I think that these should be also added to the regexp. zzuuzz (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 22:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

isbn-check.com + books-by-isbn.com + isbn-check.de

these 3 websites are present in many wikis, mainly in the 'Wikipedia:Book sources' special pages (just removed from it.wiki ). If you search a book, the websites are always redirecting to Amazon (pay-per-link system). The same system is adopted by isbndb.com (Amazon and others). Probably the special pages related to Special:Booksources are full of this kind of spam in every wiki. --81.211.181.164 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diff links to the spam. Thanks, Naconkantari 05:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
the 3 websites on the topic title belong to the same author: he is making money with the "referral profiteering" system (when you get a book description then the links are pointing to amazon). Links are mainly in the "Wikipedia:Book sources" pages on several wikis, for example: en, fr, es, fi, it, de. It is allowed to make money in this way? --81.211.176.241 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done, thanks Naconkantari 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved a removal request to the proper section, below. EdJohnston 01:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Medha Hari spam on Wikipedia

Medha Hari is an Indian dancer. She and/or supporters have aggressively spammed her promotional links and photos for two years using dozens of sock-puppets:

Spammed domains

  • voila.fr/bharatanatyam-dance
  • geocities.com/medhahari
  • medha.info

Articles affected on en.wikipedia:

Spams cross-wiki: English, German, Polish, Italian, French

We thought the problem was solved after the big checkuser investigation and a number of blocks six weeks ago, but a new sock has just added the link again.[148] --A. B. (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

All means have been tried, consider this   Done Eagle 101 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if I am wrong, but, for example, one link ( in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html ) cannot be categorized as spam according to the Wikipedia rules because

1. the link has been placed in the relevant category 2. the link is highly relevant 3. the link provided extended info on Wiki's article 4. the link is not related to Medha Hari, even though contains some links to her pages (as well as dozens of other pages, including Wikipedia!!!) 5. the link does not contain any promotion of any commercial product

Therefore, I consider all the vandalism of the A. B. group (who use plausible interpretations of Wiki's antispam policy) as abusive. 121.247.36.38 03:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A detailed discussion of these links including their promotional nature can be found at en:talk::Bharatanatyam. The advocates for this link were sockpuppets as established by checkuser. Most were blocked by independent admins, not myself. A wide range of Wikipedia policies and guidelines were violated these sockpuppets including en:WP:SPAM, en:WP:NOT#SOAP, en:WP:COI, en:WP:VAND, en:WP:EL, and en:WP:SOCK.en:WP:CIVIL, en:WP:NPA. The record of the accounts adding this link as detailed in all of the links provided above speaks for itself. If this editor has further concerns, she/he can ask for a second opinion at en:WT:WPSPAM; if the reviewing editors there find my actions have been inappropriate, they will certainly overturn them. --A. B. (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi AB! :-)Blessings from Madras! :-) I read a recent review in the Hindu about this site, so am new to Wikipedia, and, frankly speaking do not understand your personal vendetta against that little girl's web site! OK, sockpuppets are bad, but don't you want to throw the baby out with the water? If you start deleting all links because they lend some vague "promotional nature" to the sites, do you seriosly think you are contributing positively to Wikipedia, or just destroying it? All in all, I think that the reviewing editors will find that "medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html" does belong to where it used to be.

P.S. Just read that article. I believe that you don't like that link because it offers quite a different view from those in the W's article! Take the origin of "Bharatanatyam": if you care to read what that "nasty Medhahari's page" contains, you will see that it is a much more serious and better-grounded write-up than the maimed mess that is created here. Regards. Sethumadhavan33 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear users of the A.B. group, your argument that a particular link has to be blacklisted merely as long as it is added by a few 'sockpuppets' does not hold water if this link has been ALSO added by a number of non-'sockpuppets' (which you admitted). There are two separate issues that you, for some reason, chose to combine into one.

121.247.44.14 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I urge everyone to scrutinize the Bharatanatyam article discussion page before making up their minds to indiscriminately delete everything that they don't like. Jag Ju 10:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the proof that such self-declared "spam-fighters" as A. B. have been vandalizing Wikipedia. While deleting links from classical Indian dance, our dear over-zealous spam-fighters have nevertheless left the promotional and commercial link to dancevillage.org (which only link to Barnes&Nobles shop!) and closed their eyes on the fact that the eventsindia link was about volleyball, ceramics, anything but classical Indian dance.

I believe that the admins have to seriously look into cases of vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam". Jag Ju 11:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Jag Ju 11:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that A. B. is not a vandal, Please assume good faith in him. If these were done in error, please list a request for removal with sound reasons why they should be removed. Please try to avoid attacking anyone while doing so. Thanks. Eagle 101 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

outrate.net

Multi article multi IP porn spammer. WPSPAM case.--Hu12 19:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Permanent link to the WPSPAM page here. Eagle 101 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done sorry for the delay, I'm trying to set up linux on my personal computer. Eagle 101 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

321books.co.uk

Repeatedly spammed site, an apparant adsense campaign on the English Wikipedia. Additions from Multiple IP's and sock accounts. more IP's and socks WPSPAM case.--Hu12 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done, thank you. --.anaconda 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

haber80.net

massive interwiki spam via new article creation:

a few examples: http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmaniye http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmaniye http://yi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmaniye --Versageek 12:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

tinyurl.us

url shrinking site - spammed here --Versageek 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

lonympics.co.uk

Chronic spammer Newuser123 has used at least 57 accounts to spam lonympics.co.uk links across a wide range of en.wikipedia articles for months since first being confronted in August 2006. Still at it within the last week.[174][175][176][177]

--A. B. (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

liveeyetv.org

w:en:Special:Contributions/66.212.64.234 keeps spamming his/her blog on articles about music groups: [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187]

82.66.36.11 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

srisathyasaibookcentre.org.uk

Anonymous editors (sockpuppets?) continue to insert spam/commercial links into w:Sathya Sai Baba in spite of several reports to admin, resulting blocks, etc. Problem has been ongoing for a long time and continues: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6. All editors are becoming exhausted with removing this spamlink that is inserted on a daily basis. Ekantik talk 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

mp3lyrics.org

Site hosting song lyrics without permission of copyright holders. Inserted into numerous articles on en.wp. Here are some of the ones I found. --Slowking Man 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

lyricsandsongs.com

Same as above. --Slowking Man 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

yahoo.335-i.com/BMW

wwww.yahoo.335-i.com/BMW - url shorterner. leads to a cars sales site. spammer contribs. JoeSmack 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 4

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[188]

  • auto-insurance-company.net

--A. B. (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

geiz-gorilla.com

Spammed by Deutsche Telekom addresses 84.185.216.42, 84.185.249.66, and 84.185.225.217 to articles on en, es, it, sv, and possibly others. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done clear case of problems. Eagle 101 04:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

coffeereview.net and Yosemite spam

Links:

  • extranomical.com
  • yosemitetours.travel
  • coffeereview.net

Added by Emotionlovesyou and at least one anonymous IP that we know of, 64.142.88.201 to a range of en:wikipedia articles related to either coffee or en:Yosemite National Park. Numerous warnings and an indefinite block have not stopped the problem.[189][190]. --A. B. (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Better Solution Spam

bettersolutions.com Frequent spamming of Better Solution links on Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. User has been caught and banned impersonating administrationship when his links have been reverted. See [191]. Latest spamming include vandalism of external link by replacing Microsoft Office official page with Better Solution's link.

  Done Naconkantari 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Disallow redirect sites

Sometimes the danish wiki has experienced linkspam to linkredirect/shortlink sites. Would it not be a good idea to disallow such sites?:

E.g.:

relurl.com/
urlkick.com/
1url.org/go/
masl.to/
lnk.in/

It is best that people directly can see the ___domain they are going to. --Glenn 20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What triggered Glenn's above comment are links to Flash versions of games added across several (if not multiple Wikipedia versions; e.g. I found the same links in de:, nn:, and no: where acticles were available). The links are added from the address ranges 89.0.0.0-89.1.255.255 and 62.90.5.192-62.90.5.223 (and possibly others).

Examples of the added links taken from da:

- Kaare 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect sites are prohibited.   Done Naconkantari 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy

Another proxy being used to evade the spam blacklist: [192]. Silly, since the site being linked is not actually on the blacklist, although it has been spammed mercilessly by en:User:JB196. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

kitzor.com, tinyshorturl.com gamesff.com zluf.com

Spammer on many Wikis:

Spammer spams mainly Tetris, and Pac-Man articles. From yesterday I'm trying to clean everywhere he was. Hołek 12:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Links only to pl.wiki are here, because you can access other by interwiki... He spams everywhere on Wikipedia. (Maybe single-block for 89.0.*.* ?) Hołek 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 19:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Brass India returns

This guy http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=502607#Conex_India_linkfarms returns with new domains. Femto 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 

aksharmetal.com
appleeou.com
appleinternational.com
appleinternationalenggworks.com
appleinternational.co.in
appleinternational.co.in
appleinternational.in
appleworldwide.com
autobrassonline.com
brassbuildinghardware.com
brasscableglands.com
brasselectrical.com
brasselectricalaccessories.com
brasselectricalcomponents.com
brassfastenersindia.com
brass-fasteners.com
brass-fasteners-india.com
brassfittingcomponents.com
brassinsertsbrassnutsbrassbolts.com
brass-inserts-fasteners-india.com
brassneutrallinks.com
brassnuts-brassbolts.com
brasspartsindia.com
brassparts.ind.in
brassprecisionparts.com 
brass-screws-bolts-nuts.com
brassterminalconnectors.com
brassturnedcomponents.com
cableglands-india.com
cable-glands-asia.com
cableglandsworldwide.com
hindustanimpex.com
jamnagaronline.com
rathodind.com
sahajanandbrass.com
skynetindia.info
siliconbronzefasteners.com
shivombrass.com
webnettechindia.com
  Done Naconkantari 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 6

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[193]

  • free-car-insurance-quote.net

--A. B. (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

topjobnet.org

A recent outburst of spamming for the same Tramadol site on en.wikipedia from multiple IPs:

All have been spamming the same link to topjobnet.org/tramadol/index.html across multiple medical and chemical articles. The entire topjobnet.org ___domain appears to be down right now, but it might be worth seeing if the ___domain should be blacklisted or just this particular URL. Thanks, Gwernol 11:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 14:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

www.chabad-baden.de

Having been inserted repeatedly for a long time into de.wikipedia articles concerning judaism-related topics. The site does not have more or better content than the de.wp articles have; mostly, the pages linked aren't even written in german language which is one major argument for/against external links at least on de. The owner of the website and the chabad of Baden have been informed about this twice without any reaction, the link is inserted even more often after contacting those. See contributions of

and many others.

Thanks, rdb (de) 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

israelnewsagency.com

Israelnewsagency.com is a website run by Joel Leyden, who is banned for spamming and disruption. Links keep creeping in, often from sockpuppets of en:User:Israelbeach, see en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Israelbeach. These links are generally reverted. The site is not a news agency as such, it's more of a blog. I assumed good faith in my latest dealing with an obsessive user over a link [198], but www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediaterrorismiranrussialeninisraelcensorship4877031407.html makes it clear that this was just another sock. I believe the time for assuming good faith in respect of this site is past. It is not a reliable source, it represents itself as a news agency but has no known editorial process and reprints as fact pretty much anything the Israeli Government sends it. Links have been added to en: many times, also to no: (e.g. [199]) and nl: (e.g. [200]). Some of the content linked has been copy-paste lifted from other sources, e.g. [201] which was an interview from the Jerusalem Post. Since we have spamming, conflict of interest, more than one project, offsite copyright violation, attacks on named Wikipedians and the site is not itself a reliable or attributable source, I think blacklisting is probably justified at this point. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, and outing anonymous Wikipedians, too, per www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html, so that's a 100% prohibition on linking in enWP for the time being. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 03:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what exactly was done? I don't see that a link has been added to the content page. Just trying to figure out the system here. Thanks. en:user:woggly09:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Should be added now, I must have been distracted Naconkantari 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 7

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[202]

  • affordable-car-insurance.net

--A. B. (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This site has not ties with insureme.com. It seems that this webmaster has copied insureme.com website after joining there affiliate program. This is against there policies and they are working on correcting. Check out the ___domain owner. Not related.

  Done - we are getting tons of spam from affiliate websites, this is just another case. Eagle 101 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

controlling21.de, controlling21.eu

Different t-dialin IPs are abusing de.wikipedia.org for search engine optimization in a really dumb way. Some diffs:

Blocking the IP did not work because these are dialin IPs of the largest provider in Germany. --217.232.148.195 07:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't give up:

--217.232.148.195 07:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also has domains controlling21.net, controlling21.com, controlling21.org, controlling21.biz, controlling21.at, controlling21.ch, controlling21.info, multimedia-beratung.de that could be used for future spamming. --217.232.148.195 08:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Goes on spamming: [210] --217.232.151.3 21:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Older spam: [211] --217.232.151.3 21:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done all of them. Eagle 101 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

beam.to

This is a url redirect site, it's already in 5 mainspace pages on en.wp --Versageek 12:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done. MaxSem 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

mortgagequeen.us

www dot mortgagequeen dot us (not .com) has been spammed at intervals over the last week or so to English wikipedia; each time by a different anon IP, who does not return calls. The current technique is to replace an existing link in the references section, to disguise the spam. Recorded instances (there may be others): 69.228.86.173 Hard money loan, 69.228.88.201 Mortgage, Commercial mortgage, 69.228.94.209 Commercial mortgage 69.228.91.42 Hard money lender, Hard money loan, Mortgage, Commercial mortgage -- Notinasnaid 12:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

chabad-baden, again

A week ago, I requested to add the ___domain "chabad-baden.de" to the blacklist, which was done by User:Eagle 101. Now, after having http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schawuot&diff=prev&oldid=29390917 removed] all links to the site, a user having before added links to chabad-baden.de now shows up with links to de.chabad.org immediately after my removal. de.chabad.org is (at least in its content) obviously exactly the same site as the one before, so I request to block this as well. Thanks, rdb (de) 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

anemony.info, nasturciya.info, kolokolchiki.info, orchideya.info, magnoliya.info, tyulpan.info, vasilyok.info, landysh.info, azaliya.info, lutik.info

Multiple related domains spammed the sonikmatter wiki - History

Spam is widespread see google for a list of other affected wiki's. Some examples [212], [213] [214]

The Puppeteer 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done looks like an issue, I don't know if the blacklistings here will affect all of these wikis, but it will get at least a few of them. In any case that is blatant spam. Eagle 101 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Note I did run a check of the top 15 language wikipedia's for all these links, I did not find any existing spam. Eagle 101 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 8

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted February 2007:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[215][216]

  • affordable-auto-insurance.biz

--A. B. (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

pressarchive.net

Frame site added by around 20 spam sockpuppets so far. The frame adds a pop-up ad and a frame around the linked website (in all 250 additions so far - a website (www.moviehole.com) that features interviews with actors). Each spammer registers for a generic username, adds around 10 links, and never returns. Socks use similar edit summaries and idiosyncratically format the url (e.g. www.PressArchive.net ex. diff ex. diff). Full list of spammers and techniques on WP Project spam. So far all 250 additions have been frame link-throughs to www.moviehole.com - in particular, interviews with actors. Nposs 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done constant spam issue. If there are legit links, use the whitelist. Eagle 101 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Business English Solutions International, LLC spam

See:

Links:

  • allthingschina.com
  • AllthingsChina.org
  • alternateroutestravel.com
  • businessesi.com
  • businessesi.org
  • chinahearts.com
  • chinaschoolreview.org
  • chinatravelfacts.com
  • ChinaVisaService.org
  • eslfranchise.com
  • esljobschina.com
  • eslschoolreview.com
  • eslz.net
  • hunanteach.com
  • journeyeast.org
  • journeywest.org
  • learnchinesenow.net
  • studenttravelchina.org
  • teach-and-travel.org
  • teach-in-Beijing.com
  • teach-in-zhejiang.org
  • TEFLjobs.org
  • z-visa.com

Previous remedies did not stop editor from resuming his campaign today.[217]

I suggest blacklisting the domains this time. --A. B. (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done seems like we have no choice in the matter. Eagle 101 21:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

tz4.com

Seems to be a spammer. See:

--81.189.41.189 08:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done - seems to be a minor problem on that wiki :) Eagle 101 14:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

VsiSoftware.com, Inc. and Insureme.com spam -- round 3

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Now we have still another insureme.com site that's turned up:[218][219]

  • lowcostcarinsurance.us

--A. B. (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hang on please! Have you researched this before blacklisting? Show me one place where insureme.com has placed a direct link. These sites you are listing are not insureme.com. They are simply affiliates through a third company. Insureme.com has no control of this without know these sites are spamming. They should be warned first. Now as for the sites such as lowcostcarinsurance.com they should be blacklisted for spamming. As for insureme it should not be unless it has spammed itself. Many major companies have this third party as an affiliate manager. I know two sites in which they are in the top 10 websites on the Internet. We shouldn't ban them. What we will have to do is take these sites on a case by case basis and blacklist them. It may be more work, but at least we will meet wikipedia.org standards. If insureme.com has spammed please place the link. If this is the case they should be blacklisted.

And the value of the link? Eagle 101 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com has many link values. They are listed as the third listing in google.com for auto insurance. In addition to this they have more than 50 registered auto insurance agents. They have a blog that is linked to more than 11,000 websites in which webmasters are seeking experts opinions. They have many valuable auto insurance tools that are trademarked and resources to all 50 states. I am not saying add these sites to an external link. But, some editor or user may want to provide this valuable content to wikipedia.org. They want be able to because you blacklisted a website in which has not spammed wikipedia.org. Like I stated earlier insureme.com hasn't spammed directly. Quit being lazy and whitelist this website!!! We will have to take the affiliates who spam and blacklist them on a case by case basis. But, if I was to go out and buy a website and join there affiliate program and spam wikipedia.org why should insureme.com have to pay for this. I should be the one owho gets blacklisted since I spammed.


  1. 1 Guideline for wikipedia.org - Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam.

So don't blacklist simply because of no link value. If this was the case you would need to put a blacklist on 95% of all the websites on the web.

Problem is that we are getting spammed many times by related links, Someone blacklists one, another one pops up. Eagle 101 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand but this isn't going to fix the problem. We must deal with these sites on a one on one basis. They are all duferent urls. So by blacklisting insureme.com who has not made one edit doesn't make sense.

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 5

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[220]

  • classic-car-insurance.biz

The same IP also spammed:

  • free-mortgage-calculator.info[221]

--A. B. (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please quit putting insureme.com as part of this spammer. This website is not insureme.com it is free-mortgage-calculator.info and classic-car-insurance.biz. This has nothin g to do with insureme.com. If we think this is part of insureme.com then we need to start one websites running google ads. Google does not own the websites running google adsense. Insureme.com doesn't own the sites running there ads either.

Change title above to


free-mortgage-calculator.info and classic-car-insurance.biz

Err, actually it is from those companies, I'm wondering why we are constantly getting hit with related spam. All these sites are related to Insureme.com in some way. Eagle 101 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They are related to insureme.com as sites with google adsense ads are to google. We shouldn't punish google or insureme.com for not making edits.

Porn linkspam

Sites to block are laurenphoenix.net , lanitodd.org , masonmarconi.org , monicasweet.org , nicolevoss.org , rayveness.org , sydneecapri.net , terabond.org , and tianalynn.org Persistent anon vandal keeps adding links to these porn websites to the stars' articles - in the case of the Lauren Phoenix link, it has been added and removed 10 times since March 12/07 (edits one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten). The IP that is used is different each time so it's not possible to block the IP address, and I fear that this vandalism will continue unless the links are blocked. Tabercil 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

partially done - I blacklisted laurenphoenix.net. I would appreciate evidence on the other set. Just show me the page history, and a few sample diffs of each. Thanks. Eagle 101 04:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

K... here we go:

Lani Todd: one, two, three, four.

Mason Marconi: one, two, three, four.

Rayveness: one, two, three, four

Sydnee Capri: one, two, three, four.

Tiana Lynn: one, two, three, four.

Monica Sweet: one, two, three, four.

Nicole Voss: one, two, three, four.

Tera Bond: one, two, three, four.

Is that enough? If not, just clarify and I'll be more than happy to give you whatever info you need. This idiot's consumed too much of my time and patience. Okay? Tabercil 04:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done, thank you. --.anaconda 09:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com

freemasonrywatch\.org is on the list, but they have a new redirect: freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com

Please block this one too
Grye 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done redirect site. Eagle 101 04:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks much Grye 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

anxietydetective.org and 3 others

23 different articles spammed on en.wikipedia[222], [223], [224] + more on the French, German, Swedish and Portuguese Wikipedias by at least 3 different accounts. Domains:

  • moviemirth.com
  • geocities.com/anxietydetective
  • anxietydetective.org
  • producerdb.com

Thank you, --A. B. (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done - clear cut Eagle 101 04:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 9

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted February 2007:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[225][226][227]

  • affordable-car-insurance.biz
  • instant-auto-insurance-quote.net

--A. B. (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done - this affiliate spamming has to stop. Eagle 101 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, I've got an experimental heuristics-based bot looking for these sites, which should hopefully catch any more additions. Shadow1 22:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for blacklisting, Eagle 101, and thanks for your work on your heuristical robot! --A. B. (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A.B. Why do you have to put a link to robomarketplace.com? This is only helping that website out. Please remove this link and place the internal link for wikipedia.org so we can reference the great work eagles did.

Err, I did not make the robot, that is Shadow1. Eagle 101 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ooops --and thanks Shadow1! --A. B. (talk)

"International Myopia Prevention Association"

  • myopia.org
  • nearsightedness.org
  • pinholeglasses.org
  • preventmyopia.org

Uses multiple accounts to spam these links across 4 different articles despite numerous warnings.[228][229][[230][231][232][233]

Note that there's at least one more account that added link to another article -- I just haven't found it yet.

On a POV campaign with the en:Consumers Union and several vision-related articles. --A. B. (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See also the lengthy discussion at en:Talk:Consumers Union -- it's not as if this guy hasn't had the rules repeatedly explained to him over and above his user page warnings. --A. B. (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done I'm going to go ahead and do this, there are 0 instances of this link, except for those on the english wiki. (I checked the top 15 wikipedias). Eagle 101 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

thebestof.co.uk spam

These links were spammed across many British articles last year. In January 2007, we got heartfelt pledges not to add these links anymore without getting permission from other editors on article talk pages:

I guess he forgot; see these subsequent edits:

Short of protecting a bunch of pages and/or blocklisting large IP ranges, I don't see much alternative to blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

musiciandictionary.com / celebritydictionary.com

Two IPs belonging to 20th Century Fox (216.205.224.64 and 216.205.244.5) were posting this stuff on practically every big WP-edition in january and were blocked on some projects after not stopping when kindly asked to. Since I just saw that one of them just started again, I think it's time to stop them (the links aren't any good anyway, just a wiki where people can post stuff we'd consider vandalism).

