MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2011

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

Proposed Additions

siggysoft.org

siggysoft.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com This link was firstly added to the article email, but after an invastigation the site seem to be a content mapper/rewriter of wikipedia artciles. mabdul 15:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to bean issue at the moment. see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/siggysoft.org. I'll mark this as  Not done for now, however if it becomes an issue down the road please report back. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

classicalm.com

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

This commercial site which sells CDs and has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, had been repeatedly spammed by:

82.117.252.87 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Many more pages have been spammed than currently shows as editors have reverted the additions multiple times. The IP's talk page currently has multiple warnings, including a final warning concerning this and continued to spam, e.g. [1]. IP now temporarily blocked for 24 hours, but will no doubt to continue to add this link once unblocked or he shifts to another IP. This has been going on for months – Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Stale. No activity for a month now, and the link doesn't appear on any Wikipedia articles. The spammer may have given up. Re-report if it happens again, and reference this report. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pregnancy.wisertogether.com

Hmm ..

Mainly the abovementioned subdomain:

And the above IP. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And:
Seems this is  Stale--Hu12 (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cn.zs.yahoo.com

This link recently came up at the Help Desk[2] and was removed.[3] Also, in July 2007, a similar link was removed as "Dangerous link - Drive-by-drive download so we want to get rid of that link for security reasons?"[4] Linksummary above may have other examples. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Infected; 14 red downloads; Generic and Artemis trojan http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/cn.zs.yahoo.com
zs.yahoo.com plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

joshuaproject.net

This website is blacklisted at w:de since 2011, see w:de:SBL#joshuaproject.net (German). ATM there are more than 700 links in w:en.
I blacklisted that page at w:de, because Joshua Project seems to be an aggressive converting organisation. One of their main questions is "Which people groups still need an initial church-planting movement in their midst"[5]. Of course they have got a great database on languages and peoples. But apart from that at every language page the pov-information about the "progress" (which is the amount of christians) is given and additionally whether some jesus film is available in that language.
The interesting part of the website's content is collected from Ethnologue and LinguistList. A blacklisting of joshuaproject.net would not delete or hide information for it is available at the other projects. -- seth (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC), 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rense.com

Antisemitic and conspiracy theorist site. A search in WP turns up 641 mentions, many in ELs, some as a source in UFO-related articles. Recent discussion on WP:FTN suggested that it is only valid for views of its creator and I would agree. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing evidence of abuse, however the conversation @ Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde‎ again shows that it's probably inapropriate. I'm inclined to mark this as  Not done for now, however  Defer to XLinkBot--Hu12 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dimace.com.au

Caution: NSFW

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 09:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gayot.com

Review site, related article Andre Gayot. There may or may not be some cases for using this site. However, there has been a very high rate of addition of links to the EL sections and as "references" to promotional text by quite a number of single-purpose accounts. The link has been blocked and cleanup has begun on removing links; help would be appreciated as well as ideas for assessment of any (pref. very few!) whitelist candidates. --Ckatzchatspy 10:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of SPA accounts:

 Defer to Whitelist for specific candidates. Seems that blacklisting actions that needed to be done have been done. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pv-magazine.com

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 12:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three more. - MrOllie (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biggestleaf Internet Marketing

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 13:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Positioning Services

IP editor adding links to multiple artist sites. Apparently the IP editor is an employee of, or involved with, the agency that represents the artists. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also account; Global Positioning Services (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
It seems both accounts have been blocked which has stopped the abuse, however if there is future evidence of continued spamming this should be added. I'll mark this as  Not done for now, however support blocking if it continues. thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ultimatetopsites.com