Examples:

--62.224.91.5 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done - cross wiki spam, these cases can get real annoying, real quick. Eagle 101 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

67.43.4.31

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

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

Additions: Not done

Latest comment: 18 years ago67 comments22 people in discussion

iamtryingtobelieve.com

Mostly spammed at en:Parepin and associated talk pages, as part of a viral campaign that is spreading towards English Wikipedia. Zscout370 02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs showing this, thanks. Eagle 101 18:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  Not done Eagle 101 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

axweb0.org

Same were added to user talk pages:

And other url by same users:

  • www.topmeds10.tu1.ru diff by dereek.
Looks like all of these edits (see linked page, all originate from one IP) /axweb0.org. I'm creating a sub page as to not flood this page out with my 72 results. Try blocking the IP, it looks to be the only IP related in this, set autoblock to "on" to prevent more socking. I will do it, for now consider this   Not done unless we start to have serious problems. Eagle 101 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, this guy has now switched usernames, and must be on a new IP, as I desabled editing from all users on that last block. Eagle 101 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

New cases:

and shortly after, the spam-target changed:

Those are all on the same IP range, simply block 89.20.97.0/24 and the problem is gone :D Eagle 101 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added the ___domain to Shadowbot's blacklist. Shadow1 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then in that case, this is   Not done Eagle 101 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

child-support-laws-state-by-state.com

Repeatedly spammed[236][237][238] this link across multiple articles on en.wikipedia using at least 3 different anonymous accounts. Warnings and blocks have had no effect other than to get him to shift IPs. See en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#The Christmas child support spammer: child-support-laws-state-by-state.com for details. (Permanent link) --A. B. (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow! that guy has at least 24 /16 ranges available to him... (76.166.0.0 - 76.190.255.255) I am going to suggest that we do a block on the 76.190.0.0/16 76.186.0.0/16 range for a few days and see if he has any more ranges open to him. If not then we can just use blocks to resolve this. If so, then we are going to have to consider blacklisting the ___domain. Eagle 101 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Comcast is the biggest (or 2nd biggest) broadband provider in the United States. You'd be blocking 65,000+ IPs -- probably all Comcast in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metropolitan area and maybe more of Texas. I suggest you may want to raise this question on en:WP:ANI first. We don't want our user names on Slashdot or Fark this afternoon. --A. B. (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
See Slashdot:
Qatar: 866,000 people Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex: 5.8 million --A. B. (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made sure it was a soft block, now lets just hope they don't go to socking ;). Eagle 101 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  Not done - looks like alternative means worked here. Eagle 101 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

www.adultfyi.com

a hardcore pornographic page, has been added on de:WP

Do you have diffs of it being spammed to a point beyond normal admin tools?
This request was most likely by de:Benutzer:Augiasstallputzer. This site was used as a source/reference for articles on de.wp, it was not being spammed. Seems he simply does not like the links or has other problems with them. Anyway, they should be discussed elsewhere. This is the wrong place. --Rosenzweig 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Regardless it won't get blacklisted without evidence. Eagle 101 20:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Eagle 101 is correct. Just because we don't like the content the site don't deserve a blacklist. If we want google to use our blacklist we must keep the highest standards. We fight and protect against spam. 72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)... see also: en:talk • en:contribs
  Not done - no evidence presented showing how or why this should be added. Eagle 101 20:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

bottleguy.com

Yet another shock site, most likely from GNAA.

Examples of vandalism with this site

Just block the IP, (or request it be blocked). Unless it is multiple IP (preferably ranges), there is no need to blacklist. Just treat it as normal vandalism. Eagle 101 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)`
  Not done, no evidence of spamming. Naconkantari 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

phonetrace.org

Yet another shock site, most likely from GNAA.

Examples of vandalism with this site

Just block the IP, (or request it be blocked). Unless it is multiple IP (preferably ranges), there is no need to blacklist. Just treat it as normal vandalism. Eagle 101 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, no evidence of spamming Naconkantari 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

www.achieve360points.com

Users hitting articles in an alphabetical fashion. An advertisement-laden site that has no use for the articles they add them to.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Lovely, any more users, or did they give up? Eagle 101 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, return if continues. Naconkantari 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

www.qmhandbuch.de

Commercial site for Quality Assurance Handbook (german) adding his link all few weeks to all kind of QM/QA realated articles. It was just remove today again from

Therefore, I would like request to blacklist this ___domain to save further work. Thanks in adance. AV 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not done please just try blocking the IP behind it. Looks like it is just one account and its related IP address. Thanks, and if there are further issues with this link feel free to post here. Eagle 101 04:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • best-teens.bebto.com [239]

--Milda 06:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

*.obsq.info

Constant spamming for the past few days. Check the history on this page. [240]

Is that the only place where that link is being abused? If so why don't you try a semi-protection or a protection. If it is not the only page, can you please demonstrate where it has been spammed elsewhere? Thanks Eagle 101 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
My wiki is the only place I know of. It might be spammed else where. They just hit me again after you wrote your comment. I have protected the page... but I bet they will move to my other pages soon enough. They are obviously using proxies as the IP is different but the web links are the same. Thanks anyway.... 65.67.98.193 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, come back and let someone know if they move on. Cheers! Eagle 101 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  Not done - looks like it is not needed.Eagle 101 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

spilsbycycles.co.uk

The small town of en:Spilsby has a bicycle shop, whose ___domain name is spilsbycycles.co.uk.

  1. Spamvertised on 11 May 2006.
  2. And again on 12 June.
  3. And again on 15 June.
  4. And again on 18 August.
  5. And again on 16 September.
  6. And again on 21 October.
  7. And again later on the same day.
  8. And again on 1 March 2007.
  9. And again on 14 March.
  10. And again on 17 March.

Only a single article (as far as I've noticed), but the spamming is persistent and also destructive (perhaps in a feeble effort to hide the fact that he's adding something, he often destroys other links). Done from a number of different IP numbers. This is very small potatoes by the nauseating standards of other spammers listed here, but on the other hand it's pretty simple: the ___domain name is that of an unremarkable retailer. -- Hoary 06:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 

     sorry

hi, i just want to let you know that i am sorry for the edits i have made to the "spilsby" town page on wikipedia. i kept putting the link to that cycles shop on there, then when i checked back a few days later etc it had vanished. i only kept putting it back on because i thought i must have entered it wrongly. i did'nt know that there were messages for me about it, i have only just clicked on this 'discussions page' and did not know you could talk to other users.

from now on all of my edits will be for the greater good, i have turned over a new leaf, and don't want to upset anyone. i have added a picture i took of the bus stop being built in the town, and a few other links (non-commercial) about the town etc.

File:Bus Stop.JPG

i am not up on all this technical stuff, and did'nt mean to make you mad.

many thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.thompson

PS...i have written to the person who kept removing the link to applogise, also added the above paragrahps to a discussion board on the spilsby article too

  Not done - isolated incident. Eagle 101 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

irishabroad.com

Linkspamming at English Wikipedia:

[241] [242] [243] [244] [245]

among several others

HometownBuffet 14:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I also saw some spamming of this ___domain but then I also saw many links added in good faith by regular editors. Some of the pages also appear to meet en:WP:RS. The whole linking pattern was so odd that it made me think this ___domain might undergoing a en:Joe job from someone that did not like them. I was going to investigate, starting with a query on the Irish WikiProject but have been unable to do so due to events off-Wikipedia. I think this ___domain requires very careful and thorough investigation before blacklisting, including, if necessary, a possible checkuser on some of the parties on both sides of the issue. I'm sorry I don't have the time to work on this. --A. B. (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
No-cross wiki spamming going on. revert-block-ignore for the time being would be my recomendation. J.smith 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done for now, if we get more issues then we can deal with it. :) Eagle 101 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

chapmancentral.co.uk

The following web site http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ is completely about one non-notable person and has been added to Wikipedia by that person. It is entirely self promotion and has been added to Wikipedia despite self promotion via spamming being in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. --XX7 14:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You've complained in several places about JzG and now I see you want to blacklist his web site. It looks like there are about 700+ of these links in en.wikipedia but none in the article space. All the ones I spot-checked were embedded in his signature on pages such as talk pages when he signed posts in the past. It was OK to do this in the past but then in late 2005/early 2006 the community consensus on user signatures changed; JzG stopped some time before then. See en:Wikipedia:Signatures. --A. B. (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have very justifiably criticised JzG because he has used obvious fallacies, illogic and trivialities in order to try to interfere and disrupt proper, factual and reasoned blacklist evaluations in which he had no reason to be involved. He has appeared to be intent on claiming anything on the blacklist to be spam even when it obviously isn't. According to what you have just written he was probably Wikipedia's most prolific spammers, unnecessarily adding his self promoting web site over 700 times to Wikipedia when it clearly wasn't needed. That demonstrates ridiculous double standards. --XX7 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it just demonstrates a common practice on article and user talk pages several years ago and used by many other editors. --A. B. (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't demonstrate common practice anymore because it was considered completely wrong. There is no justification in somebody attempting to add a self promoting web site over 700 times. It is especially hypocritical when that same person falsely tries to claim that just about all other web sites are spam even when they clearly aren't. --XX7 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done - no evidence of current ongoing spam that I can see from this. Eagle 101 22:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

therichprince.com

14 articles spammed by at least two different accounts on en.wikipedia[246][247] despite warnings. --A. B. (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not done (for now) Mmm good canidate for en:User:Shadowbot. Lets try that first, I will add it. Eagle 101 03:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

subtitry.ru

and opensubtitles.org, subs.com.ru, titulky.com, subbiee.com, divxplanet.com, hot.ee/subland/, sub.divx.ee, subtitles.images.o2.cz, legendas.tv, andrepcg.lusopt.info

Links to copyright violating material (subtitles). Website fails WP:EL and WP:C guidelines/policies. Very same sites have been blacklisted.

Please provide evidence where these domains have been spammed. Naconkantari 04:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
OpenSubtitles.org - under each wikipedia language section on the word "subtitles". And even twice here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subt%C3%ADtulo see last 2 links. Other sites simply link to copyright violating material, therefore fail WP:EL and WP:C, as I mentioned earlier. Where should they be reported to to get them banned like other subtitles sites which were banned for this very reason? Same site blacklisted and more related discussion (whitelist request) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/02#AnySubs.com_.28Status:_Declined.29
  Not done Are we actually getting spammed with them? From those I can't tell how long they have been added. If there is not a widespread spamming issue, just revert and warn the editors adding the site. Feel free to comment below and show links demonstrating spam. Eagle 101 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subt%C3%ADtulo - check last two links in "Enlaces externos" section - same site referenced twice. If this is not spamming - you tell me what it is.

In the german Wikipedia I am looking for commercial link spam in customs related articles and delete it instantly, see [248]. Could anyone please add these comercial links into this blacklist: www.internetverzollung.de, aes.riege.de, www.zollbeamte.de, import-handys.info, www.ausfuhrxpress.de? Thanks! --217.85.252.201 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC) (WP de-user rollo_rueckwaerts)

  Not done (for now) Have they been spammed, can you show that there is a pattern of abuse :) Feel free to post below here and show a pattern. Thanks. Eagle 101 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

heart-valve-surgery.com

The website has a wealth of information, but exists only to promote and sell a book. The link has been repeatedly added to pages within the English cardiac surgery realm from multiple IP addresses (never from registered users). The links have been removed multiple times, but re-added from IP addresses. Dlodge 14:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not done (but I added it to en:User:Shadowbot. Ok, for now I've added this to en:User:Shadowbot's blacklist. That should take care of this english wikipedia only problem. If shadowbot can't handle it, then I will blacklist it here. Eagle 101 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

vivid.com

Links to this pornography website being used as references by what appear to be paid possible open proxies in the Kim Kardashian article on English Wikipedia. All but one link deleted or replaced now, but when article is no longer sprotected, the spammers are expected to return, as they allege "fascism" in deletion of the links. Risker 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not done Let me know how this goes after the article is done being sprotected. Eagle 101 10:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

chechenpress.net

it is a site of terroristic propaganda--Jaro.p 12:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not done please feel free to present evidence of actual spamming. Eagle 101 13:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.chechenpress.net , http://www.watchdog.cz

Please add these sites to blacklist. These are terrorist related sites.--Vaya 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not done please feel free to present evidence of actual spamming. Eagle 101 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

TehLiqE

I'm not sure if it's possible to blacklist text, but

The sonikmatter wiki and many other wiki's have been vandalized recently with the text "Hacked By TehLiqE". See History 1 and History 2 for examples. I've tried banning the member and going to the extent of protecting the discussion pages is going a bit far (it would mean that proposed changes to the protected content page couldn't be readily done).

This vandal has hit many other wiki's as well. Check the number of individual Mediawiki Wiki's by checking out the google search google search for Hacked By TehLiquE +MediaWiki

This vandal added the single link http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3551/adszjgpyp6.png in the second attack, and some nonsense words in the first attack.

The Puppeteer 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not done we can't blacklist text. Eagle 101 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought that might be the case. Does anyone have any other suggestions for how I might control this locally? The Puppeteer 07:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Just treat it as normal vandalism. Eagle 101 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

German Wikipedia

In the german Wikipedia we have two german lawfirms which write in many lawarticles their hompepagelinks:

and

Can you put them on the spam blacklist. ? 212.95.99.129 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personenstandsgesetz&diff=29764887&oldid=29660370 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bundeserziehungsgeldgesetz&diff=prev&oldid=29764942 http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sozialhilfe_%28Deutschland%29&diff=prev&oldid=29765024

(German Wikipedia-user: GLGerman)212.95.99.129 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not done - Do you have any evidence of these being spammed in? As far as I can tell these are specific to your wiki, you have 59 instances of this link on de wikipedia. If de deems them linkspam, and we have a continuing pattern of abuse, then I will blacklist. Eagle 101 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Removals: Done

Latest comment: 18 years ago242 comments52 people in discussion

urlsnip.com

Used to insert a blacklisted viartis.net link into an article. I have the removal diff but I don't know when it was added or by whom.[249] --A. B. (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Already here, see above :-). Thank you. --.anaconda 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

lastmeasure.zoy.org

Another shock site, currently used in vandalism by Tooj117 sockpuppets at the English Wikipedia. Example. Lastmeasure is the "THIS PERSON IS LOOKING AT GAY PORN" website. No encyclopedic value.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:02:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

cdjuridico.com

Website for selling CD/DVDs about law.

Articles:

I give up listing more diffs. You can see more on these articles:

Users (may me all the same user):

Mosca 17:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Quite clear pattern of abuse. Eagle 101 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The following 39 domains were spammed across 68 articles on en:wikipedia.org from 80+ anonymous, dynamically assigned Malaysian IP addresses:

  • 40weekspregnancystages.com
  • about-credit-card.com
  • about-credit-report.com
  • aboutbodybuilding.net
  • acneskincareinfo.com
  • air-purifier-and-filter.com
  • all-soccer-info.com
  • asbestos-mesothelioma-cancer-info.com
  • atkindietplan.com
  • atkins-diet.cc
  • benefit-green-tea.com
  • breast-augmentation-and-enlargement.com
  • breast-augmentation-implants.com
  • cabbage-soup-diet-plan.com
  • carpetsearch.org
  • cell-phone-blog.net
  • credit-cards-n-debt.com
  • diabetes-diabetic-diet.com
  • dietpills-information.com
  • digital-camera-technology.com
  • dsl-broadband-isp.com
  • dsl-link.com
  • edi-guide.com
  • fitness-health-plan.com
  • grapefruit-diet.org
  • hdtv-lcd-plasma.com
  • lasik-surgery-info.com
  • lasiklasereyesurgeries.com
  • lowcarb.ca
  • satellite-service-providers.com
  • skincaresinformation.com
  • south-beach-diet-information.com
  • southbeachdietprogram.com
  • tech-guide.org
  • teleconferencing-technology.com
  • the-atkins-diet.info
  • the-atkins-diet.info double Eagle 101 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • vpn-info.com
  • zonedietinformation.com

See: en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#39 domains, 80 accounts, 68 articles (permanent link) for links to all 80 anonymous IP accounts' contribution histories. 99% of the edits come from these addresses were spam additions. That discussion also lists the articles spammed as well as Google Adsense account numbers where available. Links have been removed from all pages. --A. B. (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 21:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Adfunk spam on Wikipedia

The following 10 domains have been spammed across at least 47 articles on en:wikipedia by at least 6 accounts:

  • adfunk.blog-city.com
  • f1rezone.tblog.com
  • fiucer.blogsome.com
  • wtslink.com
  • mylink.tblog.com
  • tech2.blogsome.com
  • yellowpages1.blogspot.com
  • health1011.blogspot.com
  • ekhye.blogspot.com
  • internumber.blogspot.com

Adfunk has at least 11 affiliated sites and I recommend blacklisting them now as well:

  • evo.blogsome.com
  • engine.blogsome.com
  • adfunk.blogsome.com
  • ms1.blogsome.com
  • gnharrod.com
  • gangstarz.info
  • tech.shoutpost.com
  • mytaxi.blog-city.com
  • myl6.blogsome.com
  • prdeal.com
  • blog.myspace.com/adfunk
    • Note: blog.myspace.com domains are already blacklisted

Given all the controversy over myspace blogs, it's possible blog.myspace.com may come off the blacklist at some point. I recommend specifically blacklisting the blog.myspace.com/adfunk ___domain so that it stays on the blacklist if this happens.

For more information including links to contribution histories for each spam account, see:

Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Links have been removed from all pages except en:User talk:Tech2blog. --A. B. (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Note: some of the domains listed are actually sub-domains of large hosting services such as blogspot or blogsome. I recommend blacklisting only the subdomains as listed above. --A. B. (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  Done I've blacklisted only the domains that were actually spammed. Eagle 101 17:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks -- and I'm sorry about forgetting to take the www's out. --A. B. (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Maximus ___domain for blacklisting: xatpro.com

Other Maximus Business Solutions domains were blacklisted earlier this month; see:

In tracking down unrelated Adfunk spam on en.wikipedia, I found that an IP had added a link to a known Maximus ___domain last May at the same time as one to a ___domain I missed in my earlier request.[274][275]

  • xatpro.com

Currently, there are none of these links on any pages. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, is there current spamming of this? I mean May is quite a while back... Eagle 101 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This spammer has been so prolific that I can't say if that link's been added since May. It very well may have. I've waded through hundreds of article edits looking for Maximus spam. If you look at the WikiProject Spam discussion, there are probably more domains I missed and there are surely many IP accounts I've missed. The Maximus spammer has been active with 11 different IPs just in this month -- that I know of:
It's safe to assume that we will being playing Whac-a-mole with these guys for a long time. I recommend blacklisting that link, but it's certainly OK if it's not for now.
--A. B. (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  Done - Ok, sorry for missing this one! It sorta got swept under the carpet, blacklisting due to multiple IP ranges. Eagle 101 03:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Netbizsolutions.com spam on Wikipedia

At least 15 dynamically assigned, one-session use IPs spammed 6 domains across at least 38 articles on en.wikipedia. In all but one case, these IP addresses' contributions were 100% spam only.

Domains spammed (6):

  • affiliatedirectorysite.com
  • furniture-asian.com
  • netbizasia.com
  • netbizsolutions.com
  • sixco.ws (similar to tinyurl.com)
  • templatesnew.com

Affiliated domains -- I recommend blacklisting these now as well (5):

  • activehits4u.com
  • fluxservices.com
  • hostnetbiz.com
  • impotenceherbs4impotency.info
  • impotenceherbsextract.com

For more information and for links to all the accounts' contribution histories, see:

Currently, there are none of these links on any Wikipedia pages. --A. B. (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Quite clear spamming from multiple IP ranges. Eagle 101 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm only adding those that have actually been spammed. Eagle 101 17:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lost .eu "game"

Links to "lost .eu" have been repeatedly removed from the dab page Wikipedia:Lost and snuck into a number of other pages with similar names. People from http://www.lost. eu are attempting to get sign-ups for some sort of social experiment contest, which is offering $5000 for the most sign-ups.

See, for background:

--Leflyman 01:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

notdone - Try dealing this with the normal means of stopping vandalism and spam. (ie, blocks, warnigns ect). If more IP addresses start popping up, drop a note here. Eagle 101 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting -- I was tracking down unrelated laptopnik.com spam out of Malaysia and Singapore today and found that in addition to those links, someone using a Hewlett-Packard IP,128.88.255.35, tracerouting to Singapore had added lost.eu links. Leflyman's 72.138.68.246 spammer is a Rogers Cable customer in Canada. Neither IP is listed on any prominent open proxy/abusive IP lists[276][277], the first thing you think of when you see such geographically diverse spamming. That this is some sort of a contest would explain what we're seeing. Based on this, I think blacklisting is going to be our only sure fix short of blocking everyone but 127.0.0.1. --A. B. (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  Done - if this is what we really think this is, lets go ahead and blacklist, we can take it off when the contest ends. Eagle 101 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
--Leflyman 03:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning those, any idea on how long the "game" is going to last? Eagle 101 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

geocities.com/xpw5yearslater

Same content was previously hosted on another blacklisted site - www.declarationofindependents.net, and was repeatedly inserted into Tommy Dreamer by various IPs. 81.153.129.208 02:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done - clear evidence above of multiple IP ranges. Eagle 101 02:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

modiarte.it

  Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

mondeducirquelausanne87.blogspot.com

  Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

charlie-parker.org

  Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

kit-direito.com

This ___domain redirects to "cdjuridico.com" already blocked. Its the same user with another IP [290] For details see previous post #cdjuridico.com —Mosca 08:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done redirect site to already blacklisted site. Eagle 101 17:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

tvsylt.com

Constant linkspam in many articles on de.wp by several IPs from the 80.130.*.* range, e. g. 80.130.112.205, 80.130.92.34, 80.130.115.117, 80.130.108.19. Please take it on the blacklist at least for two months or three. --Gardini 11:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

notdone - Could you try a block of 80.130.0.0/16 first? Try it for like 31 hours and see if he comes back or not. Eagle 101 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? (scnr) You advise us to block 64K IPs belonging to a big provider to try (!) to keep out one single spammer, wo is doing this for almost a week, for one single day? Sorry, but if Gardini or I would do this block, probably at least 10 other admins would undo it immediately. Needless to say that the blocked page is totally unsuited for linking it in an encyclopaedia. --FritzG 21:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Problem is this list is not just for encyclopedias I believe that several hundred wikis use this. I am not aware of how large the host is. Some of them have little to no contributions. See some of the blocks done on en. I've found that very short blocks tends to stop them. Though if you guys are unable to deal with it using your normal admin tools, I will blacklist, its up to you folks. I'm just suggesting alternatives.Eagle 101 21:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this link might be useful on any Wikimedia project, so it would be nice if you blacklisted, since the spammer continues with his wicked craft: 80.130.82.210. --Gardini 11:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
And again: 80.130.73.81. --Gardini 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
And it doesn't come to an end: 80.130.71.98. I'd also like you to remark this edit. Would you be so kind to blacklist this URL for one eternity or two? --Gardini 20:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done - sorry I did not see the new developments. Thanks Gardini for telling me about it on my talk. Eagle 101 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*.gratuliermir.de

Hi all,

crosswiki-spam by *.gratuliermir.de, where * stands for a geografical ___location, like:

gratuliermir.de is gaining content (fotos etc.) from jeder-tag.de (already blacklisted), see code from this example: wismar.gratuliermir.de. Thank you. --Gunnex 17:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure there is an active attempt to spam this? Looks like different contributors to me. 4 different IP addresses for each wiki, unless those IP addresses are being used by the same person. Eagle 101 17:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eagle, *.gratuliermir.de flooded - for example - almost all the language wikipedia´s related to the article Bamberg. In the meantime, i did some reverts... The spamer is reverting correction at language wikipedia´s with different ip´s. Following - for example - the spam-contributions by ip 84.139.246.17: bgwiki, cawiki, etwiki, eswiki, frwiki, idwiki, itwiki, lawiki, nowiki, plwiki, ptwiki, rowiki, and - interesting - eowiki: inserted link to jeder-tag.de before blacklisted. --Gunnex 19:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done, clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 19:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think, that these photos are very beautiful. Why don't you like them? --84.242.65.251 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (User:Kirk from CsWiki)

You might think that, but the problem is not how "beautiful" the photos are, but rather the pattern of spamming that has been going on. Eagle 101 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

mannbeisstfilm.de

Persistent spamming on de:WP in several cases: [291] (already been cautioned) [292] [293] [294] (1 edit) [295] (1 edit) [296] (1 edit) There are more IPs with just 1 edit, but I can't be bothered to find/list them all. Thanks. --Michael 09:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done (sorry I missed this earlier) Eagle 101 19:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

internet-history.tz4.com

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 15:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

pavelnedved.110mb.com

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 15:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

statisticsoftheworld.page.tl

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 15:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

parkourstyle.com

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 15:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

texaspoker.tk

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 15:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Some more, that I've just noticed. Eagle 101 16:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

ainfos.ca

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

dcestonian.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

cosplayx.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

katardat.org

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

anarkismo.net

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

nefac.net

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

bonsaimenorca.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

napolinelmondo.org

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

petrophoto.net

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

asociacionjacob52.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 16:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

harmonica.it

  Done - cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 16:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

wga.hu

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm modifying this blacklist to wga.hu/html/t/tintoret as I might have gotten some collateral on the english wiki, we will find out soon enough if the ___domain will continue to give us problems. If it does I will make this block broader. Eagle 101 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

petrophoto.net

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

indiabroadband.net

Adsense pub-9588274242501467

  • {{en:linksearch|*.indiabroadband.net|indiabroadband.net}}
Spam sock accounts

en:User:202.177.186.18
en:User:210.214.91.194
en:User:61.17.226.112
en:User:202.177.185.81
en:User:210.214.91.202
en:User:202.177.186.169]]
en:User:210.214.91.188
http://www.bsnl-broadband.com
http://www.bsnl-internet.info
--AndrewCates 18:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 16:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

make-money-online4.tripod.com

Extensively spammed (usually being inserted over and over into each section of an article) by three different anon IPs on the English Wikipedia.

221.215.219.130

  • Money

221.208.14.248

  • online auction business model
  • Money, Money, Money

159.226.112.12

  • Business
  • Make
  • Make Room! Make Room!
  • Online auction business model

Notinasnaid 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 19:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

visitdaugavpils.lv

  Done cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

cosplay-world.com

  Done cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

ulkerfenerbahce.com

  Done cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

antu.com

  Done cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

bukkake.com

  Done cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

go-sierra-nevada.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

narutokage.135.it

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

go-passau-land.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

elrelojdesol.com

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

bratz.tv

  Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Incest porn linkfarms

Quote http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=111578479

>> I came across this yesterday and haven't had time to deal with it. See en:Special:Contributions/213.184.238.38 -- we had another Belorussian IP add such links earlier in 2006. Can someone get his 3 December links blacklisted? I won't have time. Given the incest/kiddie-sex connection, it's probably mandatory to get rid of these immediately and permanently under Florida and/or U.S. law (the legal jurisdictions for Wikipedia's servers). Thanks! [--A. B.]

These domains belong to a network of linkfarms, with hidden links in their HTML code between themselves and to various pornsites: 

guatemalahist\.com
namibianhistory\.com
croatiahis\.com
zimbab\.net
xz5\.org

The links above were added directly by en:Special:Contributions/213.184.238.38, below are additional links I've gathered from scanning some of their pages. 

z4o\.net
pxy1\.net
agablog\.com
akoblog\.com
familyincestbiz\.com
ackue\.info
aepwd\.org
aexqq\.org
aqhfc\.info
cqfnc\.info
cqhfs\.info
cxqqc\.org
foxqq\.org
xcjas\.com
xcjei\.com
xcjin\.com

Femto 15:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  Done - I'm going to do them all, looks like the intent of this was to spam us. Eagle 101 17:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

tutorialspoint.com

Spam, (WPSPAM case), continues: en:Special:Contributions/59.144.76.115

example activities on other languages:

Femto 23:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

bonuslover.com

Spam see [297] [298] [299] [300] [301]

See also:

[302] 87.74.10.185 11:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 17:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

jeffsfamilypharmacy.com and others

  • jeffsfamilypharmacy.com
  • thereddoorstore.com
  • bluevelvet.com

Spammed over a long time to the English Wikipedia, by the following: [303] [304] [305] [306] [307] [308] [309] [310]

  Done Eagle 101 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

obsessedwithwrestling.com/columns/jonathanbarber/

Multiple IPs linkspamming to articles written by banned user JB196, who has a long term abuse report. Please just block that part of the site, as the rest of the site is used in many other articles.

72.36.195.242 [311][312]

217.160.226.33 [313][314][315][316][317][318][319][320][321][322][323][324][325][326][327][328][329]

72.36.223.93 [330][331][332]

More IPs were used, but based on previous experience that should be enough? 81.155.77.73 05:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 05:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

fffans-fr.com and www.fffans-fr.com

IPs and accounts spamming this unnecessary Final Fantasy fansite in articles concerning this video game series. Sometimes link to their site main page, and sometimes directly to some video game trailers hosted on their site. 82.66.36.11 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 05:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

moviesbuzz.com

Spammed by several single-purpose accounts:

Very low content/high ad site. The little content that is present is copyvio (based on what I have checked), much of it taken from Wikipedia. Many of the links added in fact led to articles copied from Wikipedia without proper citation. Recent addition: added content copied from music buzz and added link to the website - even though the content itself had originally been copied from the Wikipedia article being spammed. That IP in particlarmusicbuzz. Other examples: Alicia Keys copyvio. Today's version - spamming both the talk page and article. Lots of links to galleries of Indian movie stars with only a handful of pictures and no other redeemable content: [388] Nposs 22:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done - multiple IP range spam. Eagle 101 05:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

pornoass.iespana.es

from IP 87.118.108.81 also from this IP came the already blacklisted diff diff diff

  Done. Block that IP address. --.anaconda 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

pages.citebite.com

URL-shrinking service; the user inputs a quote and a URL and gets a URL that mirrors the original, but with the quote highlighted. Veinor 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 22:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

gamefreaks365.com

Spammed by an anon quite a bit (see en:Special:Contributions/70.224.58.15) and also by others to a number of gaming articles, e.g. [390], [391], [392] - link list on en after reversionof the anon's edits was: 

  1. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=105 linked from XaviXPort gaming console
  2. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=110 linked from Matt Leto
  3. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=170 linked from Metroid Prime Hunters
  4. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=55 linked from XGameStation
  5. gamefreaks365.com/article.php?pid=68 linked from GameZone
  6. gamefreaks365.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=71 linked from Talk:Comparison of handheld gaming consoles
  7. gamefreaks365.com/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=446 linked from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time
  8. gamefreaks365.com/newsarticle.php?sid=1833 linked from Eidos Interactive
  9. gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=1091 linked from Avatar: The Last Airbender (video game)
 10. gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=1120 linked from NBA Street: Homecourt
 11. gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=393 linked from Alex Kidd in Miracle World
 12. www.gamefreaks365.com/forums linked from Wikipedia:Dead external links/301/g
 13. www.gamefreaks365.com/review.php?artid=1109 linked from Def Jam: Icon
 14. www.gamefreaks365.com/screenshots linked from Wikipedia:Dead external links/301/g

Also some on nl: and maybe other projects, I'm checking. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me the ones from other projects? Eagle 101 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the ones from nl:, three Alex Kidd related nl:Alex Kidd The Lost Stars, nl:Alex Kidd in Shinobi World, .nl:Alex Kidd in Miracle World. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I will look at this further in a few hours Eagle 101 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  Done Ok I will blacklist, sorry for the delay later today when I have time to log it and all. Eagle 101 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ruswar.com

  Done - clear case of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why this useful site is considered to be a spam? Who decide it for all people? Did you look the site youself? Or maybe you been on a war? This collection of RARE war PHOTOGRAPHY and DOCUMENTARY is unic non-commercial project, built by veterans of Afghanistan war. It looks like somebody has a personal problems and no respect to died soldiers. God has no forgivness for such vandalism. If it dos not mach a language criteria??? just remove the link from unappropriate page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bladerunner4545 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've already replied on the request for removal below, but basically it has been spammed across multiple wikis. I'm leaving this up to another meta admin to choose to remove it or not. Though I will ask you to please tone down the language, I don't have a "war" against much anything. Thanks. Eagle 101 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Eagle 101, Wikipedia is public project initialy created to help people find useful information. 1)By designating www.ruswar.com as a spam and removing from related pages you cut off people from the access to the source of valuable materials. Ruswar.com not only provides Copyrighted unique Photos and Documentary of Afghanistan war 1979-1989, Salang road, Soviet Army, it also helps people around the world to keep the memory of the past - Langauge is not the issue. 2)If one terrorist oriented person did not like the photography of Russian Army and the mission in Afghanistan, it's not the signal to you to label ruswar.com as a spam. 3)You undertook liability to make this action without discussion with other 40 administrators and consideration opinion of the page's authors. Moreover, it is a shame and a sin to call charity work - SPAM.

OK, here are some comments from a bystander. I'm not an admin and I don't make decisions here -- what follows is strictly my own opinion:
First of all, attacking Eagle 101 is wrong -- he's just following the rules in response to a request from others. Just as I was following the normal protocol when I deleted your links from the English Wikipedia; once a link is blacklisted, you can't edit any pages that contain it until the link is removed, so I was removing the link to free up the pages.
I looked at your photos and I liked them. I would not have requested they be blacklisted myself. Having said that, take a look at these to guidelines from the English language Wikipedia:
  • Conflict of Interest Guideline -- in a nutshell, never link to your own website even if it's non-commercial and even if the links otherwise meet all of our requirements
  • Spam Guideline -- if you start adding a bunch of links to your own website, it's going to lok like spam to us. If you start doing it across multiple Wikipedias, then it really rings alarm bells. When one IP address adds only links and does it across multiple Wikipedias, it's classic spam >95% of the time.
  • Civility Policy -- please do not bite off Eagle 101's head. He's a real person, just like you. Besides, if you'd like to see your links on Wikipedia, it's counterporductive
  • What Wikipedia is Not -- especially the section that says [[en:WP:NOT#SOAP|Wikipedia is not a directory or link-farm. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
  • External Links Guideline -- most useful or interesting sites do not meet our standards of "encyclopedic". I have two great web sites myself that are well-respected and widely cited in their niche yet they do not meet our guideline (and don't have links on Wikipedia).
  • Finally, you're bound to wonder "Well what about all the links to really rotten sites that Wikipedia has? My site is much better. Why have links to those others?" The answer is that on the English Wikipedia alone, we have 3 million+ links, many of them low quality (even if they're not classic "spam") and we welcome all the help we can get to reduce the problem. There a just a few dozen volunteers working on link improvement. As you see noncompliant links, please delete it (just don't go on a deletion spree out of anger -- see en:WP:POINT).
--A. B. (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A. B. to clarify, I am the one that listed that, I blacklisted to stop the cross wiki spam. I'm willing to take it off in a few weeks and try again (see if spamming keeps up or not). Eagle 101 16:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend not removing as there is clear evidence of cross-wiki spam. Naconkantari 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. misa.pimpblog.nl
  2. vesna.reciter.com
  3. viva.reciter.com
  4. www.blogagotchi.com/bobovina
  5. www.blogagotchi.com/busek
  6. www.blogagotchi.com/cher

Spammed the sonikmatter wiki (and many others - google any of the links +mediawiki)

Examples 1 and 2

The Puppeteer 01:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a user account, try blocking the user on that wiki. Either that or demonstrate on this page that there is cross wiki spam (at least 3 or 4 wikis will do). Thanks! Eagle 101 02:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
User accounts are randomly generated by bots. The user has been blocked, but the bot will just create a new account with random numbers.

For evidence of cross wiki spamming, see the following links

  1. Google Search misa-pimpblog-nl
  2. Google Search vesna-reciter-com
  3. Google Search viva-reciter-com
  4. Google Search www-blogagotchi-com-bobovina
  5. Google Search www-blogagotchi-com-busek
  6. Google Search www-blogagotchi-com-cher

203.59.114.60 02:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, what am I looking for here with these google searches.... Eagle 101 17:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

*.astore.amazon.com

please, check these edits: diff and diff. That's shoking, they have added (or modified) links to Amazon through the "partner program", in order to get money from the books buyed by wikipedians. Can you go to all the others wikis to control if the links to Amazon are 'clean'? Thanks, thanks a lot! --81.211.181.164 00:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC) - PS: they are everywere: [393], [394], [395]. --81.211.181.164 00:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So wait... this is a request to add or remove? Eagle 101 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
add to the Spam blacklist; thanks. --81.211.181.164 02:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
moved to right place, support the request--Jollyroger 16:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I support the request to blacklist this ___domain. It consists solely of affiliate sites - even if you consider Amazon.com a useful link there is no value added by this sub-___domain. We have removed thousands of these links from the English Wikipedia. The links are a bit difficult to track down now they have been removed, but here and here are just two examples. another example and another. And more discussion here. There have also been links to astore.amazon.de and astore.amazon.fr and astore.amazon.co.uk so I think that these should be also added to the regexp. zzuuzz (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 22:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

isbn-check.com + books-by-isbn.com + isbn-check.de

these 3 websites are present in many wikis, mainly in the 'Wikipedia:Book sources' special pages (just removed from it.wiki ). If you search a book, the websites are always redirecting to Amazon (pay-per-link system). The same system is adopted by isbndb.com (Amazon and others). Probably the special pages related to Special:Booksources are full of this kind of spam in every wiki. --81.211.181.164 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diff links to the spam. Thanks, Naconkantari 05:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
the 3 websites on the topic title belong to the same author: he is making money with the "referral profiteering" system (when you get a book description then the links are pointing to amazon). Links are mainly in the "Wikipedia:Book sources" pages on several wikis, for example: en, fr, es, fi, it, de. It is allowed to make money in this way? --81.211.176.241 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done, thanks Naconkantari 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Moved a removal request to the proper section, below. EdJohnston 01:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Medha Hari spam on Wikipedia

Medha Hari is an Indian dancer. She and/or supporters have aggressively spammed her promotional links and photos for two years using dozens of sock-puppets:

Spammed domains

  • voila.fr/bharatanatyam-dance
  • geocities.com/medhahari
  • medha.info

Articles affected on en.wikipedia:

Spams cross-wiki: English, German, Polish, Italian, French

We thought the problem was solved after the big checkuser investigation and a number of blocks six weeks ago, but a new sock has just added the link again.[396] --A. B. (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

All means have been tried, consider this   Done Eagle 101 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry if I am wrong, but, for example, one link ( in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html ) cannot be categorized as spam according to the Wikipedia rules because

1. the link has been placed in the relevant category 2. the link is highly relevant 3. the link provided extended info on Wiki's article 4. the link is not related to Medha Hari, even though contains some links to her pages (as well as dozens of other pages, including Wikipedia!!!) 5. the link does not contain any promotion of any commercial product

Therefore, I consider all the vandalism of the A. B. group (who use plausible interpretations of Wiki's antispam policy) as abusive. 121.247.36.38 03:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A detailed discussion of these links including their promotional nature can be found at en:talk::Bharatanatyam. The advocates for this link were sockpuppets as established by checkuser. Most were blocked by independent admins, not myself. A wide range of Wikipedia policies and guidelines were violated these sockpuppets including en:WP:SPAM, en:WP:NOT#SOAP, en:WP:COI, en:WP:VAND, en:WP:EL, and en:WP:SOCK.en:WP:CIVIL, en:WP:NPA. The record of the accounts adding this link as detailed in all of the links provided above speaks for itself. If this editor has further concerns, she/he can ask for a second opinion at en:WT:WPSPAM; if the reviewing editors there find my actions have been inappropriate, they will certainly overturn them. --A. B. (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi AB! :-)Blessings from Madras! :-) I read a recent review in the Hindu about this site, so am new to Wikipedia, and, frankly speaking do not understand your personal vendetta against that little girl's web site! OK, sockpuppets are bad, but don't you want to throw the baby out with the water? If you start deleting all links because they lend some vague "promotional nature" to the sites, do you seriosly think you are contributing positively to Wikipedia, or just destroying it? All in all, I think that the reviewing editors will find that "medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html" does belong to where it used to be.

P.S. Just read that article. I believe that you don't like that link because it offers quite a different view from those in the W's article! Take the origin of "Bharatanatyam": if you care to read what that "nasty Medhahari's page" contains, you will see that it is a much more serious and better-grounded write-up than the maimed mess that is created here. Regards. Sethumadhavan33 13:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear users of the A.B. group, your argument that a particular link has to be blacklisted merely as long as it is added by a few 'sockpuppets' does not hold water if this link has been ALSO added by a number of non-'sockpuppets' (which you admitted). There are two separate issues that you, for some reason, chose to combine into one.

121.247.44.14 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I urge everyone to scrutinize the Bharatanatyam article discussion page before making up their minds to indiscriminately delete everything that they don't like. Jag Ju 10:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the proof that such self-declared "spam-fighters" as A. B. have been vandalizing Wikipedia. While deleting links from classical Indian dance, our dear over-zealous spam-fighters have nevertheless left the promotional and commercial link to dancevillage.org (which only link to Barnes&Nobles shop!) and closed their eyes on the fact that the eventsindia link was about volleyball, ceramics, anything but classical Indian dance.

I believe that the admins have to seriously look into cases of vandalizing Wikipedia under the pretence of cleaning the "spam". Jag Ju 11:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Jag Ju 11:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that A. B. is not a vandal, Please assume good faith in him. If these were done in error, please list a request for removal with sound reasons why they should be removed. Please try to avoid attacking anyone while doing so. Thanks. Eagle 101 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

outrate.net

Multi article multi IP porn spammer. WPSPAM case.--Hu12 19:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Permanent link to the WPSPAM page here. Eagle 101 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done sorry for the delay, I'm trying to set up linux on my personal computer. Eagle 101 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

321books.co.uk

Repeatedly spammed site, an apparant adsense campaign on the English Wikipedia. Additions from Multiple IP's and sock accounts. more IP's and socks WPSPAM case.--Hu12 01:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done, thank you. --.anaconda 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

haber80.net

massive interwiki spam via new article creation:

a few examples: http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmaniye http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmaniye http://yi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmaniye --Versageek 12:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

tinyurl.us

url shrinking site - spammed here --Versageek 23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

lonympics.co.uk

Chronic spammer Newuser123 has used at least 57 accounts to spam lonympics.co.uk links across a wide range of en.wikipedia articles for months since first being confronted in August 2006. Still at it within the last week.[422][423][424][425]

--A. B. (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

liveeyetv.org

w:en:Special:Contributions/66.212.64.234 keeps spamming his/her blog on articles about music groups: [426] [427] [428] [429] [430] [431] [432] [433] [434] [435]

82.66.36.11 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

srisathyasaibookcentre.org.uk

Anonymous editors (sockpuppets?) continue to insert spam/commercial links into w:Sathya Sai Baba in spite of several reports to admin, resulting blocks, etc. Problem has been ongoing for a long time and continues: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5, diff6. All editors are becoming exhausted with removing this spamlink that is inserted on a daily basis. Ekantik talk 01:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

mp3lyrics.org

Site hosting song lyrics without permission of copyright holders. Inserted into numerous articles on en.wp. Here are some of the ones I found. --Slowking Man 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

lyricsandsongs.com

Same as above. --Slowking Man 02:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

yahoo.335-i.com/BMW

wwww.yahoo.335-i.com/BMW - url shorterner. leads to a cars sales site. spammer contribs. JoeSmack 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 4

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[436]

  • auto-insurance-company.net

--A. B. (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

geiz-gorilla.com

Spammed by Deutsche Telekom addresses 84.185.216.42, 84.185.249.66, and 84.185.225.217 to articles on en, es, it, sv, and possibly others. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done clear case of problems. Eagle 101 04:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

coffeereview.net and Yosemite spam

Links:

  • extranomical.com
  • yosemitetours.travel
  • coffeereview.net

Added by Emotionlovesyou and at least one anonymous IP that we know of, 64.142.88.201 to a range of en:wikipedia articles related to either coffee or en:Yosemite National Park. Numerous warnings and an indefinite block have not stopped the problem.[437][438]. --A. B. (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Better Solution Spam

bettersolutions.com Frequent spamming of Better Solution links on Microsoft PowerPoint, Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel. User has been caught and banned impersonating administrationship when his links have been reverted. See [439]. Latest spamming include vandalism of external link by replacing Microsoft Office official page with Better Solution's link.

  Done Naconkantari 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Disallow redirect sites

Sometimes the danish wiki has experienced linkspam to linkredirect/shortlink sites. Would it not be a good idea to disallow such sites?:

E.g.:

relurl.com/
urlkick.com/
1url.org/go/
masl.to/
lnk.in/

It is best that people directly can see the ___domain they are going to. --Glenn 20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What triggered Glenn's above comment are links to Flash versions of games added across several (if not multiple Wikipedia versions; e.g. I found the same links in de:, nn:, and no: where acticles were available). The links are added from the address ranges 89.0.0.0-89.1.255.255 and 62.90.5.192-62.90.5.223 (and possibly others).

Examples of the added links taken from da:

- Kaare 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect sites are prohibited.   Done Naconkantari 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Open proxy

Another proxy being used to evade the spam blacklist: [440]. Silly, since the site being linked is not actually on the blacklist, although it has been spammed mercilessly by en:User:JB196. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

kitzor.com, tinyshorturl.com gamesff.com zluf.com

Spammer on many Wikis:

Spammer spams mainly Tetris, and Pac-Man articles. From yesterday I'm trying to clean everywhere he was. Hołek 12:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Links only to pl.wiki are here, because you can access other by interwiki... He spams everywhere on Wikipedia. (Maybe single-block for 89.0.*.* ?) Hołek 12:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 19:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Brass India returns

This guy http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=502607#Conex_India_linkfarms returns with new domains. Femto 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 

aksharmetal.com
appleeou.com
appleinternational.com
appleinternationalenggworks.com
appleinternational.co.in
appleinternational.co.in
appleinternational.in
appleworldwide.com
autobrassonline.com
brassbuildinghardware.com
brasscableglands.com
brasselectrical.com
brasselectricalaccessories.com
brasselectricalcomponents.com
brassfastenersindia.com
brass-fasteners.com
brass-fasteners-india.com
brassfittingcomponents.com
brassinsertsbrassnutsbrassbolts.com
brass-inserts-fasteners-india.com
brassneutrallinks.com
brassnuts-brassbolts.com
brasspartsindia.com
brassparts.ind.in
brassprecisionparts.com 
brass-screws-bolts-nuts.com
brassterminalconnectors.com
brassturnedcomponents.com
cableglands-india.com
cable-glands-asia.com
cableglandsworldwide.com
hindustanimpex.com
jamnagaronline.com
rathodind.com
sahajanandbrass.com
skynetindia.info
siliconbronzefasteners.com
shivombrass.com
webnettechindia.com
  Done Naconkantari 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 6

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[441]

  • free-car-insurance-quote.net

--A. B. (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

topjobnet.org

A recent outburst of spamming for the same Tramadol site on en.wikipedia from multiple IPs:

All have been spamming the same link to topjobnet.org/tramadol/index.html across multiple medical and chemical articles. The entire topjobnet.org ___domain appears to be down right now, but it might be worth seeing if the ___domain should be blacklisted or just this particular URL. Thanks, Gwernol 11:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 14:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

www.chabad-baden.de

Having been inserted repeatedly for a long time into de.wikipedia articles concerning judaism-related topics. The site does not have more or better content than the de.wp articles have; mostly, the pages linked aren't even written in german language which is one major argument for/against external links at least on de. The owner of the website and the chabad of Baden have been informed about this twice without any reaction, the link is inserted even more often after contacting those. See contributions of

and many others.