User:Pagosapunk has been adding "topsite" links to articles for a while. They recently added a subdomain site of this domain to Tumblr and re-added it after I removed it as spam. I've warned them about the behaviour with a uw-spam4im (they have had warnings in the past about spam) and will report them to AIV if they persist. ultimatetopsites.com looks like rubbishy spam and there is unlikely to ever be an article that will ever link to this site legitimately. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also
Accounts
  1. (UTC): w:ru:User:AAT (t - c; ) to w:ru: (diff  top?) - Link: (R/Xmeta/L)
174.56.85.148 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Pagosapunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

portablegeneratorinfo.com

Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also;
Portable Generator Information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
 Done. Thanks Acroterion. --Hu12 (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

meridianrsc.co.uk/

Not sure if this is the right place, but per Wikipedia:Vpm#Does_wikipedia_do_anything_about_sites_which_have_copied_its_material_without_attribution.3F, the site is copying wiki material and is infected.Smallman12q (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the places you can report Links to copyrighted works and sites that violate copyrights. However, Wikipedia content is not copywritten. Also checked the link in the following;
..Doesn't appear t have any infections or exploits. Are you recieving virus warnings?--Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/checksite.aspx?NS=ChkOnly&SRC=apps.explabs.com&CS=http://www.meridianrsc.co.uk/aboutas.html which shows a warning?Smallman12q (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

statsheet.com and associated sites

I have no idea how this went on so long without being noticed, but this user has been spamming links to a network of sites (e.g. terpsball.com, hooreview.com) for two months. There are a whole slew of domain names.--B (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StatSheet network of online, fan-centric sports sites
  • Adsense google_ad_client = 1552698452868487
Article Spam
StatSheet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
more Accounts
RobbieStats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Gfoster23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Aggrogates all of its info and data from the Sports Network site. Claims to have over 300 sites...--Hu12 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa - why is statsheet.com being blacklisted? How come there was no invitation to discuss at Wikiproject:College Basketball? The site is a valid source of college statistics back to 1997. Rikster2 (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not blacklisted. Although there were concerns raised in previous discussions;
I find that the the use of sock accounts, repeatedly adding ones own site on top, canvasing for inclusion, then attempting to add hundreds of your own, Adsense related domains, not signs of good faith.--Hu12 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So deal with the users, not the valid source of basketball stats. I have no connection with the site, but use it all the time. It is easily as valid as ESPN.com - used on 95% of sports articles. It's just a database with a user-friendly interface. I do think any discussion of forbidding the use of statsheet.com should invite in the WP:College Basketball Project which has a vested interest in valid historical statistics. Rikster2 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we had a technical means for legitimate users to use it while blocking spam, I'd be all for it. But if we let anyone spam their site to every team and player page, we'd have eleventy billion external links in every sports article. When someone repeatedly promotes their site, we take action to prevent disruption. If we reward spamming, then we only encourage it. Is it possible to get the statistics we need from the NCAA? I don't look for basketball all that much, but I know they have very detailed statistics pages for football. --B (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another sock: VinKilborn (talk · contribs) --B (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added statsheet.com, but that won't have much effect, apparently. See also WP:ANI#Statsheet spam(permanent link) . This seems like it will be a continued spam problem.
What is the performance impact of adding hundreds of domains to the blacklist, probably doubling it in size, versus adding hundreds of domains to XLinkBot? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, all those domains resolve to the same IP address which is part of Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud. Running that address through http://mummy-maze.net finds the following 197 domains. If mummy-maze works as I expect, this isn't an exhaustive list; my cursory review of them suggests they're all associated with the same site (there doesn't appear to be an unrelated customer of EC2 there)
197 domains