Thanks, rdb (de) 14:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

israelnewsagency.com

Israelnewsagency.com is a website run by Joel Leyden, who is banned for spamming and disruption. Links keep creeping in, often from sockpuppets of en:User:Israelbeach, see en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Israelbeach. These links are generally reverted. The site is not a news agency as such, it's more of a blog. I assumed good faith in my latest dealing with an obsessive user over a link [446], but www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediaterrorismiranrussialeninisraelcensorship4877031407.html makes it clear that this was just another sock. I believe the time for assuming good faith in respect of this site is past. It is not a reliable source, it represents itself as a news agency but has no known editorial process and reprints as fact pretty much anything the Israeli Government sends it. Links have been added to en: many times, also to no: (e.g. [447]) and nl: (e.g. [448]). Some of the content linked has been copy-paste lifted from other sources, e.g. [449] which was an interview from the Jerusalem Post. Since we have spamming, conflict of interest, more than one project, offsite copyright violation, attacks on named Wikipedians and the site is not itself a reliable or attributable source, I think blacklisting is probably justified at this point. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, and outing anonymous Wikipedians, too, per www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedialibelslandersexwoolencyclopedia48330508.html, so that's a 100% prohibition on linking in enWP for the time being. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 03:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what exactly was done? I don't see that a link has been added to the content page. Just trying to figure out the system here. Thanks. en:user:woggly09:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Should be added now, I must have been distracted Naconkantari 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Just zis Guy, you know? 20:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 7

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[450]

  • affordable-car-insurance.net

--A. B. (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This site has not ties with insureme.com. It seems that this webmaster has copied insureme.com website after joining there affiliate program. This is against there policies and they are working on correcting. Check out the ___domain owner. Not related.

  Done - we are getting tons of spam from affiliate websites, this is just another case. Eagle 101 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

controlling21.de, controlling21.eu

Different t-dialin IPs are abusing de.wikipedia.org for search engine optimization in a really dumb way. Some diffs:

Blocking the IP did not work because these are dialin IPs of the largest provider in Germany. --217.232.148.195 07:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't give up:

--217.232.148.195 07:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also has domains controlling21.net, controlling21.com, controlling21.org, controlling21.biz, controlling21.at, controlling21.ch, controlling21.info, multimedia-beratung.de that could be used for future spamming. --217.232.148.195 08:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Goes on spamming: [458] --217.232.151.3 21:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Older spam: [459] --217.232.151.3 21:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done all of them. Eagle 101 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

beam.to

This is a url redirect site, it's already in 5 mainspace pages on en.wp --Versageek 12:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done. MaxSem 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

mortgagequeen.us

www dot mortgagequeen dot us (not .com) has been spammed at intervals over the last week or so to English wikipedia; each time by a different anon IP, who does not return calls. The current technique is to replace an existing link in the references section, to disguise the spam. Recorded instances (there may be others): 69.228.86.173 Hard money loan, 69.228.88.201 Mortgage, Commercial mortgage, 69.228.94.209 Commercial mortgage 69.228.91.42 Hard money lender, Hard money loan, Mortgage, Commercial mortgage -- Notinasnaid 12:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

chabad-baden, again

A week ago, I requested to add the ___domain "chabad-baden.de" to the blacklist, which was done by User:Eagle 101. Now, after having http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schawuot&diff=prev&oldid=29390917 removed] all links to the site, a user having before added links to chabad-baden.de now shows up with links to de.chabad.org immediately after my removal. de.chabad.org is (at least in its content) obviously exactly the same site as the one before, so I request to block this as well. Thanks, rdb (de) 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

anemony.info, nasturciya.info, kolokolchiki.info, orchideya.info, magnoliya.info, tyulpan.info, vasilyok.info, landysh.info, azaliya.info, lutik.info

Multiple related domains spammed the sonikmatter wiki - History

Spam is widespread see google for a list of other affected wiki's. Some examples [460], [461] [462]

The Puppeteer 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done looks like an issue, I don't know if the blacklistings here will affect all of these wikis, but it will get at least a few of them. In any case that is blatant spam. Eagle 101 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Note I did run a check of the top 15 language wikipedia's for all these links, I did not find any existing spam. Eagle 101 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 8

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted February 2007:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[463][464]

  • affordable-auto-insurance.biz

--A. B. (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

pressarchive.net

Frame site added by around 20 spam sockpuppets so far. The frame adds a pop-up ad and a frame around the linked website (in all 250 additions so far - a website (www.moviehole.com) that features interviews with actors). Each spammer registers for a generic username, adds around 10 links, and never returns. Socks use similar edit summaries and idiosyncratically format the url (e.g. www.PressArchive.net ex. diff ex. diff). Full list of spammers and techniques on WP Project spam. So far all 250 additions have been frame link-throughs to www.moviehole.com - in particular, interviews with actors. Nposs 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done constant spam issue. If there are legit links, use the whitelist. Eagle 101 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Business English Solutions International, LLC spam

See:

Links:

  • allthingschina.com
  • AllthingsChina.org
  • alternateroutestravel.com
  • businessesi.com
  • businessesi.org
  • chinahearts.com
  • chinaschoolreview.org
  • chinatravelfacts.com
  • ChinaVisaService.org
  • eslfranchise.com
  • esljobschina.com
  • eslschoolreview.com
  • eslz.net
  • hunanteach.com
  • journeyeast.org
  • journeywest.org
  • learnchinesenow.net
  • studenttravelchina.org
  • teach-and-travel.org
  • teach-in-Beijing.com
  • teach-in-zhejiang.org
  • TEFLjobs.org
  • z-visa.com

Previous remedies did not stop editor from resuming his campaign today.[465]

I suggest blacklisting the domains this time. --A. B. (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done seems like we have no choice in the matter. Eagle 101 21:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

tz4.com

Seems to be a spammer. See:

--81.189.41.189 08:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done - seems to be a minor problem on that wiki :) Eagle 101 14:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

VsiSoftware.com, Inc. and Insureme.com spam -- round 3

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Now we have still another insureme.com site that's turned up:[466][467]

  • lowcostcarinsurance.us

--A. B. (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 05:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hang on please! Have you researched this before blacklisting? Show me one place where insureme.com has placed a direct link. These sites you are listing are not insureme.com. They are simply affiliates through a third company. Insureme.com has no control of this without know these sites are spamming. They should be warned first. Now as for the sites such as lowcostcarinsurance.com they should be blacklisted for spamming. As for insureme it should not be unless it has spammed itself. Many major companies have this third party as an affiliate manager. I know two sites in which they are in the top 10 websites on the Internet. We shouldn't ban them. What we will have to do is take these sites on a case by case basis and blacklist them. It may be more work, but at least we will meet wikipedia.org standards. If insureme.com has spammed please place the link. If this is the case they should be blacklisted.

And the value of the link? Eagle 101 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com has many link values. They are listed as the third listing in google.com for auto insurance. In addition to this they have more than 50 registered auto insurance agents. They have a blog that is linked to more than 11,000 websites in which webmasters are seeking experts opinions. They have many valuable auto insurance tools that are trademarked and resources to all 50 states. I am not saying add these sites to an external link. But, some editor or user may want to provide this valuable content to wikipedia.org. They want be able to because you blacklisted a website in which has not spammed wikipedia.org. Like I stated earlier insureme.com hasn't spammed directly. Quit being lazy and whitelist this website!!! We will have to take the affiliates who spam and blacklist them on a case by case basis. But, if I was to go out and buy a website and join there affiliate program and spam wikipedia.org why should insureme.com have to pay for this. I should be the one owho gets blacklisted since I spammed.


  1. 1 Guideline for wikipedia.org - Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam.

So don't blacklist simply because of no link value. If this was the case you would need to put a blacklist on 95% of all the websites on the web.

Problem is that we are getting spammed many times by related links, Someone blacklists one, another one pops up. Eagle 101 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand but this isn't going to fix the problem. We must deal with these sites on a one on one basis. They are all duferent urls. So by blacklisting insureme.com who has not made one edit doesn't make sense.

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 5

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[468]

  • classic-car-insurance.biz

The same IP also spammed:

  • free-mortgage-calculator.info[469]

--A. B. (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please quit putting insureme.com as part of this spammer. This website is not insureme.com it is free-mortgage-calculator.info and classic-car-insurance.biz. This has nothin g to do with insureme.com. If we think this is part of insureme.com then we need to start one websites running google ads. Google does not own the websites running google adsense. Insureme.com doesn't own the sites running there ads either.

Change title above to


free-mortgage-calculator.info and classic-car-insurance.biz

Err, actually it is from those companies, I'm wondering why we are constantly getting hit with related spam. All these sites are related to Insureme.com in some way. Eagle 101 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

They are related to insureme.com as sites with google adsense ads are to google. We shouldn't punish google or insureme.com for not making edits.

Porn linkspam

Sites to block are laurenphoenix.net , lanitodd.org , masonmarconi.org , monicasweet.org , nicolevoss.org , rayveness.org , sydneecapri.net , terabond.org , and tianalynn.org Persistent anon vandal keeps adding links to these porn websites to the stars' articles - in the case of the Lauren Phoenix link, it has been added and removed 10 times since March 12/07 (edits one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten). The IP that is used is different each time so it's not possible to block the IP address, and I fear that this vandalism will continue unless the links are blocked. Tabercil 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

partially done - I blacklisted laurenphoenix.net. I would appreciate evidence on the other set. Just show me the page history, and a few sample diffs of each. Thanks. Eagle 101 04:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

K... here we go:

Lani Todd: one, two, three, four.

Mason Marconi: one, two, three, four.

Rayveness: one, two, three, four

Sydnee Capri: one, two, three, four.

Tiana Lynn: one, two, three, four.

Monica Sweet: one, two, three, four.

Nicole Voss: one, two, three, four.

Tera Bond: one, two, three, four.

Is that enough? If not, just clarify and I'll be more than happy to give you whatever info you need. This idiot's consumed too much of my time and patience. Okay? Tabercil 04:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done, thank you. --.anaconda 09:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com

freemasonrywatch\.org is on the list, but they have a new redirect: freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com

Please block this one too
Grye 01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done redirect site. Eagle 101 04:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks much Grye 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

anxietydetective.org and 3 others

23 different articles spammed on en.wikipedia[470], [471], [472] + more on the French, German, Swedish and Portuguese Wikipedias by at least 3 different accounts. Domains:

  • moviemirth.com
  • geocities.com/anxietydetective
  • anxietydetective.org
  • producerdb.com

Thank you, --A. B. (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done - clear cut Eagle 101 04:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 9

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted February 2007:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[473][474][475]

  • affordable-car-insurance.biz
  • instant-auto-insurance-quote.net

--A. B. (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done - this affiliate spamming has to stop. Eagle 101 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, I've got an experimental heuristics-based bot looking for these sites, which should hopefully catch any more additions. Shadow1 22:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for blacklisting, Eagle 101, and thanks for your work on your heuristical robot! --A. B. (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A.B. Why do you have to put a link to robomarketplace.com? This is only helping that website out. Please remove this link and place the internal link for wikipedia.org so we can reference the great work eagles did.

Err, I did not make the robot, that is Shadow1. Eagle 101 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ooops --and thanks Shadow1! --A. B. (talk)

"International Myopia Prevention Association"

  • myopia.org
  • nearsightedness.org
  • pinholeglasses.org
  • preventmyopia.org

Uses multiple accounts to spam these links across 4 different articles despite numerous warnings.[476][477][[478][479][480][481]

Note that there's at least one more account that added link to another article -- I just haven't found it yet.

On a POV campaign with the en:Consumers Union and several vision-related articles. --A. B. (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See also the lengthy discussion at en:Talk:Consumers Union -- it's not as if this guy hasn't had the rules repeatedly explained to him over and above his user page warnings. --A. B. (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done I'm going to go ahead and do this, there are 0 instances of this link, except for those on the english wiki. (I checked the top 15 wikipedias). Eagle 101 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --A. B. (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

thebestof.co.uk spam

These links were spammed across many British articles last year. In January 2007, we got heartfelt pledges not to add these links anymore without getting permission from other editors on article talk pages:

I guess he forgot; see these subsequent edits:

Short of protecting a bunch of pages and/or blocklisting large IP ranges, I don't see much alternative to blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Eagle 101 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

musiciandictionary.com / celebritydictionary.com

Two IPs belonging to 20th Century Fox (216.205.224.64 and 216.205.244.5) were posting this stuff on practically every big WP-edition in january and were blocked on some projects after not stopping when kindly asked to. Since I just saw that one of them just started again, I think it's time to stop them (the links aren't any good anyway, just a wiki where people can post stuff we'd consider vandalism).

Examples:

--62.224.91.5 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done - cross wiki spam, these cases can get real annoying, real quick. Eagle 101 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Removals: Not done

Latest comment: 18 years ago179 comments51 people in discussion

asociacionjacob52.com

The following discussion is closed: Not removed

I don't know why this one was included, it's the official page of a Spanish Foundation. I'm working of its page in the Spanish Wiki and know I can't edit it. I personaly put all the links to this page in those pages dedicated to aerobatics. How am I going to earn money doing that? Please remove it. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_52

I agree, it is the web page of the Spanish Yak 52 display team. It should be removed from the blacklist. --192.18.4.200 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is why. We got spammed on multiple wikis. I'm currently not inclined to take it off, perhaps in a few weeks. I'm marking this   Not done, unless another meta admin disagrees, then feel free to change it. Eagle 101 05:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed, not removed. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

pavelnedved.110mb.com

The following discussion is closed: Not removed

This is not spam link. This is a community of Pavel Nedved's fan. Please remove this link of the blacklist.

  Not done Here is why, I'm not inclined to remove it after that recent spam spree. Request local whitelisting. If any meta admin disagrees, feel free to change this. Eagle 101 05:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
How I can do a request of local whitelisting please? I hate spam and for sure I don't want to do it. This site is a clean international community of pavel nedved fans..
There are some users that have spammed but they was banned.
(scuse me for my not perfect english)
You can whitelist an address by adding it to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist on the project you're editing. For example, you can whitelist it on the English Wikipedia by editing w:en:MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist.
Confirmed, not removed. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

cborgeanos.foro.ijijiji.com

Please, remove this link of the blacklist. This is the only forum in honor to Cuentos Borgeanos, an argentinian band and I created the wiki of Cuentos Borgeanos and I need put the forum's link. It's not spam.

Sorry for my English, I'm still learning.

  Not done request local whitelisting. Eagle 101 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

tvrage.com

Any clue why tvrage.com is blacklisted its a useful site for TV Shows and Actors & Crew info. Please let us link to this wonderful site that's way better then http://www.tv.com

It is on the blacklist because it was spammed. See this. Regards Eagle 101 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I was actually blacklisted because someone (a user who even stated on his en. talkpage that he's a member of a rival site) showed two places that were "spammed", and a sysop or whatever here quickly accepted it. No offense. If you couldn't keep one user linking articles under control, then maybe you should target the user (now blocked), and not the site being linked. ;) --Linalu24 04:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


First off, this is not a vote, and for now I have commented out the vote section. I will contact the meta admin who did the blacklisting. But if it has been spammed across wikis, or by more then one IP, then its not likely to leave the list. Eagle 101 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It was actively spammed into articles by the websites owners and several "anons" - the fact of the matter is it still does not meet linking guidelines either. MatthewFenton 13:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out, I added the site to the blacklist after an initial request, which seemed legitimate. The issue was re-raised in October, and because there was no detailed reasoning to the request for removing the site, along with a reasonable response by another editor, I denied the request after a few days simply because I was attempting at that time to clear out the backlog at this page, noting that I was the admin who had first added the site. Doing a quick search, I see that additional requests have also been made in December and late January. I am no longer sure whether this site should remain on the blacklist or not, having seen a variety of arguments both for and against the site; this is an issue that should be left to more discussion here, and because I've been involved with adding the link, I do not think it appropriate for me to be the "final say" on this, per se. However, I do want to point out that in the meantime, while this discussion continues, local whitelisting would enable links to this site at any wiki wishing to do so. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  Not done Naconkantari 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


To clear up something, the person who spammed wikipedia was not the owner of TVRage but an admin, he has since been removed. although i understand why it was blacklisted, i hope in time it can be removed as the website gains more credibility.

Maybe in like a few months, it could be removed for a while, and if it's spammed, it can be quickly re-added, unless it's just one user, who can be blocked. -Sam.

hem.fyristorg.com/kraftwerk

This is one of the first and largest Kraftwerk pages on the Internet, cannot understand why it is considered spam. It is listed under the "external links" section on subject Kraftwerk. Please remove it from the blacklist!

The site was spammed across multiple wikis, please see this. I would suggest that if it is useful for a subject on a particular wiki, that you request it be whitelisted on that wiki. Regards. Eagle 101 19:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I did additions to different languages on subject Kraftwerk, and that in hindsight it was stupid of me, although I don't consider it deliberate spamming. I feel like a criminal when an excellent non-profit, no-ads site is banned because of me. But it is me who is to blame and not the site I think, it is still one of the top five sites on subject Kraftwerk. I would be very glad if you would re-consider and remove the site from the black list.

  Not done, request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 05:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think whitelisting is OK, but there seems not to be a whitelist for all languages, which makes it impossible to add to my local ones. Since my site is Swedish (although in English language), I tried to add it to the Swedish and Norwegian (similar language) wikis, they just link to this page when they tell you the link is blacklisted. I have also searched the local wikis (in respective language) but cannot find any whitelist.

The whitelists are available on every wiki. Please ask an administrator from the wiki that you are trying to include the link to add it to the whitelist. If the administrator can not find the whitelist, please direct them to this page. Naconkantari 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

fotoplatforma.pl

Please review my address www.fotoplatforma.pl at the black list. It was honour to me to show some of interesting photos in Wikipedia but when you find it as a spam I was surprised. If you have possibility - check up all my links and You will find some of them are very old because many people and authors of articles find them valuable. I spent some years to collect photos of butterflies and flowers and more. Most of them are very sharp, colorful, valuable. I worked hard to add good quality links to wikipedia. More then 50% of visitors add my website www.fotoplatforma.pl to favorite, Google and Yahoo show my website very high because this content is not spam. Do you ever find my links about butterflies among apple tree? What do you mean - cross spam? Photos of natural environment means thousands subjects and if one day someone find nature as a cross spam it is really new point of view for me.

If You decided to stop my work to Wikipedia - let me know - thats all and enough to do with me. Spam list with my www.fotoplatforma.pl is unsuitable and wrongful to me thats the reason I asked to remove it.

best regards Marek foto@fotoplatforma.pl

Please also see discussion about this topic on my talk page here. I think I've explained quite well why the link was blacklisted, if you don't understand why it was blacklisted please ask. Thanks. Eagle 101 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  Not done Naconkantari 05:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Freemasonrywatch.org

Masonic editors are continually deleting this website and making false accusations that it has been made inadmissable by Wikipedia. Masons dislike this website because it exposes them. It is one of the largest and highest ranked websites on Freemasonry on the internet. Do not allow Masonic censorship on Wikipedia.24.68.248.67 02:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The site was blacklisted because of this. Eagle 101 17:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Because of what? An Editor who is a Freemason doesn't like a website that contains articles critical of his group? Please provide the reference that Arbcom ever made such a ruling, if you can't then remove the 'blacklist'.24.68.248.67 15:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The poster who made the original blacklist request is a known masonic editor with a heavy pov bias. The website in question contains articles critical of the group he is a member of. Arbcom never made any such ruling as this individual alleges. There is no precedent for banning a website in this way. The website is fully within Wiki guidelines of acceptable content.King james version 15:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Checking some cron's of article, seems like this removal proposal is not totally pointless. Please, investigate further, seems like the spam was made to defamate a legitime opposition source. --Jollyroger 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done Naconkantari 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, I'm not sure that this was such a great idea. Freemasonrywatch.org is a favorite of long-term POV pusher and banned user on the English Wikipedia, Lightbringer. It is number 2 on the list of top conspiracy sites. This link has NO USE WHATSOEVER on wikimedia projects. Cheers, PTO 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, Reversed due to new link. In the future, please provide this kind of evidence before a site is removed or added to the blacklist. Naconkantari 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

namebase.org

I would like to see a justification for the entry for namebase.org; true, the site offers for-fee copying and duplication services, but it is after all a 501(c)3, and these services are only incidental to the site's rather interesting and useful value-added name indexing services. Also, its occasional linkage hardly constitutes "widespread, unmanageable spam" as per the guidelines (quote: "Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam"), and there is no evidence that links are being added by bots, or by human agents of Public Information Research. Thank you. 68.236.38.185 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason why it is blacklisted:
#These sites are redirecting requests from Wikimedia sites to a third-party site\.
namebase\.org
If it is still redirecting requests, then its going to stay on the list. We generally don't like url redirect sites as they can be used to circumvent this list. Eagle 101 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Understood, and a valid point; but could you jury-rig an example so we can see what you mean? Otherwise it's hard to verify this, being as linkage to the site is, you know, blacklisted.
Requested denied. It's one of Brandt's sites. Raul654 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
None of the six nonprofit, noncommercial, tax-exempt domains on the spam blacklist has redirected since June, 2006. They redirected from April, 2006 to June, 2006. You can verify by clicking on a link inside a preview page. See: wikipedia-watch.org/raul654.html 68.90.165.218 23:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  Not done Sorry, but we're not going to be sending any traffic Mr. Brandt's way. Raul654 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. If these are no longer redirecting, then they should be removed from the blacklist, which explicitly exists for the purpose of blacklisting spammers. The addition to this list in the first place was problematic, but we avoided creating a separate list for the time being since there weren't enough compelling reasons to do so. But if Brandt has truly stopped redirecting his sites, there is no reason for them to remain listed, whatever our dispute with him may be.--Eloquence 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You are right. What kind of a response is 'we're not going to be sending any traffic Mr Brandt's way?' It's not very mature is it? Pursuing petty feuds through wikipedia's official blacklist is not very becoming of a serious encylopedia. 87.74.10.185 11:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
While not wanting to send traffic to Brandt is clearly a bad reason to keep the site blacklisted, I have to say that I don't see much gain in taking it off the blacklist and the probability that Brandt will use it for redirecting again seems high. On the whole, this isn't worth it. JoshuaZ 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

davincisketches.com

I would like to respectfully request that this site be removed from the blacklist. I added the link to the site to what I thought to be related articles in a few different languages with no ill intent. I apologize if I violated any posting rules it was not my intention. If it would be possible to have it unblock, I would be very grateful to have it solely on the main Leonardo da Vinci Page and if removed from the blacklist I will add it to no additional pages. Thank You.

Site full of ads, most of the images can be found in better resolution and without ads here. Strongly against removal. --Jollyroger 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Listen this is ridiculous. The fact that the website has ads does not mean that it should be blacklisted. It contains a lot of images that aren't contained on the Wiki commons. Not to mention it is making alot of pages increasingly difficult to edit, because not just the Da Vinci page itself links to it, but many the pages of his subsequent works. It should be un-blacklisted because

1. It contains very, very few ads to begin with 2. The sight contains many, many useful images, with accurate source guides, and an overall good construction 3. It's being black listed is causing difficulty in editing. 4. The person who inserted them as asserted that they were placed for good use (and I beck him/her on this choice), and not to Spam. 5. It is obvious the intentions of the website are to present useful and insightful information, not advertisements.

I would sincerely appreciate it if this were taken off the banlist. Thanks a bunch.

--72.196.250.18 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

('Chopin-Ate-Liszt!' at Wikipedia, please let me know the response to this on my Wikipedia page.)

  Not done, request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 05:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)#

This is a very good site for Leonardo da Vinci sketches - by far the best I've seen. The claim that the site is full of ads is ridiculous. There are hardly any ads on the site - far less than most web sites. The other claim, that there is a better site for Leonardo sketches is also false. The other site referred to has far fewer sketches and is very poorly organised. I'm very surprised that the davincisketches.comt web site has ever come to be on the blacklist. People interested in Leonardo da Vinci are being denied a very good source of information because it is blacklisted. --XX7 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes please remove - Jolly Roger's comment above is wildly inaccurate. The Category "Drawings by Leonardo" contains 11 items! The sketchbooks are a different matter. See en:Leda and the Swan where this is the only source for two drawings, for a painting never made, by Leonardo. Ads are inconspicuous. 87.194.23.18 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC) - Johnbod from en

Good reason has not been given for preventing removal because there is none. --XX7 11:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

fisheaters.com

I would like to request that this site be removed from the blacklist, and a link be allowed in the Traditionalist Catholic Wikipedia entry. I asked on spam-whitelist, and they suggested I propose it here.

The reasons for the blacklisting of it is here

Please unblock this site. I think that this site is a good external link that balances out the other ones. I think it meets the following criteria:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

There is tons of information on traditional Catholic practices, culture, etc., that is well-researched and gives verifiable references; I've been visiting this site for almost a year now and think it will be valuable to others interested in Traditional Catholicism. I read the talk pages on it, and what I think happened is a bunch of well-meaning people pasted a bunch of links to it before understanding what wikis are about. Then a big argument ensued where everyone loses because this is blacklisted and can't be used as an external link. I think this site should be whitelisted, and a link from the Traditional Catholicism page allowed.

I read JzG's page, and I've read the FishEaters' site response. I respectfully think JzG misinterpreted some of the actions and is confused about some of the things.

For example, JzG says: For the rest, most of the articles were not even specific to Catholicism, let alone the disputed branch of Traditionalist Catholicism. Some of the content linked appears superficially neutral (although the overall tone of the site is not); many of the links failed to include sufficient text to inform the Wikipedia reader beforehand that the site represented a minority view, and the breadth and format of the links triggered the spam radar.

But then JzG lists the articles that he removed links from, and they are all about Catholicism, etc. The site clearly states that it is a Traditional Catholic site (though wiki refers to it as Traditionalist Catholicism, such Catholics refer to themselves as Traditional Catholics).

Again, I think this is just a case where people got off on a bad foot. I understand JzG's concerns, and I would be happy to address them point-by-point (though the blacklisting is a year old). But I would like this site to be removed from the blacklist and a single link allowed at the wikipedia Traditionalist Catholic article. It has a lot of good original information for people wanting to learn about Traditional Catholicism. Krnlhkr 09:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you want to add it to one page? If so, can you tell me what the url that you want to include, I don't think on the whitelist they knew of this. Please give me a "deep" link into the site, and I will do a whitelisting of that, if we only need this on one page. Regards Eagle 101 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what I would like to do is add a single link pointing to the main Fish Eaters page to the external links section of the wikipedia Traditionalist Catholic article here. That would be to http://www.fisheaters.com and the description would be the site title (The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism). The site itself is comprised of original essays, information, cultural practices, religious practices, etc. and as such is completely dedicated to Traditional (Traditionalist sic) Catholicism. That's all I'm asking for. A single link to the main Fish Eaters page in a single Wikipedia article. Would that be OK? Thanks, I really appreciate it. Krnlhkr 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there an about page or something, so that we don't have to whitelist the whole thing? (given the spam issues). Something like www.fisheaters.com/Some_sub_page. That might be best. In addition, have you gotten consensus with the article editors on that page? IE, everyone agrees to this? If so please post something (agian) on the whitelist and I will do the whitelisting. (Given that you give me a "deeplink" (like www.fisheaters.com/Some_sub_page). Eagle 101 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I can find a deeper link that is appropriate. Let me talk to the article editors and see if they are OK with this, and if so, I will post on the whitelist. Thanks again for your help, I appreciate it. Krnlhkr 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this is   Not done as this link will end up going to the whitelist, when and if the english wikipedia wants it. Eagle 101 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Being a nasty suspicious bastard I checked Krnlhkr's edits on en:. Guess what I found? [482]. First edit: requesting whitelisting. Second, third, fourth edits: arguing about it on en:talk:Traditionalist Catholic. No other edits. Is that a rat I smell? Feh. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would object, I was one of the editors. The Fisheaters site is just not a good source, is not notable, and was blacklisted because the editor was using wikipedia to drive traffic to her site. She had an army of new editors with one or two edits appear to re-add the links against consensus. Fisheaters also continues to maintain a "how to attack wikipedia" page [483]. Dominick 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This URL (fisheaters.com), just this minute, was reported as blacklisted when trying to save Circle of stars without it existing in it. How come? --129.178.88.68 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a read of the conversation above, its on the blacklist. Eagle 101 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What attacks would those be?

Guy, since you are referring to a link now removed, I'm assuming you're referring to a discussion forum thread that was a copy-paste of a section of evangelize.html. There was nothing attacking in it except for the name I chose for the thread, a name that admittedly sounded pretty bad (yeah, it definitely was an unfortunate name, but was one rooted in the idea of the "Church Militant." I apologize for the misunderstanding.) But the text of the thread simply encouraged Catholics to not sit around and expect fairness and balance if they don't get busy. Like the text of evangelize.html it was copied from, it encouraged fairness, NPOV writing, etc., and gave instructions (from a second link I have) on how to edit Wiki. To evangelize.html, I later added a characterization of the Wiki editing experience which sounded a bit bitter (now removed), warning, in essence, that editing isn't for the sensitive types like me, but I never -- not once -- encouraged adding links to my site (for further clarification, I also added, just this morning, text that explicitly admonishes against the now-moot idea of adding any links whatsoever to my site without gaining consensus on Talk Pages since it seems that that page was being understood by Wiki admins differently than I'd intended).

As per "spamming," I can only say that I definitely and admittedly added many links to my site. I did so, though, in 2005, before there were any rules against adding links to one's own site, and did so on relevant pages (see your own list). I did not limit my Wiki editing to adding links, as has been unfairly said. I edited under the name Used2BAnonymous for months, and my contributions can be seen (you'd have to go back in the History past the infamous edit war of that night in Dec. 2005 to get to them. If you stop there on the first History page or two, link-adding -- or reverting -- is all you'd see). I am far, far too sensitive, depressive, and sarcastic (and busy) to be a Wiki editor, so it'd all be water under the bridge except for untruths that continue to be told (such as on the Trad Cath Talk Page as we speak), for the characterizations of me and my site when the topic of my site comes up on these spam pages, for the fact that other wiki-media (and Google may in the future) use Wikipedia's blacklist, and for the double standards in play when it comes to linking and which are defended even after being brought to admins' attention (Traditio.com? Chabad's waldorf salad recipe? Sheesh), even in the context of discussing whitelisting FE so that links can be discussed on Talk Pages by people with some familiarity with the topics involved instead of just obliterated and called "spam." I dunno... it's all just sad and frustrating. Peace. 75.46.74.131 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You represent as untruths things which are differences in interpretation, which is rude and unhelpful. And once again: your aim is, and always has been, to include links to your site. Wikipedia is not a link farm or referral service, and sites of no objectively provable authority cannot be used as sources, so there is really nothing more to be said. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want the site's pages to be used as a source, but as external links for further reading, and I would like for the site to not be characterized as "spam." I am unclear as to what things above are being represented as untruths which are, rather, differences in interpretation, but I will go through the points (in bold) you make on the User:JzG/Fisheaters page:

Re. the the links you have at the top of the page to "prove" how Wiki was my only source of traffic:

1) Now there is only one link showing from Wiki to FE at Yahoo 2) Yahoo now shows 15,600 links to FE 3) Yahoo shows 5,421 links to kensmen.com 4) User contributions are the same, of course 5) kensmen.com has no traffic data at Alexa 6) fisheaters.com has a 298,872 traffic rating at Alexa (this numer goes all over the place, BTW; I've seen it much higher and much lower. The traffic rank for the US is 78,773 as of this date.

Re: "Alexa reports show Wikipedia as the major site linking in to the old ___domain, the new one has too low a ranking for the report to be there yet I think.": Yes, the ranking was low -- because it had just moved; at that time, as far as Alexa was concerned, FE was days old. I offered to make a temporary password and let you log in to see my Urchin stats even so you could see that traffic was just fine, Guy, in spite of Alexa ratings. In any case, now there are no Wiki links to FE, and the site does fine per Alexa (see #6 above).

Re: "It is reported that the forum attached to this site has 6 moderators and 300 members; this does not address the concern that the site itself appears to be a monograph. There is no evidence of the site being run by an organisation (or even a person) independently recognised as an authority on catholicism in general (per the breadth of linking) or even on traditional catholicism (re the proposed restricted linking).": The site has 8 mods and 1,091 members as of this date. The site is run by me, a single individual whose work is respected and linked to by priests, parishes, dioceses, the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, Latin Mass Magazine (edited by priests), the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Revealer, Turnabout, universities, etc. The site shouldn't be used as a "source," but as an "external link" for further reading.

Re: "About Spam" section: The most commonly understood definition of the word on the Internet is the one that should be respected, IMO. Otherwise, it'd be like me publicly and repeatedly calling someone a "twat" and, in response to offended complainants, referring them to my own personal definition, e.g., "by twat, I mean helluva nice guy." It really is extremely painful to me to be referred to as a "spammer," JzG. I hate spam with a passion.

Re: "That is an evasion. WP:EL existed and was pointed out during her edit war over removal of the links, and ignored": The WP:EL as of the last day of December 2005 follows the colon, and when all that was going on, I was fruitlessly begging for official clarification as to policy (see my now deleted RfC against Dominick): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&oldid=32525225

Re: "For the rest, most of the articles were not even specific to Catholicism, let alone the disputed branch of Traditionalist Catholicism": See your own list of links on the User:JzG/Fisheaters page. These are the entries -- all of them -- that you list:


Advent All Saints All Souls Day Altar bell Angelus Annunciation Anointing of the Sick Apologetics Ascension Ash Wednesday Assumption of Mary Baptism Barbara Benedict of Nursia Blaise Brigid of Ireland Candlemas Catherine of Alexandria Catholicism Christian Christian symbolism Christian view of marriage Christian-Jewish reconciliation Christmas Church bell Circumcision Confession Confirmation (sacrament) Crucifix Day of the Dead Dispensationalism Easter Epiphany Eucharist Eucharistic adoration Ex-voto Fasting Funeral Good Friday Habemus Papam Halloween Holy Orders Holy Thursday Holy water Icon Immaculate Conception Incense Indulgence John the Baptist Labyrinth Lent Litany Liturgical colours Liturgical year Marriage Martha Mary Magdalene Mary, the mother of Jesus Mass (liturgy) Massacre of the Innocents Maundy money Mel Gibson Michaelmas Modesty Mortification of the flesh Novena Nun Palm Sunday Papal infallibility Papal Oath Pascendi Dominici Gregis Penance Pentecost Pilgrimage Purgatory Relic Religious order Requiem Ritual purification Rosary Sabbath Sacramentals Saint Agnes Saint Anthony of Padua Saint James the Great Saint Joseph Saint Patrick Saint Valentine Second Vatican Council Sign of the cross Stations of the Cross St. Stephen's Day Subsidiarity Sunday The Passion of the Christ Thomas à Becket Traditionalist Catholic Tridentine Mass Twelfth Night (holiday) Veil Vestment Votive deposit

Re: "Some of the content linked appears superficially neutral (although the overall tone of the site is not)": The overall tone of the site reflects an in-communion with Rome, Vatican II-accepting, "Benedict XVI is Pope" type traditional Catholicism allowed per the papal document, "Ecclesia Dei" (which can be read on the site) or at the Vatican website, if you prefer. I attend Masses offered by indult, by priests who operate with ordinary jurisdiction, under plain old Bishops appointed by men whom probably 99% of the world recognizes as Popes.

Re: "many of the links failed to include sufficient text to inform the Wikipedia reader beforehand that the site represented a minority view": The view is an accepted Catholic view, the site's full name is "Fish Eaters: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism," and I said I'd have no problem whatsoever with links to the site being labeled "traditional" or "traditionalist."

Re: "Many of the links were identified as "traditional Catholic view of foo" or "Catholic view of foo". As identified subsequently on Traditionalist Catholic, traditional is ambiguous in context, arguably implying elements of Catholic tradition, whereas this is traditionalist, i.e. dissenting from Vatican-II, a minority group within Catholicism.": Read the "About This Site" page (contact.html). This is simply untrue and is probably even more painful to hear than being called a "spammer" since the typical Catholic reading that sort of accusation runs in the opposite direction.

Re: "This means that it is hard to find eviodence of the site owner adding content rather than just links.": I used to edit under the name Used2BAnonymous, and spent months -- practically day in and day out -- working on the entry "Traditionalist Catholic." See the Talk Pages there.

Re: "In almost all cases adding the link was the totality of the edit, no content was added at the same time.": See the edits of Used2BAnonymous (before the edit war of that day in December 2005).

Re. "In at least one case the link was to the text of a document which originated with the Vatican, and for which the original was available (in English) form the Vatican website.": Not by me (though I did have many links to papal documents in the Traditionalist Catholic entry since they were handy to me, I was a new editor at the time, and I was working offline. BTW, documents that precede the reign of Leo XIII aren't available at the Vatican website.).

Re: "Since the site was blacklisted the site owner has tried very hard indeed to get it removed, with numerous requests to the spam blacklist for removal, emails to admins and to Jimbo Wales, a campaign page on the Fisheaters website and other activities.": I requested once here that it be un-blacklisted, and others have as well (I try to watch this page). When the site is mischaracterized here or on Talk Pages, I defend it. I did write to Mr. Wales (twice, about a year apart) asking him to intervene. I don't believe I've ever written to any other admins. There has been no request, let alone a "campaign," at FE or its forum for anyone to go and get the site de-listed.

Re: "The site owner does not even identify herself or her credentials. It is a website of no objectively provable authority.": I don't expect the site to be used as a "Source" but would like for it be used as "External Links" for further reading. Given that it is linked to by priests and parishes and dioceses, that it is used by RCIA programs and such, I think it should pass the litmus test there. (Just within the past couple of days I happened across a priest's blog in which Father -- mistaking my site for being one run by some French blogger named "Eric" because "Eric" links to FE -- said, "...there is an English section entitled 'Fish Eaters' in which he attempts to give guidance on everything a catholic should know. You'll find descritions of everything from devotions, sacraments, the liturgical year, consecrations to the Sacred Heart/Immaculate Heart, guidance on appropriate attire at Mass, etc. It's for Catholics, Protestants, or anyone thinking of becoming a Catholic. I'd say much of what he posts would constitute excellent study material for those on an RCIA course with appropriate guidance from a priest. He comes from an unashamedly 'traditional' position." ( http://south-ashford-priest.blogspot.com/2007/03/ut-pupillam-oculi-i-recently-discovered.html ). I see that sort of commentary all the time from priests and laymen.

I don't go on about myself at my site because I am shy, depressive, and a loner. I don't misrepresent myself in any way; I just try to teach and let the work speak for itself.

As said, this is all just sad. 75.46.74.131 01:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If you had an account you'd be indefinitely blocked for disruption now, given the amount of the community's time you've wasted arguing to be allowed to link your site. It's not an attributable source, it's been spammed, it's blacklisted. If you find these arguments stressful, try not having them. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A LINK FARM. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Guy, I am fully aware that Wikipedia is not a link farm, but neither should it be a slander farm. It is also sad to see that you regard a defense against your misperceptions -- untruths that are publicly and repeatedly stated as fact whenever the issue arises -- as "disruption." I would not have to have these arguments if you would stop mischaracterizing my work. 75.46.90.135 11:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Facts as documented. Nobody forced you to edit-war about links ot your own site, and I have tried to be as accurate as possible in describing the site and the problem. You disagree? Hardly a surprise. But in the end it hardly matters - a site that has been Wikispammed and blacklisted as a result, and which is not a reliable source, and whose principal proponent is its owner, can stay on the blacklist. Every day we delete such links and block editors who add links to their own sites and fight about it. I fail to see that anything much has changed here, you are still a site owner agitating for links to your own site, an exchange which undoubtedly benefits your project more than it benefits ours. Perhaps you should take no for an answer, you'd save a lot of time. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can refer to the User:JzG/Fisheaters page as containing "facts as documented"; the above post of mine proves you to be mistaken on those points, so, of course I disagree. It is hardly surprising because, being very familiar with every word on my site, I know that the site isn't, for ex., "dissenting from Vatican-II." I was not planning on adding links to my site, but some people want to and have tried to, only to be told that the site is "spam," and to be referred to User:JzG/Fisheaters, which contains erroneous information that I am attempting to get you to stop spreading around. That is the issue. 75.46.90.135 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Er, no it doesn't. The key points are in any case: you added many links to your site, you fought when they were removed, you solicited your forum members to come to Wikipedia to push your agenda, and instructed them on how to avoid being spotted, you have expended many kilobytes arguing to be allowed to link to your site, and not even you claim that your site is a suitable source. You just want links. The answer is: no. Even if we were inclined to allow links to your site, which I for one am not, you are the very last person who should be agitating for them. Now please stop spitting in the soup. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "you added many links to your site": Yup, see above..
  • "you fought when they were removed": Yup. Dominick, who apparently thought the site was a "blog," got pals to take them down and replace them with sites with embedded midi files and other such fine things. Why wouldn't I?
  • "you solicited your forum members to come to Wikipedia to push your agenda": Not true.
  • "and instructed them on how to avoid being spotted": Not true again.
  • "you have expended many kilobytes arguing to be allowed to link to your site": I've spent a lot of time trying to get you to stop mischaracterizing my site and slandering me.
  • "and not even you claim that your site is a suitable source": An external link for further reading is not a source.
  • "You just want links": That'd be nice, but I'd be happy if you just quit lying, like I told you months ago.
  • " Even if we were inclined to allow links to your site, which I for one am not, you are the very last person who should be agitating for them.": Last time I looked, my name isn't krnlhker.
  • "Now please stop spitting in the soup": I'll stop what you consider "spitting in the soup" when you stop lying. 75.46.90.135 09:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And now you show your true colours. Perhaps this was you after all, I did not believe it was. How much of the above verbiage is Krnlhkr? Almost none. And there is only one person to blame for your past actions being dragged up again and again: every time you come back to argue for links to your site, your past action in adding links to your site and fighting over their removal is likely to be reiterated. Solution: go stick to your site and we'll stick to ours, and leave each other alone. The only reason I keep my subpage is because you keep coming back and starting the whole rigmarole again. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Guy, this was me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JzG/Laura&diff=60446315&oldid=59446189 Krnlhker's posts are signed with "Krnlhker"; the rest above are mine. I am not here arguing for links to my site; I am arguing for an end to the public mischaracterizations thereof and, because other Wiki media use your blacklist and because there is talk of Google punishing sites on that blacklist, I also would like whitelisting. That is all. 75.46.90.135 08:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Well I'm glad that nasty message was not you, despite the efforts of someone to persuade me otherwise I did not see it as your style, so belated thanks for the much nicer message. As to ending the supposed mischaracterisatio" of your site, all you need to do is drop the subject and it will go away. As I say, the only reason I keep the subpage is to save having to go through all the diffs again every time. It's mostly not about your site, it's about your behaviour. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we've misunderstood each other (again, ha). The post on your Talk Page about the comment made on the page about your sister (R.I.P.) was also by me, and I was referring to the comment linked to above, not to anything nasty someone might have said. I was being sarcastic because Baccyak4H edited my comment on your Fish Eaters sub-page and wrote, "I am alerting you to this because I know that editing others userpages is generally frowned upon." I didn't know that that was frowned upon (sorry) and was making that point -- and the point that I am not some malicious person -- by pointing out another edit I made to a userpage of yours. Anyway, I am not comfortable "politicizing" my words about your sister and my wishes for your consolation. They were genuine, and I only brought it up to indicate that I innocently edited your userpage and didn't know it was considered a breach of Wiki etiquette.
As to "dropping the subject," the thing is this: I am not "bringing it up." Krnlhker, for ex., is not me; neither was PaulGS, who made the same request in August. Nor was Roberth Edberg and Evrik and others whom I've seen ask for the site to be whitelisted. Me, I've brought the topic up once here, just after the site was blacklisted. I do watch these pages and defend the site once the topic is raised by others because those people are sent to your subpage which contains statements that are not true (see my post above that rebuts the points you make). For someone to be told that my site "doesn't accept Vatican II," for example, is beyond aggravating; it is death for a Catholic site (at least to another Catholic). And to post very clear evidence otherwise (see above) and to have it totally ignored every time is doubly aggravating. Further, knowing that other Wiki media use Wikipedia's blacklist, and that Google may punish sites on that blacklist is extremely worrisome to me. Yeah, it'd be great to know that editors could hash things out on Talk Pages and maybe link to FE if they thought it helpful, but with Dominick around with his Catholic article watchlist, it'd likely be impossible anyway (and I sure as Hell won't get sucked into the "Dealing with Dominick" trap unless it's a matter of defending my work). It's just not that big a deal; my site does fine without it. But what I do wish for is for people to not be told my site is "spam" (though I understand Wikipedia has a particular definition of such) and one that "rejects Vatican II" and so forth, and to not be punished by all Wiki media and by Google for the rest of my life. I'd also like for my RfC against him to be restored so that the proof that he lied (and it was most definitely, without doubt, a lie and not a misunderstanding) about EWTN -- a lie that, in essence, accused EWTN of lying -- could be accessible (I especially would appreciate this since his RfC against me is not deleted). 75.46.90.135 16:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not about editing user subpages, I don't have a problem with that. It's about your actions. Best thing for you to do is walk away, then see what happens in time. One thing's for sure: your agitating for links to your site is a major factor in keeping it on the blacklist. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, use local whitelisting Naconkantari 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is just guy an editor? How can we have editors who have more than 35 words mispelled on one page? 10 in this section alone. Spell check so we can read it.

encyclopediadramatica.com

Now i do know this site has been banned, but banning the mention of it is censorship, which is contradictory to wikipedia's neutral POV. This is even more serious as the site is often critical, and is effectively a spoof, of wikipedia, and to simply block all mention of it does not allow the wikipedia community to consider what could possibly be wrong with wikipedia, which would enable us to remedy the issue. Censorship only works against freedom of speech and expression of ideas, and as such should not be so actively used by admins. So in short, it is against wikipedia's rules to not allow a page on this site.203.173.178.117 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just archived a prior request to remove this (about 6 hours ago), you might want to have a look at this. For now consider this   Not done. Eagle 101 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
As soon as enc-dram becomes a notable website or becomes a reliable source and they stop harassing people on wikipedia I'm sure they will be taken off the blacklist. 71.193.11.169 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think they have a timescale for that, especially the latter part. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ipetitions.com

Just wondered if it could be removed. I have a link to a petition I made that I want on my user page, just wondering if ipetitions is a serious spam link or something. 68.252.6.166 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

  Not done Yeah its serious, see this for more detail. If you want one particular petition whitelisted, you could ask at en:WP:WHITELIST. (I'm assuming that you want this for the english wikipedia). They may refuse your request though. Regards Eagle 101 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

studentville.it

I would ask to edit from blacklist the url student ville.it please. This is a free website with contenents that are very good and useful (above all latin and italian literature). The contents are made by teachers. In wiki there are others many web sites with advertising (also with popup).

Thanks for the attention.

Not done, as explained one month ago in my talk page. --.anaconda 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but now there aren't popup. I don't know where is the problem, on wikipedia there are thousands and thousands of website with banner,according to me the law should be the same for all.

  Not done -- as per .anaconda, I plan on getting another user to do automated archiving of sections of this blacklist that are over x days old and have the startdoneend or startnotdoneend tags on them. Eagle 101 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

bestwaytoinvest.com

This is a site for people interested in investing in commodities, futures or countries. There are articles, charts, and graphs on the advantages and disadvantages of different investment tools. I was notified that my site had been added to the spam filter when trying to add an external link to South America's economy page. This site has relevant and more importantly, current information on developments in the futures and spot markets. Please reconsider your decision to block us.

  Not done you are attempting to spam your site onto wikipedia and related mediawiki sites. See here for evidence. If another meta admin thinks it should be taken off, feel free to do so, but I recommend strongly against removal. Eagle 101 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/

The following discussion is closed.

Under what circumstances can a web site be spam blacklisted ?

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ is an information web site concerning Parkinson's Disease. It is the most comprehensive web site on Parkinson's Disease - far more comprehensive than the Wikipedia article. Consequently, it appears on all of the Parkinson's Disease web sites including National Parkinson's Disease organisations and Parkinson's Disease patient forums. However, it does not appear on Wikipedia at all solely because it is blacklisted. Consequently, when anybody adds the web site to the relevant Wikipedia articles it is immediately removed.

The web site is not spam. It contains no pornography, racism, or politics. It does not contain any adverts at all. It does not sell anything. It does not promote or represent any company or individual. It does not mention any individuals. The only reason it was blacklisted is that the first person to add it was banned during conflict with other editors. Is that reason for spam blacklisting within Wikipedia guidelines ? Please let me know the original source for the guidelines concerning this matter, and under what circumstances the web site would be removed from the blacklist. --XX7 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the reason your site was blacklisted (see here). Basically there were many new accounts trying to add this link. I will ask the person who did the blacklisting to comment. Eagle 101 16:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It can bee seen using a ___domain check, that the web site is not owned by an individual. Viartis Limited is a medical research organisation that is part of one of the major Universities. I know, because I work for the University. If any individual has previously claimed to own the web site, they are either an imposter at worst or only a lowly employee at best.

Are different people, or people in different guises being the first to add a web site grounds within the Wikipedia regulations for a permanent ban of that web site ? Please refer me to the relevant regulations on Wikipedia, because, even if that was the reason for the blacklisting, this does not appear to be one of the reasons allowed by the regulations for imposing a permanent ban. The imposition of the blacklisting presently doesnot appear to have been imposed within the regulations. All I see from the link provided is evidence of one person on one occasion adding one web site to one article relevant to that web site. If this were grounds for a permanent ban, hundreds of thousands of web sites would have to be removed and permamnetly banned. Under what circumstances would such a ban be lifted. --XX7 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We are not a court of law here, the regulations are plain and simple, can we deal with the spam in any other way? If not it goes on here. Normal canidates are when people spam a site across wikis. (adding the same site to english, french, german, ect wikipedias). The second primary reason is if multiple accounts are adding the link, (or multiple IP ranges normally), and all admin attempts to stop it don't work. Again, I'm asking the person who did the original blacklist to comment, I know they are still active. Regards. Eagle 101 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to officious. It's just that, whatever the history, making useful information available seems to have been the real victim. The only Wikipedia article really involved is Parkinson's Disease. Whitelisting the site (if that's the correct term) would not mean that the site would appear on that article. The editors and administrators on that article appear to very resistant to alterations, and may not then enable anyone to list the web site anyway. However, consensus is able to prevail on all articles. Majority rule is well within the principles of Wikipedia, but blacklisting a good web site solely because the first person to add it was subsequently banned does not appear to be. There is no inherent fault at all with the web site in itself. If the web site was whitelisted it could easily be reversed if necessary. --XX7 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has to do with "the first person to add it was subsequently banned", I think it has to do with a more widespread spam issue. Anyway I'm contacting the person who added this to the blacklist. Also just note, at least the english wikipedia considers itself as not a democracy. ;). In any case I am going to notify who did the blacklist. Eagle 101 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Mmm looks like they are not around, I will think about removing it myself, let me dig up some stuff first (see if I can find a further reason for the blacklist). Eagle 101 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I assume that whitelisting can be readily reversed if necessary. Given that this site appears on all the other Parkinson's Disease Forum and Organisation web sites, the issue is otherwise likely to come up again. --XX7 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See en:Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/General Tojo. --A. B. (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The above details an individual, and discusses the removal of a Parkinson's Disease Forum that is not a viartis.net web site. Judging from the details, it looks like the viartis.net web site, which is ultimately owned by a University and not by the individual, has been inadvertently included with a site that may have been owned by the individual. There is not actually anything on the page referred to that gives good reason for removal of the viartis.net web site. The discussion solely concerns reasons for removal of a forumforfree web site. The two web sites are independent of each other. --XX7 12:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is the only discussion and consideration of the blacklisting :

1. This is from an editor who was referring to a forumforfree site, and NOT viartis.net : My take on Bridgeman's sites is that it is a literature review with an end to support a particular point of view. Nothing unusual in that; you see people doing that in the peer-reviewed literature fairly often. They usually do more in the way of critiquing than Bridgeman does; his sites are pretty much cut-and-paste. The citations themselves are okay, but what's bothersome is Bridgeman's bombast about the authoritativeness and exhaustiveness of his site.

The viartis.net site does not have "peer-reviewed literature". He was referring to a forumforfree site that consists of "peer-reviewed literature".

2. This is from an administrator who in response then asked about viartis.net and NOT the forumforfree site : So do you think viartis.net should continue to be blacklisted?

3. The response was from an editor who responded regarding the forumforfree site INSTEAD OF viartis.net. Yes, I do - it's nothing unique and is indeed a slanted presentation.

The two web sites got mixed up in the exchange. Ironically, the forumforfree web site owned by the banned member was NOT blacklisted, and the web site ultimately owned by a University WAS inadevertently blacklisted. --XX7 14:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A disguised (using urlsnip.com), blacklisted viartis link was recently removed from an article.[484] --A. B. (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[http: //www.aboutus.org/Viartis.net# Viartis.net] on AboutUs --ESamuels 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Um? what? Eagle 101 21:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[http:// www.aboutus.org/Viartis.net# Viartis.net] on AboutUs --ESamuels 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Why that link? I don't think this is relevent to the discussion. Eagle 101 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

There are no grounds for maintaining viartis.net on the spam blacklist because it plainly does not fulfill the definition of spam.

--XX7 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  Not done, clearly used for spam, no discussion for two weeks. Naconkantari 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of Spam ? As yet you have provided no evidence in support of your position. All the evidence contradicts you. More particularly, please address the follow points that you have so far completely failed to address :

1. Viartis.net was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes, on the 13th August 2006. The brief addition was directly relevant to the article, which concerned Parkinson's Disease, and was added merely as a reference to further detail concerning that subject.

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

On February 17th, Eagle 101 informed you that he intended removing the web site from the blacklist. Since then we have seen no opposing evidence from you.

According to the edit history, it was you that wrongly added the web site to the blacklist. You have provided no evidence in support of your position. You have not contradicted the evidence at all yet have inexplicably claimed that there is "clear evidence". You are now attempting to thwart discussion of it.

Therefore, discussion concerning your actions will be opened up amongst other Administrators on the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard and elsewhere so that more senior Administrators can their give opinions and judgements concerning the total inconsistency and lack of substantiation of your failure to remove the web site from the spam blacklist.

--XX7 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do so. I fully stand behind keeping this on the blacklist. If a site is being spammed, it will be placed on the blacklist regardless of who is doing the spamming and will not be removed unless there is a strong need for a link to the site. Naconkantari 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You've dodged the two questions I asked. It can be assumed that this is because you can't answer them. You have provided not a shred of evidence in support of your opinion. So it can also be assumed that this is because you haven't any. What are the answers to the two questions I asked ? Where is your evidence ?

You have written that "if a site is being spammed it will be placed on the blacklist regardless of who is doing the spamming and will not be removed unless there is a strong need for a link to the site." What has this to do with this web site ? What you have written is irrelevant. According to the Wikipedia guidelines It does not fulfill any of the requirements of spam. So why are you suggesting that it does ? There is also nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that requires that there be a "strong need for a link to the site". You are trying to impose your own made up rules. An arguement can be made against there being a strong need for any web site. Yet, hundreds of web sites have been removed from the black list without there being any need for them.

Whether or not the web site is actually added to any article is a completely different question, and is up to the consensus of the editors. This discussion solely concerns whether or not the web site is spam and be blacklisted. Jimbo Wales and the various Adminsitrators that will be asked to check this discussion and your actions are going to be wondering what you're up to ! --XX7 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MAINTAINING viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ ON THE SPAM BLACKLIST ??? WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY YET. OR ISN'T EVIDENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE HERE. IS DISCUSSION JUST A FARCE THAT GOES IN ORDER TO FALSELY TRY TO MAKE OUT THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY SOME REASONING BEHIND THE DECISIONS HERE WHEN CLEARLY THERE ISN'T ANY AT ALL ? --XX7 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Just zis Guy, you know? it is obvious as to what XX7 is up to. Getting this site whitelisted. How come you keep asking this obvious question. I don't see any evidence of a blacklist here. I have a lot of respect for eagles and he choose to have it whitelisted, so that is that. It should be whitelisted for having given no warnings about spam. Any user could insert a link and have a site blacklisted. Let us know when you have a website and what is so we can show you how easy it is to have it blacklisted. There is clearly good informative information on this site and could become useful to wiki at some poing. As for You have written that "if a site is being spammed it will be placed on the blacklist regardless of who is doing the spamming and will not be removed unless there is a strong need for a link to the site." this is not our policy. We give our editors a warning on a first violation. This will be to help them understand our guidelines and understand wikipedia.org is not for spam. If we blacklist any site regardless of spam, all webmasters could add there competitors website and have it blacklisted. We need to research and share our thoughts with other editors and users.

See, here's the problem: if someone asks why a site should be removed from the blacklist, variations on "it's not fair" or "it's not within the letter of subsection 3 para 4 subpara 9 of the blacklist policy" is just so much Wikilawyering. Meta admins are not stupid, and Wikipedia admins are not either. Things tend to be blacklisted for good reason, and tend to need a better reason for removal than vague arm-waving about how it might one day be a good source for something and we can't prove it was spammed. Which we can, incidentally, e.g. [485]. So: you are General Tojo and I claim my five pounds. Just zis Guy, you know? 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just guy this is the English verison of meta.wikimedia.org. You are in the wrong place, we can't understand your comments, currency, spellings or generals.

Please only place content relavent to the discussion. Editors aren't stupid but you can't spell and your content looks stupid to Americans. What does dopamine have to do with this site being blacklisted or whitelisted? If you can't take harsh messages, quit editing.

JustGuy, that's right "Things TEND TO BE blacklisted for good reason". They are not always blacklisted for good reason, as is very obvious. That's the whole reason for this discussion page. If blacklisting is always completely infallible as you claim, then you should be suggesting the ridding of the entire page and requesting that there never be any questioning of blacklisting because it was always justified. Nobody has written anything like "subsection 3 para 4 subpara 9 of the blacklist policy" as you have claimed, or done any "vague arm-waving" as you have claimed. The edit history of this web site is well established. It was blacklisted after being added to only one relevant article on only one occasion for fifteen minutes ! That is not merely being unable to prove that it was spammed, that is indisputable evidence that it wasn't. The web site itself contains not a single advert and sells nothing whatsoever. If we used your criteria for blacklisting every single web site on Wikipedia would be blacklisted. Nobody would ever be able to dispute it, and having been added only once or twice would be hard evidence of it being spammed ! --XX7 11:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, my user page indicates that I can spell perfectly well. I venture to suggest that my command of the English language, both British and US usage, is better than yours. My typing is inaccurate, due to the bone-deep burn scars on the fingers of my left hand, but my spelling is generally pretty good. The evidence that this site was spammed by GeneralTojo, a long-term Wikipedia abuser, is compelling. Your argumentation, on the other hand, is not. 80.176.82.42 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Compelling to you, but not to anybody else. It was blacklisted after being added to only one article to which it was relevant, on only one occasion, and for only fifteen minutes ! If that was enough to get a web site blacklisted then every single web site ever added to Wikipedia would have to be blacklisted ! As has already been stated by one of the Administrators, it doesn't matter who might or might not have added a web site. Each web site is judged on its own merits. This web site has not a single advert and sells nothings whatsoever. For it to be blacklisted completely defies logic and certain facts. --XX7 12:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to object to every web site regardless of whether or not the facts support you. This is except of course to your own web site http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/ which is in breach of Wikipedia guidelines, as it promotes an individual, which is you ! Should I add it to the proposed sites for blacklisting, because self promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia ? It is considered as SPAM according to Wikipedia rules. --XX7 12:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't recall ever having linked my website in a Wikipedia article. I could be wrong, of course - I was a newbie once after all. This is, in any case, irrelevant - the site listed above was spammed, and you have yet to detail a way in which it might be of provable value in a named article. As a spammed site, it's unlikely to be delisted unless there is compelling evidence that inability to link is damaging the project in some way. OWW, which I advocate removing from the blacklist, falls into precisely this category. It also helps that those asking for delisting of OWW are not self-evidently connected to the site. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

1. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that self promotion is against Wikipedia rules anywhere on Wikipedia. It is considered spamming. So you are spamming your own web site, yet at the same time trying to keep every other web site on the balcklist even when it has no reason to be there. I am adding your personal web site to the blacklist proposals in order to find out what the position is.

2. Adding a completely advertless web site once to one relevant article on one occasion is not spam according to any definition. So the viartis.net web site obviously was not spammed. Your statement defies logic and the facts. Your claim is ridiculously wrong. It suggests that you have no idea of what spam is.

3. The web site is the best there is concerning Parkinson's Disease. It is on all the Parkinson's Disease patient forums, and on national Parkinson's Disease web sites. If you claim that the article is no better than others, I challenge you to find a better web site concerning Parkinson's Disease - one that includes all of the information that the viartis.net web site includes. I know in advance that you won't find one, because no web site even comes close.

4. Your claim that "it's unlikely to be delisted unless there is compelling evidence that inability to link is damaging the project in some way." is also false. That has nothing to do with removing web sites from the spam blacklist. If it was then no site would ever be taken off the blacklist. No article would be "damaged" if a web site wasn't added to it. You are trying to add impossible reasons against removal that instead of being in the guidelines you just make up.

5. I can't comment on what you have written about OWW, because I don't have a clue what OWW is.

Unfortunately you make all sorts of negative remarks on the spam blacklist about various web sites that have no factual basis at all. You are not making any useful contribution based on reasoning and facts, and are instead distracting attention away from genuine issues.

--XX7 14:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

www.ruswar.com

Why is this one black listed? It seems like someone's personal website with notable photos of the afghan war.-66.74.234.167 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

here is why. I will leave this up to another meta admin to choose whether removing this is a good idea. Eagle 101 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let me re-phrase. Can we unblacklist this site? The argument for blacklisting is weak. Posting relevate photos in different language wikipedias in their respective relevate article is not spamming. I think admins need to do some research in the definition of spam if this falls in that category.
Actually no its not, it was done to prevent cross wiki spam, Exactly what this list is for. Again as I said above I'm leaving it up to another admin. Regards Eagle 101 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, spammed across multiple wikis. Naconkantari 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Once, I decided to do something for people without benefits for myself. I created the website of Afghanistan War Photography and Documentary. Few times I was ready to quit it, but emails I received from people encourage me to go on. I added links to Wikipedia for puplic usage. Have it! People like it. But, it turned out, few terrorist-oriantated individuals designated as "meta-admin" did like my website and what I do on it. Using lame excuse like "spam across wiki" they removed the links from very relevant pages. Despite the whole world struggle agains terrorism they took opposite side by deleting access to anti-terrorist website. At this difficult time in fighting for peace, such activity should be reported to some relevant agencies which may take appropriate steps and maybe resolve what seems to be a problem.

Err, I'm a terrorist? No I think it was blacklisted due to spam problems, nothing else. In any case if you want the link in the english wikipedia, I would suggest that you ask on the spam whitelist. (here). Thanks. Eagle 101 07:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Eagle 101, I do not have any personal problem with you, we have never met each other. I can see that you do your work good by removing all spam from Wiki. But, recently you removed very right link without substantial reason. Sometime people make mistakes, I understand. But, why you don't want to admit it? Is your pride or you have specific political reason for this? I do Afghanistan War Photography site for people - not for me. Today I added documentary on Google Video (Afghanistan Soviet War), again, for people - not for my financial profit. I need you understand, that my work should be accessible for more audience, as educational source. Thank you for your attention.

While posting links in English to interwikis is clearly incorrect behavior, I doubt very much this was spam. There nothing commercial on that web site. Would it be possible to remove it from this blacklist, please?

www.animals-pictures-dictionary.com

I was asked to give a specific page that can be linked from wikipedia, so in my opinion the main page for example can appear in "Animals" article. anyone agree with me?

Strongly against. These photos are not uncommon, are not free and the site has ads. --Jollyroger 11:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What is loacal whitelisting?
Something this will not get on the English Wikipedia. Too spammy, poorly spelled and copyedited, image copyright issues. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want the english wiki, please see en:WP:WHITELIST. Thanks Eagle 101 07:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
(P.S. We really really need to get a meta article on what a local whitelist is, I will work on that in a few days :) ) Eagle 101 07:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

anarkismo.net

The fact that pages on this site were used in one incident of spamming (which looks more like an overzealous user trying to add links she considers relevant to the topic, than spam proper), does not invalidate its use as a source on many other pages (see e.g. Wikipedia:Anarchism, Wikipedia:Platformism and, indeed Wikipedia:Anarkismo.net). 67.180.234.15 06:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the purposes of this list is to counter spam, someone spammed a link across wikis, and if it were not for keeping a sharp eye out, we would not have caught that spam. (one link per wiki is very hard to catch). In a few weeks, I might consider removing this (if another meta admin does not before then, as I did the blacklisting I will leave it up to another admin). For now I would suggest requesting certian parts of this site to be whitelisted. The english whitelist can be found at en:WP:WHITELIST Eagle 101 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

nefac.net

The fact that pages on this site were used in one incident of spamming (which looks more like an overzealous user trying to add links she considers relevant to the topic, than spam proper), does not invalidate its use as a source on many pages. The site hosts, among other things, Northeastern Anarchist magazine, a fairly significant and well-respected American anarchist publication. (see also Wikipedia:Especifismo, Wikipedia:Platformism, Wikipedia:NEFAC). 67.180.234.15 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the purposes of this list is to counter spam, someone spammed a link across wikis, and if it were not for keeping a sharp eye out, we would not have caught that spam. (one link per wiki is very hard to catch). In a few weeks, I might consider removing this (if another meta admin does not before then, as I did the blacklisting I will leave it up to another admin). For now I would suggest requesting certian parts of this site to be whitelisted. The english whitelist can be found at en:WP:WHITELIST Eagle 101 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Be that as it may, nefac is a respectable site, used as a reference in a number of articles. It strikes me as absurd, and damaging to Wikipedia's ability to function, to blacklist it simply because, on one occasion, it was added inappropriately to a number of articles across wikis. I couldn't find a statement of policy on adding sites to the blacklist; perhaps you could point me to one, because I don't understand by what criteria you are arguing this should stay on the blacklist. 67.180.234.15 08:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is this link blacklisted exactly? Because once someone used it to spam? It is an essential source for anarchist related articles. Please de-list. 212.106.68.32 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

ainfos.ca

An anarchist newsgroup, it hasn't been used to spam, and I just had to delete a referenced claim from the w:Jaggi Singh article because Wiki wouldn't let me make any edits to the page until the properly-cited reference was removed. 74.100.73.245 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

here is why the site is on the blacklist. I suggest requesting specific links whitelisted. w:WP:WHITELIST. I will leave this up to another meta admin to review. Eagle 101 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, this seems like a sppurious reason to de-list yet another anarchist resource. If this was CNN, would it be de-listed? What kind of criteria is being used here? Please de-list. 212.106.68.32 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the alleged spam entry for ainfos.ca:

ca:Antifeixisme diff ca:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 12:59 UTC hr:Antifašizam diff hr:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:14 UTC nl:Antifascisme diff nl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:18 UTC no:Antifascisme diff no:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:20 UTC pl:Antyfaszyzm diff pl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:22 UTC sl:Antifašizem diff sl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:24 UTC sv:Antifascism diff sv:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:28 UTC 

Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This does not look like spam. It looks like the addition of a valuable Canadian anarchist website as an external link in related articles on anti-fascism in different languages. Please de-list. 212.106.68.32 14:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to make a reference in an article and I can't. It´s not spam, I think like User:212.106.68.32. --81.33.72.150 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

no that is cross wiki spam, there is no need for you to link one site to multiple languages. Sources are best if they are in the proper language to start with. Doing that rubs off as spam. Request local whitelisting, and if the wikis agree to your link by discussion, then they will whitelist it for use on one language. :) Eagle 101 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

in.geocities.com/medhahari

One particular link in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html was wrongly blacklisted in Bharatanatyam by some unscrupulous users, and has to be restored. There are numerous arguments (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#Medha_Hari_spam_on_Wikipedia ) for this link to be placed in Bharatanatyam . Tamilselvam 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

here is why it is blacklisted, I leave this open to arguments, but I would prefer arguments to remove be stated here clearly and concisely. Unless another meta admin wants to remove before arguments are put here, I am going to wait, as it is not my place to try to gauge what appears to be a dispute. Regards. Eagle 101 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The arguments for removal (please address each of them explicitly):http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogout&returnto=Talk:Spam_blacklist
  1. relevancy: the link has been placed in the relevant category, is highly valuable and extends info on Wiki's article
  2. the linked page has nothing to do with Medha Hari, even though somewhere it contains some inactive links to her pages (as well as dozens of other pages, including Wikipedia!!!)
  3. the link does not contain any promotion of any commercial product
  4. User:A. B.'s argument that a link must be blacklisted as long as a sockpuppet submits it is irrelevant, since this particular link was submitted by numerous non-sockpuppets.
In addition, please explain the why Eagle 101 chose this particular link to be removed while he left some other, obviously irrelevant and commercial links (that's what is real SPAM!), there. I see that there indeed a very strangely selective (abusive) application of Wikipedia's guidelines.Bharathathatha 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevant data and links:
Multiple admins and editors were involved in dealing with problems and all independently reached the same conclusions:
Cross-wiki spam:
Policies and guidelines violated by various Medha Hari accounts:
The Medha Hari web site is self-published and does not meet the requirements of:
The users complaining about this domains' blacklisting are all new editors using accounts created after numerous sockpuppets were banned in January:
--A. B. (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I really doubt this is coming off, it has simply been abused too much, too recently, but I will leave this up to another meta admin to have a look see. Eagle 101 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, Naconkantari 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com

I request that this site be removed from the blacklist. If this is not the appropriate place to request a world-wide removal, please treat this as simply a request to remove the site from the blacklist of the English Wikipedia.

There was an earlier discussion of the site here in Talk:Spam_blacklist here in which other editors felt the site added value to Art articles and should not be blacklisted. I hope I have not screwed anything up by pursuing the issue for a time over in Whitelist Talk instead of here because I didn't really understand the relationship between the two lists. Now I am back here based on a suggestion made in Talk:Spam-whitelist, where there has been a separate discussion of the site here. Taken together, the two discussions are rather lengthy, but to summarize, from my viewpoint:

  • An over-enthuiastic site owner added links to his collection of fine art images, by artist, to several art articles (not sure how many, but maybe 20 or 30 in the English Wikipedia, not an outrageous number IMO)
  • These were correctly identified as spam because of the way they were added
  • However, the site houses a broad and rich collection of artwork images for famous and respected artists, with many works that are unfamiliar (at least to me)
  • The links add value to Wikipedia by greatly extending the number of available examples of each linked artist's work
  • The site has no ads and is not selling anything
  • Several legitimate editors support de-blacklisting the site.

I have absolutely no affiliation with this site or its owner, I am just an admirer of the collection. Thank you for considering this request. --CliffC 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Endorse this I think I commented in a previous discussion here. Images are good, site is not commercial. I've never added it myself, but have found it on several articles in en (many now have taken it off). 87.194.23.18 18:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (Johnbod from en)
  Not done, used for cross-wiki spam. Request whitelisting on your local project. Naconkantari 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

isbn-check.com + books-by-isbn.com + isbn-check.de

These are not spam links, they have been added by WP editors to their user pages and to booksouces. They are useful tools, please remove from spam list. 213.48.182.7

  Not done, these sites contain amazon affiliate links. Naconkantari 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that the removal be reconsidered. The problem is that, without this site, we can't offer any ISBN-checking facility to our readers on the Special:Booksources page of the English Wikipedia. The site can also be used to check International Standard Serial Numbers, and is the only known way of doing that, since www.issn.org will no longer check these numbers without a paid subscription.

It is also used by the group of ISBN-fixers on the English Wikipedia when debugging invalid ISBNs. The operator of the site, Tomas Schild, has an account on English WP at en:User:Tschild, and at our request he added the ISBN-13 checking capability. I have opened a discussion among the ISBN-fixers on en:User_talk:Rich Farmbrough#Spam blacklist. The money earned by Schild's site is surely trivial compared to the value he provides to Wikipedia readers and editors. You only open his link (from Special:Booksources) if you are doing ISBN-checking, so you probably are already having trouble and are trying to debug it. If there were a site that would provide the checking without any Amazon affiliate tie-in, we could certainly change, but I'm not aware of any. Even meta.wikimedia.org's version of Special:Booksources still uses this link. Rich Farmbrough's robot, SmackBot, can check ISBNs but it does so using a large set of regular expressions that can only be run by a client-side program. EdJohnston 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We link to Amazon, who take a much larger percentage of profit (i.e. all of it) than Schild. We don't have a prohibition against commercial sites. Rich Farmbrough 19:30 17 March 2007 (GMT).
My mistake, I tried to add the above isbn.org link to my user page [486], and I got a link-blocked as spam message. Apparently what is being blocked is my pre-existing link to isbn-check.com, which has been on there since 17 February 2007. I looked at isbn-check.com, and I could not find the commercialization that Naconkantari mentioned. --Bejnar 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PWInsider.com

  • pwinsider.com is a credible wrestling news site that has its news articles cited as references on many Wikipedia pages. Although it does contain many pop-ups, it is not a spam website. 68.233.38.54 03:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, site was spammed many times in the past few days on en.wiki. Naconkantari 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So why aren't you banning the people that are spamming the link? The URL has nothing to do with the problem. 68.233.38.54 05:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
We are doing both. Naconkantari 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous though. The site is a good source for info for wrestling related articles. Would you ban a site like cnn.com just because some people spammed it? TJ Spyke 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Touegypt.net

Dear Betacommand, I notice today that you did not bother to respond--and justify--to your own WikiMedia blacklist discussion regarding TourEgypt.net here.[487] You never informed your own official Wikipedia editors on Egyptology such as Thanatosimi[488], Captmondo[489] or Llywrich that you were about to blacklist TourEgypt.net even though they have carried the burden of wikiproofing Egyptology on Wikipedia. The impression I have of you is someone who doesn't value or care about archaeology or our world's ancient history like so many members of the Egyptological Wikipedia community do. You never commented on the fact that TourEgypt.net was contracted by the Egyptian government to run the Egyptian Department of Antiquities and Tourism web pages in the past. TourEgypt is not a spammer who uses Wikipedia to sell their wares when any search on Google can turn up an Egypt-related article by this firm. You just decided suddenly to ban this invaluable web site WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING OR DISCUSSION and undermine the efforts of good people like Thanataosmi, Llywrych and Captmondo whose article on king Ahmose I, the founder of Egypt's New Kingdom, was so good in terms of quality, that it was featured ond day on the front pages of Wikipedia this January or February. When there is an attempt to remove an article on Wikipedia, a talk forum is first created so that contributors can weigh the pros or cons of removing a particular article but you did not try to do this.

How can you be so crass and insensitive towards people who have worked to improve Egyptological articles on Wikipedia for years--especially when they are your own Wikipedia editors. Is it your goal to undermine the reliability of Wikipedia more than the editors of Encyclopaedia Brittanica who despise us? Because if that is your goal, you are close to achieving it by angering so many people who care about Ancient Egypt and Ancient history on Wikipedia with your arbitary decision here. Regards, Leoboudv 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry I have more important issues today, I am currently in Saint Petersburg, Florida, at a conference with the WikiMedia board Sorry I didnt take time out today to address your complaint of blocking a spam site. I was meeting with Danny, Kat, Brion, Florence and the other Board members excluding Jimbo (he's in Japan). I was in meetings all day. touregypt is spam over half the fucking page is spam if you cant cite the article without using a tourism booking service I think you have a more important issue than I thought, you have to use a site designed to sell product as a source? this fails WP:EL WP:SPAM what else is needed to explain it? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Betacommand, judging from this post of yours I'm not sure you are the most qualified person to decide what should be on the block list and what not. Do you think ads on, for example, www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ramessesi.htm are really that intrusive?
Also, name-dropping will get you nowhere. Guess what, I also met Jimbo, I bet thousands of Wikipedians met him since he is kind enough to take time to talk with Wikipedians whenever he can. regards, Alensha 15:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, please keep discussion in the section above. Naconkantari 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ThePublishingContrarian.com

http:www.thepublishingcontrarian.com is an international literary blog. I was just updating the "Reference" and "External Links" to appropriate Wikipedia pages like: Judith Regan, James Frey, The Vaginia Monologues, The History Boys (which I do every few months) when I got a message that my link to The History Boys (a review) was deleted and that I was blacklisted as a spammer. In checking my previous additions to Wikipedia,I noticed that they have ALL now been deleted, such as the one I had in "Slush Pile." Could I ask you to reconsider your position on these "References" and "External Links" and reactive them. Thank you. Lynne W Scanlon

This is an international literary blog. I have added links in "Reference" or "External Links" in Wikipedia areas such as Publishing, Slush-Pile, etc., which bring visitors occasionally over to read my full postings on my blog. Today I was adding external links to The History Boys and James Frey, The Vagina Monologues, and Judith Regan, etc., updating my links, when I got a message re The History Boys link being deleted and my URL being on the blacklist. It now looks like you have removed all the links I ever added to Wikipedia! Could I ask you to reconsider your position and activate my links to The Publishing Contrarian. Thank you. LWS

This site is not blocked on meta, but it is blocked by en:user:shadowbot. You could try and make your case on en:user talk:shadowbot to get it unblocked, but it got blocked because you were spamming it, and it does not comply with en:WP:EL. Moreover, I see you have a conflict of interest. Hope this helps. --Beetstra 19:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response--LWS (I'll try and figure out how to get to shadowbot!)

Just click the blue link I provided you: en:user talk:shadowbot. --Beetstra 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, not blacklisted. Naconkantari 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

nationwidebillrelief.com and surfquotes.com

The following discussion is closed: not removed

Why did these sites get blacklisted on Jan. 31 They have not made edits in Jan. As soon as they were told they had spam they quit adding it. Do we really want to black list sites like these because someone has problems with an editor. They associated these websites with some DSB web items sites. Check the ___domain register and you will find no relations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.101.26 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

See:
--A. B. (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason for these 2 sites to be blacklisted. Searchtexoma.com is not a site in question. It is thought A. B. you have something against this IP address and you have good reason to. However, this does not mean we should go off and blacklist any sites this 24.119.101.26 IP spams us with. All I am saying is I oppose these sites being banned. A well respected editor gave the webmaster or user a final warning about the spam. The user or webmaster has not placed either one of these websites in an article or external link after getting the stern warning. Is this fair?
72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)... see also: en:talk • en:contribs

Multiple accounts spammed these links and they were warned multiple times: Accounts adding surfquotes links since mid-2006:

Note that a Surfquotes article was also spammed sometime last year and then in August 2006 nominated for deletion:

Accounts adding nationwidebillrelief.com links since mid-2006:

For the full story, including links to all the involved accounts' talk pages and links to all their edit histories see these links:

Note that some of the other accounts listed in those discussion that added searchtexoma links but not the above links engaged in abusive behavior with regards to making various accusations against ediors as well as spurious claims of copyright violations.

These links add no value to Wikipedia and should be blacklisted. Just the August and September abuse of Wikipedia alone was more than enough to justify blacklisting these domains. Likewise, the November and December spamming of searchtexoma links plus the abusive behavior by itself was more than enough justification to blacklist all the links the searchtexoma spammer has been adding. Any actions by 24.119.101.26 don't really change the fundamental problems with these domains or the reasons they should stay on the blacklist.

As a final note, Wikipedia blacklists domains not as a punitive action but in response to their being abusively added to the encyclopedia in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is done to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. We seldom know who is using a particular IP address and we take no responsibility for trying to figure it out. If the Governor of Texas is adding these links, we don't care -- we just don't want the links and blacklisting them is a defensive response. No one has a "right" to have their links taken off the blacklist so they can be added back to Wikipedia -- especially when they've been added abusively and they link to sites offering no value to our readers. Can you or someone explain how either of these two domains meets the requirements of the applicable policies and guidelines:

If I have overlooked something important, please point it out offering detailed specific information backed up by appropriate links and folks will take a look at it. --A. B. (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

A. B. would these sites have been blacklisted if you didn't have a run in or trouble dealing with this24.119.101.26? I don't know the entire situation but according to the history of you and the user I don't believe these sites would be blacklisted if you didn't have a something personal against this user. I think wiki has some of the highest standards in the industry and though we don't like sites that spam, or we have something against someone we don't agree with, doesn't give us a reason to lower our standards. All I am saying about this case is this. The webmaster was giving a final warning and since then dropped the spam and listen to and took the warning of the editor(s) serious. Don't lower our standards to get even. We need to stick behind the word or our fellow editors. This editor gave this user a final warning and until this user goes against the warning with either sites it should not be blacklisted.
Which final warning or block are you talking about? Please refer to the following:
I count 31 warnings or blocks. Normally, you'd be looking at blacklisting after just several warnings. I don't see where 24.119.101.26 fits into any of this. --A. B. (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The talk page went away as soon as the article was deleted from surfquotes.com and nationwidebillrelief.com check out the history on the users. You must admit this is a clear hate crime by A. B. This is only an act to get revenge on the user. You did not make comments or suggest blacklisting until more than 3 months passed since the last article was written or commented on. You would not have seen this article if you wasn't trying to dig up information from the user trying to get searchtexoma.com and other sites banned. I don't agree or dis-agree that this webmaster or user has spammed.

The editors/ administration that removed the content and dealt with this webmaster 3 months ago did't think a ban or blacklisted was needed. They keep in mind are well respected and they was in the thick of all conversations and spam if any the user was doing.

The administration then 3 months ago had a good idea about the user and was up to date on all the information at the time. They did not ban or blacklist it. Instead more than 3 months later you wanted it blacklisted because you didn't agree or like what the user was doing, spamming or whatever this user done to you. Again this was an attempt by you to purposely get revenge on the user. You can't look at something that happened more than 3 months ago and decide against a well respected editor and respected administrator decided was the appropriate action to take at that time.

Again you only dug up this information and decided to blacklist these two sites because of the user and the revenge you was seeking. You didn't comment make any changes or have anything to do with these articles 3 months ago while the events was going on. Therefore how can you decide what action should be taken. Again we hold higher standards as editors and we don't get revenge or get even. We simply make wikimedia.org the most accurate source of information possible.

I would have the same comments for you if another editor or user tried to dispute or disagree with conversations and comments you had with a user in May or June from information you have today. You just don't have all the facts, details and conversations 3 months later. It is impossible as some users, edititors and admin make adjustments to all talk pages of the incident and all people involved. We all know this is impossible.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  Not done, First off, assuming good faith applies here on meta, please don't throw out accusations against A.B. (such as accusing him of "hate crime" in bold), they are not helping anything. First off this site looks to have been blacklisted because the sites were spammed by multiple IP ranges over a long period of time, and the spam persisted despite warnings to stop. From what I see here, A.B. has demonstrated exactly why this site has been blacklisted, multiple warnings and blocks did not solve the spam issues that these sites posed. Therefore, to stop the issues they were blacklisted. By the way, I don't think January 2007 is 3 months ago anyway. If I'm somehow missing something, let me know, but please do not attack anyone. Regards Eagle 101 20:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That is the problem with wiki nobody will take the time to review the information before commenting and writing. Look at you. You said Jan. 7th hasn't been 3 months. The last time this website had posted an external link was Sep. 13th which is well over 3 months. I am not going to sit an argue. I simply know that this user has a history of trying to get sites blacklisted and A.B. had pulled up everything he could find and had them blacklisted. All I am saying is the webmaster has not made any spam attempts for these 2 sites since Sep. 13th or longer. Please help uphold standards. Please look at all the information before commenting. We don't need you making choices without actually reviewing content.

I may have over looked something. When and where did nationwidebillrelief.com or surfquotes.com spam on Jan 13th? I will apologize if I had missed this important information. I have spent at least an hour looking for it with no luck. The last I have seen was Sept. 13th more than 5 months ago. Again this is simply an editor trying to get revenge. I will owe everyone including A.B. an apology if spam was posted on Jan. 13th for nationwidebillrelief.com or surfquotes.com If you can't find it go ahead and proceed whitelisting these 2 sites. If you find it blacklist them forever and inform.

This needs to be documented for the article [[518]] this was written and keeps getting removed. I was even warned. If I get banned yet keep our standards high then this is all worth it.

OPPOSE: has something against women and has made some terrible mistakes in his research. has not followed any of en.wikipedia.org guidelines. In addition he claimed to be inactive for more than 2 months while he was very active. Check logs. All of these edits should be wiped out. also has several editors/ users have said A.B. masked the truth on multiple accounts. Oppose to protect the honesty and integrity of wikipedia.org. Please, please, please spend a minute to look at all of the content before voting. I hope everyone gets a chance to read this before it disappears. All criticism of A.B. vanishes or goes avoided by locking out talk pages.

This is not a vote, and you might want to try to assume good faith, in A. B. Trust me its not a conspiracy. I'm sure he has better things to do then get a link or two on the blacklist. I don't mind if anyone else wants to have a look at this, but perhaps if you paraphrase your arguments, (not 3 paragraphs), and quit making broad assumptions about A. B's intents, and objectives, I or some other meta admin might be able to see what you are getting after. As I said on my talk page, just a few moments ago, I think I've finally got the idea... is it by chance just the two links in a batch that A. B. proposed? He occasionally makes an error in his proposals. Please clarify if thats the case. Just remember, en:brevity is a virtue. (this post is long for me!) Eagle 101 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I prepared this detailed user subpage listing every edit by both searchtexoma and texomaland accounts a while ago and asked 24.119.101.26 to comment on it, letting me know any mistakes. I posted links above to nationwidebillrelief.com and surfquote.com link additions, again asking for specifics if there are any mistakes. So far, no response.
The "has something against women" comment is, well, sort of an odd thing to say under the circumstances.
As for my talk and user pages, if someone wants to unprotect them, by all means do so. They no longer need to be protected. Cheers, --A. B. (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Would these two sites be blacklisted if you didn't have something against the above user? You dug up material more than 5 months old. The webmaster was warned and stopped spamming.

As with texomaland and searchtexoma they did spam. It seems as the blacklist was a good find by user a.b. However, I did find material from the above post where one user or webmaster added both sites multiple times. This seems like someone is spamming these sites intentional. Why would a webmaster add there site and a competitor? Doesn't make sense, unless you want a blacklist for both. Please in the future refer to me as a she. I am female and get offended like others when you refer to me as a he. All I ask. A. B. Everyone wants to know two question please. Would nationwidebillrelief.com and surfquotes.com have been blacklisted if you didn't have something against texomaland and searchtexoma spammer? How would you have came across the information to blacklist nationwidebillrelief and surfquotes if not for the above spammer? These sites haven't made an edit in 5 months. Please reply. We need to keep the standards high for wikipedia.org and here the guidelines and trust have been violated.

Eagle 101 I hope this was just an error in his proposals. MAybe A.B.just mixed the 3 links in a batch. In which case I would owe an apology. But, it seems as if this spammer really got to A. B. so he decides to take everything the user wrote and had it blacklisted. Please help as we can't let spammers determine who gets blacklisted. All this user has to do is put a competitor in an external link and user a.b. will have it blacklisted. This user can then come in a place a link once the competition is gone.

What value do surfquotes and nationwidebillrelief bring to Wikipedia? I suggest you explain why Wikipedia needs these links and why you think Wikipedia has an obligation to include them. What's in it for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? --A. B. (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

?

A. B. This is not about needing these two sites. It is about an error on your part. You do keep avoiding this question. How would you have came across the information to blacklist nationwidebillrelief and surfquotes if not for the above spammer? These sites haven't made an edit in 5 months. In the future wikipedia.org wants search engines to recognize our efforts in reducing and fighting spam. Don't we? So these sites could be penalized because you had a problem with 24.119.101.26 or the webmaster. You admitted in earlier post something wasn't correct about the whole situation. You said there was some competition wars had been going on. Now major search engines like google, look at these flaws and errors we have and aren't quite ready to trust the reliability wiki has. If we all work together and improve the great wiki, make it harder for the competition to have sites blacklisted and fix a few minor flaws the search engines will jump on board. Please either admit the mistakes made or answer the questions we have all been waiting for. Then we can all move on to more important issues, errors and corrections.
Can you please humor A. B. and reply to his question. Do the links even have any use on any of the wikimedia foundation projects? Eagle 101 18:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Eagle 101 for having A.B. answer Would these two sites be blacklisted if you didn't have something against the above user? I stated earlier I was female. So please refer to me as a she. Women like wikipedia.org as well. But thank you for taking the time and reading comments Eagle. Waiting to hear from A.B.

  • This is a somewhat surreal conversation. What is the reason for wanting to link these sites? In what article, and to support what content? These things do not exist in a vacuum, having had a credible reason for adding the blacklist entry (which in my view we did - who spammed it is irrelevant, it was spammed), we surely need a credible reason for removing it. You have yet to demonstrate what utility there is in linking these sites, and your rather evasive response to that question, coupled with your aggression towards those who support blacklisting, positively invites speculation about your motives here. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My motives are to improve wikipedia.org. I see some valuable content on the blog of one which seems to be very unique, original and informational. Many articles and tools that could be valuable to wikipedia.org. This information may not deserve a link at this time but could be useful later on for an editor to link to. This is more about out policies. If I spammed wiki after a warning I should be blocked. If I didn't spam anymore after a warning then I shloudn't be blocked. If I quit spamming, yet you block me 5 months later just because you don't like me. Would this be fair? No, we don't have all the facts and information. The editor at the time has my respect and if he didn't think a blacklist was in order after reviewing all the content. How could I overide him 5 months later without the information? Not Fair! I have seen a lot of cases in which a certain user/editor has tried to go back months and ban sites just out of spike. In fact he has been on this page at least 10 times and failed to answer the above question. Why? He must have been seeking revenge only. He had a site blacklisted that has not made an edit in 5 months prior. We are all trying to keep and gain the respect of major search engines and our customers. We want everyone to think of our guidelines as both fair and honest. If we would like big sites to take our spam list serious we need to follow the guidelines the great wikipedia.org has set for us. These search sites believe it is too easy to spam your competition, adding bogus links and so forth to take us serious at this time. We are not like this and I will do my best to keep wiki the best site in the world. How can you blacklist a site that has not made an edit in more than 5 months? It was simply to harm a user or get revenge. Know does anyone think a site should be blacklisted 5 months after making an edit, without all the information and without the user/editor/webmaster spamming any further? This webmaster/user or editor was given a warning about adding links or the sites would be banned so it was stopped. I think an editor reviewing this site has more information than anyone would in 5 months from now. Don't you? Things get deleted, lost or rewritten. Please anyone inform if you think we should change our policy. Maybe we can change our current policies and keep these sites blacklisted.

Some time back, I spent several hours preparing this detailed user subpage listing every edit by both searchtexoma and texomaland accounts and asked 24.119.101.26/72.24.79.46 to comment on it on that page's talk page, letting me know any mistakes. So far, no response to this invitation -- just a lot of accusations. I have spent hours and hours fooling with all of these accounts. The complainant alleges that Joe jobbing occurred. If this editor decides to own up to and identify the specific edits she or her organization made that I may have mischaracterized as someone else's, I will be happy to to reconsider. Until then, I consider this matter closed on my part. If others wish to pursue this further in the meantime, feel free to do so. --A. B. (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, Mr. 24, but to me that reads as "blah blah blah not fair blah blah blah". I asked: what articles do you want to include it in, in support of what facts? If there are no articles and facts for which this provides support, which seems awfully likely given the type of site, then having the blacklisting removed will be a waste of your time because the links will simply be reverted form the articles themselves. So how about saving a lot of bother and actually answering the question, please? If there are specific articles or pages that would support particular facts, we could locally whitelist them, for example. Or maybe you are just a spammer playing the troll-the-admin game? Humour me and let me know the specifics here, eh? Just zis Guy, you know? 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How am I spamming? Is discussing something on a discussion page spamming? Show me the meta/wikipedia guidelines for this. You don't think acting against a user is wrong? 5 months after making an edit these sites was blacklisted. At this time I have not made any edits ot posted any external links. I am not wanting to help these sites by adding links. I can find some articles, tools or links from these sites that wikipedia.org may benefit if you really want. But why would you want me to do this? I am upholding the law for wikipedia.org against editors who fake claims, blacklist for no reason, harm users or new guest. All I want is for admin/editors ot research the content and look at your edits and proposals before splurting something out. I am here for one reason only to improve wikipedia.org to help our customers find the best resource site in the world. So if you want me to find a link from these sites that could be of use just to prove that they haven't made an edit in 5 months, I will do it. But, it sure seems to be a waste of time. Why do we want to reward editors/users or webmasters for seeking revenge or hate against someone? This is not our policy. Let's work together and make wikipedia.org a better place.


A. B. welcome back. Eagle 101 and I have been waiting for you to answer the above question since Feb. 20. I have gave several reasons for these ywo sites not to be blacklisted. For one they was warned about spamming 5 months ago and they quit. Yet, you penalized them 5 months later. Again, you seem to have a problem with Mr. 24 or whoever so you went and had all the edits this person has ever made and blacklisted them. All I am saying is you didn't have all the facts, pages have been deleted, changed or lost. It was 5 months later. If these or any sites deserve a blacklist for making no edits after being warned, please reply. We need to change our guidelines and I will work on this. I just need the ok and the input from editors like yourself, eagles, Just zis Guy, you know? and others. However, I am glad to see you back A.B.

Here's your next step. This is the page I prepared for you:
Please note on the talk page -- en:User talk:A. B./Sandbox12 -- which of those accounts are yours. It shouldn't take you more than 5 to 10 minutes. Cheers! --A. B. (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
And incidentally, while we're on the subject of things people have been waiting for, I'm waiting to find out which article you consider this to be a reliable source or good link for. Just zis Guy, you know? 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A.B. My ip is recorded on every edit. I get messages at [[519]]. Why do you want me to find articles and place links from meta to benefit these webmasters? I am simply wanting editors/users and webmasters to follow guidelines. Obviously there are many guidelines broken here. Editors don't like it when they get called out for cheating or breaking guidelines. I get the same reaction when I call out a spammer. Both are wrong.

72.24.79.46/24.119.101.26, here's your next step -- that is, if you really want someone here to resolve this issue. This is the page I prepared for you:
Please note on the talk page -- en:User talk:A. B./Sandbox12 -- which of those accounts are yours. That will settle the issue of who added which links when. You should easily be able to tell which account names you or your organization used and which ISPs (for the IPs) that you used. Cheers! --A. B. (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A.B. you now know what account is mine becuase you gave me a warning. [[520]]. What are you asking from me? I don't know or even understand what you have set up *en:User:A. B./Sandbox12. I am only interested in talking about the guidelines you have broken. I uphold the law for wikipedia.org, and my goal is to make sure editors/webmasters/users are treated failr. You created a big no no and broke our guidelines so I am calling you out on the improper blacklist. I though you said this was closed based on your part. If you are going to keep making edits on these sites, you should clear this question up so we can decide for a blacklist or whitelist.

If these or any sites deserve a blacklist for making no edits after being warned, please reply. We need to change our guidelines and I will work on this. I just need the ok and the input from editors like yourself, eagles, Just zis Guy, you know? and others.

How would you have came across the information to blacklist nationwidebillrelief and surfquotes 5 months later? The editor gave this webmaster/user a final warning about spamming, since that warning this editor/webmaster did not include any links from these sites. That is the reason for a whitelist. At wikipedia.org we strive to be honest and truthful. In this case you was not A.B.

Was this revenge on your part or not? What and when was the determining factor for blacklisting these two sites in question?

Not done. These addresses were spammed over a period of five months, August 2006–January 2007, until they were blacklisted[521][522][523]. The users involved were warned repeatedly, and there is no reason to believe that the disruptive behaviour would not have persisted had the sites not been blacklisted. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:03:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Pathoschild for finding the spam posted [[524]] . I do owe A. B. first and foremost. I missed this in my research and apologize to any I critized on this. However, we still haven't found an edit for nationwidebillrelief.com. And unfortunately I still believe A.B. was getting revenge and trying to blacklist all the sites the user has made. If anyone can come up with an edit made by nationwidebillrelief.com since Oct. please post it. This would give great pride and pleasure to me, and I can apologize for the revenge factor on A.B. and others offended.

www.zorpia.com

Hi Eagle, Could you please remove Zorpia.com from the blacklist? We(Zorpia members) are so sad and worried about this decision. We tried to comunicate with you, we posted a lot of comments on almost all your pages. We need some answers. Hope you can help us. Thanks

The following was copied from [[525]] (sorry, there was a little confusion on the correct place to post):

Hi Eagle. I want to ask you specifically about zorpia.com's inclusion in the blacklist. There have been specific allegations that Zorpia is some kind of drug related spam/scam site. In particular I would like to draw your attention to A.B's talk page at [[526]]. Although on the face of it, his comments and links look fair enough, scrutiny reveals an odd methodology. Close inspection of the links given, reveal that many of the search results start from item 700 onwards.

1) By using the same method, we can find that many reputable web sites (including wikipedia) can be shown to have 'lots of references to drugs'

2) A regular search of 'Zorpia' on Google such as [[527]] only reveals that it is what it claims to be, a social networking site. How many pages of the Google search do you have to page through to find references to drugs? I got bored trying.

3) With 5 million member pages at Zorpia, Wikipedia is blocking a worldwide resource of potential quotes and links to images.

4) Currently, searching for 'Zorpia' on Wikipedia (en)[[528]], leads the user to links such as this [[529]] - search result where the number one result is A.B's talk. This means that Wikipedia does a good job of directing people to its own source, which through faulty methodology and assertions/insinuations, makes false claims about a genuine Social Networking Site. I have to stress, that in itself is a serious matter. I have to say, although A.B is obviously not familiar with Zorpia, 5 million other people from around the world (at least) have heard it, and know it to be a genuine site, rather than a drug spamming site.

5) Zorpia has in the past (like many Social Networking Sites) been a victim of drug companies trying to use it as a vehicle to deliver spam. Wikipedia has itself suffered from the same fate (and similar) hence the existence of the blacklist. Wikipedia tries (understandably) to use systems to reduce this and protect its integrity. Zorpia, over several months, has done the same. Primarily, it imposed a daily message limit of 50 messages on its users, virtually making it useless to spammers and scammers. In addition, it employs a full time team to detect and delete accounts associated with these activities.

Having Zorpia on this blacklist, is the equivalent, of Zorpia, MySpace, Friendster, Hi5 etc placing WIKIPEDIA on their own blacklists, because it also has been a vehicle for spamming in the past.

6) Nobody wants to see spam on wikipedia, neither do Zorpia members want to see spam on Zorpia which is spread to wikipedia. However, on this occasion, wikipedia is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. It is going too far to blacklist the whole ___domain of 'zorpia.com'. I would suggest, that if a link is seen to be referring to drug company etc (e.g www.zorpia.com/drugscam), then that URL be blacklisted, rather than the whole ___domain. If these types of problems persisted, then I would suggest editors can contact support@zorpia.com. --203.59.139.206 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend not removing this from the blacklist. A google search for zorpia and one of the "pharma" (cialis, viagra, etc.) words returns over 100,000 results, most of them automated spam. Until the zorpia community can crack down on spammers, I would not remove this from the blacklist. Naconkantari 06:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Why was Zorpia being blacklisted? I cannot find history and log about why Zorpia was blacklisted at the first place. The blacklisting of zorpia.com didn't seem to have gone through any voting or discussions. Can I see proofs that show someone has used zorpia.com to spam wikipedia?

I know many people have requested to remove zorpia.com from the blacklist in the past. I am not asking about that. I am not asking why zorpia.com is not removed from the blacklist, i am asking why zorpia.com was added to the blacklist. It will be great if someone have an answer for that.

VChang 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It was blacklisted because it is being used for spam. Please see the results of this Google search. Naconkantari 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This is   Not done, was mentioned somewhere below, zorpia links have been spammed in to promote various pharma apparently. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

unitedfutures.com

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

Reference:
--A. B. (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 18 years ago61 comments25 people in discussion

jcsm.org blacklisted?

I was trying to add an informative link to an article and I was told that jcsm.org links were blacklisted. However, I couldn't find the ban in the archives anywhere. Can someone tell me where it is? If there was no vote to ban, then please unban the link. I'm not sure why it would be banned, anyway. --Tyuley 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I do not see this link here [530]. --Tyuley 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  Not done, used for cross-wiki spam Naconkantari 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And now blocked here as well. Naconkantari 03:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
WOuld it be terribly childish to say "bwuhahahaha"? It would? OK, I won't then. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

obsessedwithwrestling.com

User:JB196 was banned many moons ago and since then has used over 100 sockpuppets[531], and now has a long-term abuse page, has - over the past two weeks - spammed Xtreme Pro Wrestling, Extreme Associates, and Rob Zicari too many times to count with links to obsessedwithwrestling.com followed by /columns/jonathanbarber/00.html], to the point that the three pages have had to be semi-protected and that link was added to the meta spam blacklist. However, now he has resorted to just linking to the main page (obsessedwithwrestling.com, without the columns/jonathanbarber/ followup) of that web site[532][533][534][535][536][537][538][539][540][541], and multiple other times. We thought with the semi-protection of the aforementioned articles, everything was protected, but then today he started posting from an account (User:ApeonDrugs) and was able to add the links to those articles even while they were protected.== 198.138.41.54 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done Naconkantari 03:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly diagree with this and protest it. OWW is a very useful site for sourcing info on wrestlers and sourcing results for PPV pages. While reverting some vandalism, I had to remove a link to the page as well (thus taking another reliable source out of the article). Blocking it just because a banned user keeps adding it to some articles is ridulous and uneeded. This would be like blocking cnn.com because a blocked user keeps adding it. Unblock it. TJ Spyke 05:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TJ Spyke, there's no reason to ban a legit source just because a known spammer inserts it.24.14.196.6 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this, but I was unsure exactly how to resolve this. My useracount "Merotoker" is blacklisted because it has the link obsessedwithwrestling.com. I do not use that link when editing pages, so I have no idea how it got there. I try to make proper edits, so if I can edit pages on my account, I would appreciate it greatly. Thank you and feel free to delete this message once I can edit again.

User accounts are not affected by entries on the spam blacklist. Your local wiki should be able to help you if you have problems editing. Naconkantari 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. However, how do I go about contacting my local wiki? Thanks again and sorry for any incovenience.

Nacon, could you please allow OWW again? It's a legit site that is used as a good source in many articles, so it shouldn't be blocked because a spammer keeps putting it in some articles. Just block the spammer and his IP. TJ Spyke 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • We have. Over a hundred times. But he keeps coming back, again and again and again. We have his column on OWW blacklisted, he's used redirection sites to get round that (which is almost a community service: we've blocked three or four proxies as a result of that abuse). Give it a couple of months and see if he gets the message, but right now Barber is causing substantially more pain than the OWW site gives benefit to the project. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You could always contact OWW and explain the situation, they might be willing to remove Barber's columns to get off the blacklist. 81.155.77.73 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You're seriously going to blacklist an entire site because of one spammer? 24.14.196.6 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
How come others can edit these articles? I have had to revert vandalism on several pages, and have had to remove the OWW link (or at least remove the www. part) in order to save it. How come these anon IP's were able to vandalize the page? I will contact OWW and ask them to remove his colimns. TJ Spyke 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If it helps, I contacted the webmaster of OWW. He wasn't too happy about what Jonathan Barber did, and said he will e-mail JB about it and tell him this isn't acceptable. Whether he will remove JB's columns or not (he hasn't done a column since 2004) is unknown. TJ Spyke 09:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with putting the site on the blacklist. It's a poor site, put together very haphazardly. It is full of spelling errors and isn't professional by any means. It's not an WP:RS and it's good for pics, but nothing else. Please keep it on the blacklist. 69.218.255.54 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It IS a reliable site. It is very useful for bio info and PPV results (especially PPV results) since they are accurate. TJ Spyke 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It IS NOT a reliable site. It does have solid info and pictures, but in the gist of it, it's just a fan site, and it is not put together well, there are lots of spelling errors and the articles' completeness is all over the place. I am glad that it is on the blacklist and hope it will remain there permanently. 69.209.117.130 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the webmaster from Obessedwithwrestling.com (Brad Dykens) -- I hope I'm doing this right... blacklisting OWW because of Jonathan Barber is like the MLB blacklisting the New York Yankees for something the bat boy did. Barber does not represent OWW, we merely posted a few of his columns back in 2004 (and rejected twice as many since then). He is one of literally thousands who have written columns for us in the last six years. This is a portion of the email I sent to the Wiki guy who emailed me. I invite him to post the entire email if he deems it appropriate. Thank you for your time.
Jonathan Barber told me this by email: "Hey Brad, to reiterate I (Jonathan Barber) haven't "vandalized" or "spammed" Wikipedia. At one point in 2006 I was a constructive editor if that's what you want to call it but quite honestly my "Internet wrestling fix" has decreased (to a large degree) due to real-life obligations."
He's lying to you, as he's done so many other times here; I ask you to look at this link [542]. The over ONE HUNDRED accounts that have been blocked. Or the history of these articles. [543] [544] [545], some of the many articles Barber has vandalized in an attempt to promote "Bleeding Was only Half the Job" and his columns. 24.62.82.234 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. The obvious solution would be to remove the "few" columns of his from the site. Let's face it Barber has a less than steller reputation among wrestling fans and nobody really wants to read his columns, so just nuke them and then the blacklisting can hopefully be lifted. 81.155.177.63 11:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have received the following from Brad Dykens - and I am pretty sure it is him, since it's a reply to a message emailed to the site:
I am going to remove Jonathan Barber's columns; Not because of the Wiki issues, but because he has lied to me about being involved with this situation. As if I am supposed to believe he has enemies who go out of their way to publicize his work and his upcoming book. If this resolves the blacklist, then so be it, but like I said before - it doesn't matter to me if it's blacklisted or not.
I checked the site, the Barber links are now gone. I see no pressing reason not to remove OWW from the blacklist. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Request removal..

..of OWW from the Spam blacklist. This is absurd. A few instances of vandalism should not block a few hundred (thousand?) links from usage. While the site can do malice when spammed, it's not a blatent shock site or something that promotes itself heavily. Links need to be repaired and this being on the Spam blacklist is doing more harm than good. Moe Epsilon 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I concurr. I don't see a real reason behind the removal - yes, the spammer is self-promoting his column, but the result of the listing is the disappearence of useful links to an article. BTW, someone on WP removed it under the pretense that it contained spyware. Is there any truth to this and would this require listing here? Str1977 19:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
As soon as the link is removed, the "spamming" or "vandalism" (as you call it; I call it a logical response to a double standard; Just because you don't like me doesn't mean that you can discriminate OWW's reputability as a source and considering pages written by person 1 a valid reference but pages written by person 2 an invalid reference) will return. Plus, there's always archive.org.198.138.41.54 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No it won't. It was blackmailed because 1 person kept adding links to his columns there, those columns have since been removed by the sites webmaster. TJ Spyke 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Redux: 198.138.41.54, Jonathan Barber or I'm a monkey's uncle, is now pissed with OWW for removing his vanity crap as well, so wants to dump them in the shit. I suggest that the correct response is to ignore him, or probably mock his ridiculous overweening vanity, remove OWW from the blacklist and continue to block his pathetically obvious sockpuppets as they arise. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  Done Eagle 101 07:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Re-added, due to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_Associates&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xtreme_Pro_Wrestling&action=history , I've re-added the link, this is just getting silly, we can't nail all his socks. Good links should be requested to be whitelisted on WP:WHITELIST. Until we can figure a way to stop this spamming, I have to blacklist. ——(admin) Eagle101 Needhelp? 05:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
re-removed - back to not done for now, I'm just going to go after the proxies, any new proxies he adds list on the list above, and we will just let him show us proxies. A full block of OBW is pointless, as it appears he can get around it. ——(admin) Eagle101 Need help? 05:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
We should thank him for the public service of identifying so many redirectors for us to block. His spamming is so pathetically obvious that it does not even present a problem any more :-) Just zis Guy, you know? 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted duplicates

On the belief that it takes less work to process a smaller file, I've deleted all the duplicates in the blacklist, reducing the page by 1 KB. --BRIAN0918 13:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

hah, nice. Eagle 101 02:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Zorpia

Hi Eagle or Naconkantari, Those results are only from zorpia media wiki. When i typed only Zorpia i didn't see any spam results. I even typed Zorpia in Yahoo search and i still don't see any spam results. That proves that Zorpia doesn't have spam. I've never experienced spam on Zorpia. Zorpia doesn't even have pop-ups. I still want you to remove Zorpia.com from the spam blacklist. Please think about it. For us it's important to have Zorpia.com back on wikipedia. btw, how come hi5 is not on your blacklist? Everybody knows that hi5.com is infected with spam/spyware. Waiting for your reply.

Thanks

The search returned all of the mediawiki installations that the Zorpia ___domain has been spammed on. As this blacklist is used on many wikimedia installations, blacklisting it will protect not only Wikimedia's wikis but the wikis of many other people. Naconkantari 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


And what can we do to have Zopia back on Wikipedia? Should we wait for some time or Zorpia.com will stay forever on the blacklist? (i'm just asking cause i don't know about these things)

If the Zorpia administrators can reduce the amount of spam generated from its domains, however they go about doing that, it is possible that the site can be removed from the blacklist in a few months. Naconkantari 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information Naconkantari!


Hello there Eagle and Naconkantari, I just wanted to tell you that you were right. Zorpia is being used for spam. The users still think that they removed Zorpia.com because it was not notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_12/Zorpia I told them that Zorpia is on the blacklist because of spam. Even some of the administrators still believe that Zorpia was banned because it was not notable. I'm a Zorpia user myself. The only ones that i talk to are the owners of the site cause they seem to understand the problem. They are working hard to remove the spam from their site. They already removed a lot of spam. I love the site so much. That's why i'm helping them. Now my question is... Am i right? Zorpia has been banned because of the spam or because it was not notable? I'll be waiting for your reply. (btw, sorry for disturbing you again)

  • I believe there are two separate issues. One is that the article on Wikipedia was deleted for lack of notability. The other is that the site was blacklisted due to spamming. Whether it was spamming of zorpia or spamming on zorpia and then using a link to zorpia to get the spam into WP -= or indeed if there is any real distinction between the two - I would not know. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Query on videojug.com

I guess more a heads up/enquiry at this stage and not strictly a blacklist issue so sorry in advance! (I don't have too many anti spam friends on Wikibooks). User Reever2 placed links to videojug.com on Wikipedia [546] - from link search an IP or two may be involved. Got blocked, promised to behave, unblocked and then edited nothing (ok I'm a cynic). Now Wikibooks is enjoying the benefit of the editing [547]. They are creating recipes that all have links to the website. The community is ok with the fact that this is a clear copyvio issue (editor states he is a few metres from web site owner and can get permission (surprise). However there seems to be almost a willingness to have the links if the content is properly licensed (there is video content on the site that relates to the recipe). Books are amazingly tolerant of spam but... Thoughts welcome TIA --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Figure it out within your wiki community. If it is a serious spam problem, feel free to report it in the right section. Eagle 101 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.fish_eaters.com (no underscore)

Hi all. Please I need to use, at last this link, http://www.fishe_aters.com/marksofchurch.html (no underscore), in a other wiki. Could someone take care of it, please. You can answerer back to me here User talk:Mauro do Carmo Thanks. Mauro do Carmo 22:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Request local whitelisting, thats a prime example of a specific link, a specific article, and a specific wiki. Eagle 101 04:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

hometown.aol.co.uk/imckillopi/ - An AOL Hometown-based site

Hi, I'd like the hometown.aol.co.uk ___domain to be unblocked, as there is a site on there belonging to a noted British Christian artist called Iain McKillop, resident in the parish of EN:WP/Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell, where one of his most important works (a set of the Stations of the Cross) resides. He has a large number of photos (including of the Stations) on that site, which could be linked to usefully. All responses to my EN:Wikipedia talk page, please. - 82.3.68.56 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Request local whitelisting, (Also please add this to the appropriate section above). Eagle 101 04:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

es:Meg Ryan and es:Ray Romano

Hi, in the spanish wikipedia, both articles are block because of spam, I don't undestand why, I really y don't care, so can anyone change that so that I can edit those pages, Thanks--200.90.226.193 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is fixed. Eagle 101 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

blacklist problems

I am having problem editing as the spam blacklist prevents me from adding the following url: rakeshyogi.122mb.com Can anyone help. my icq 394635903


Help! When I try to edit I get this message:

The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.

Also:

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: [but if I try to include it, it blocks.]82.155.102.110 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Which page are you trying to include this link on? Naconkantari 05:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "122mb.com" has been blocked as a website that has had some major problems in the past. I would recommend you asking your friendly white list to see if they would be willing to white list that particular page. J.smith 00:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

en:Cicada (mythology) & en:Ecstasy (emotion)

I endeavoured to link en:trance with en:Ecstasy (emotion) and returned a dialogue box with Spam blacklist...Please could somebody debunk this 4 me?

Thanxta B9 hummingbird hovering 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume this is for the english wiki, give me a second. Eagle 101 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've fixed this article. Let me know if that is all... if you are trying to edit a second article let me know. Eagle 101 22:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this, but I was unsure exactly how to resolve this. My useracount "Merotoker" is blacklisted because it has the link obsessedwithwrestling.com. I do not use that link when editing pages, so I have no idea how it got there. I try to make proper edits, so if I can edit pages on my account, I would appreciate it greatly. Thank you and feel free to delete this message once I can edit again.

Spam in ref tags

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circle_of_stars&diff=prev&oldid=111825822 saved OK, but sunsequent saves were spam blacklisted. Was there a temporary blacklist issue, or is this a bug? Thanks, 62.73.137.190 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please remove the blacklisted link please. It would be much obliged. It's hhtp://moyabrennan.forumfree.net.

Looks like forumfree has been blacklisted due to spam on one wiki. I will have a closer look later, for now I would just request whitelisting on your respective wiki. Eagle 101 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sytes.net

There seems to be no reason why sytes.net ought to be blacklisted...please consider removing it

Please request in the right section above. Most likely it was blacklisted due to spamming of it. Eagle 101 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Renal tubular acidosis

Appears to just have been blacklisted, probably as I was pasting the same message onto a few medical editors message boards as a request for comment. If that is the case, could it be unblacklisted please?134.59.105.218 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't blacklist articles, please ask on your respective wiki. If it is a blacklist request, please ask in the right section. Thanks. Eagle 101 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Landofthelegend.net

A link that has been consistently spammed on Wikipedia as a source. No notability asserted, noticeable opposition to its usage, fan site, and two different people have attempted to replace pages such as IGN with the link to it. While it could simply be removed through a lengthy RfC, it would be easier and cleaner for the web site to be blacklisted instead. - ALttP 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, while this is just hearsay at the moment, a Wikipedian claimed that the web site has since been blacklisted from being invited to Nintendo's E3 and GDC presentations. - ALttP 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you please show me some evidence? Eagle 101 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[[|]]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-03&oldid=21264768"
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-03" page.