gamecockreport.com, gopherball.com, novabeat.com, soonerworld.com, uwmupdate.com, carolinaupdate.com, bearball.com, roarlion.com, spartanball.com, masonball.com, orangeupdate.com, dailycyclone.com, wildcatfix.com, dailyredstorm.com, uscupdate.com, alcornnation.com, huskersupdate.com, rideemcowboys.com, goldeneaglefan.com, gatorupdate.com, bearcatball.com, buckeyesbeat.com, spartansupdate.com, rebelball.com, dailyhokie.com, tigerpawball.com, friarfanatic.com, retrieverreport.com, colonelsnation.com, ssureview.com, cougpride.com, themeninred.com, lmureview.com, kstateupdate.com, unhcheer.com, irishupdate.com, dailybronco.com, mavsdaily.com, roadrunnerdaily.com, everymanatiger.com, wildcatreview.com, hornethome.com, nolesnation.com, beardownball.com, bruiserball.com, dailyviking.com, fightpittfight.com, usureview.com, bluedevildaily.com, leathernecksball.com, blueraiderball.com, scarletball.com, volsbeat.com, racersreview.com, dailycatamount.com, shockerbeat.com, pilotsreport.com, dailygreenout.com, bigcnation.com, siueball.com, hoyasaxanation.com, emuball.com, ospreydaily.com, wolfpackreview.com, huskiesupdate.com, valpodaily.com, zagsball.com, terrierreport.com, dailymountaineer.com, highlanderfan.com, anteatersgo.com, skyhawkpride.com, brownfan.com, piratedaily.com, chanticleerfan.com, fightintiger.com, catamountreport.com, flyersfix.com, purplebearpride.com, lobosfever.com, raisedfromashes.com, ramblinreport.com, dukesball.com, cofcreport.com, usftruth.com, prarieviewdaily.com, hbureview.com, thegeorgiag.com, thevilledaily.com, bearkatball.com, lancerreport.com, gaelforceball.com, forwardfalcons.com, colonelsreport.com, redhawku.com, dailyterrier.com, bosshoggbeat.com, byureview.com, bulldogupdate.com, redhawkball.com, eaglebeat.com, themountfans.com, falconbeat.com, terpsball.com, dailygaucho.com, rolltidereview.com, tsureview.com, vcudaily.com, bisonupdate.com, jagreport.com, phoenixfever.com, bucsbeat.com, roosreport.com, liondaily.com, flyingcfan.com, dailydawgs.com, torerosball.com, faureview.com, blackbirdball.com, redhawksreview.com, dailyhilltopper.com, eagleupdate.com, huskybeat.com, broncsball.com, wavefever.com, dawgsdaily.com, dailypeacock.com, blackbearbeat.com, odureview.com, goldenflashfan.com, illiniupdate.com, beaverdaily.com, montezumanation.com, axeemjacks.com, fightingbobcats.com, boilerball.com, seawolfdaily.com, duckdaily.com, bulldogpost.com, dailyjayhawk.com, purpleacesfan.com, pantherreport.com, demonsdaily.com, seahawkdaily.com, troybeat.com, explorerreport.com, mocsnation.com, dailyund.com, happyvalleyball.com, ttureview.com, bisonbeat.com, bengalball.com, hooreview.com, dailytribe.com, goldenpantheru.com, dailyruffrider.com, drexeldaily.com, ewureview.com, goldenlionreview.com, usfupdate.com, titansupdate.com, ivytiger.com, bamastatebeat.com, dailyhawkeye.com, crazybobcats.com, dailyjaguar.com, guinreport.com, redbirdball.com, seahawkbeat.com, spartanfan.com, zipsupdate.com, packball.com, canesfever.com, fgcureview.com, rhodyreport.com, csureview.com, hoosierdaily.com, fightingcamel.com, maroonbears.com, thevictorsreport.com, longbeachball.com, theduq.com, gogamecocksgo.com, themaskedreport.com, huskieball.com, piratebeat.com, bisonball.com, bigredupdate.com, bobcatball.com, yeapoly.com, redwolvesreview.com, bulldogreview.com, huskiereview.com, greatdanenation.com, gramblingbeat.com, umesupdate.com, towsonupdate.com

-- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of the domains that includes the above two lists, along with all of their other sites pertaining to NCAA division I teams: --B (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
345 domains
OK, so what'll it be? Blacklist or XLinkBot? Be aware that XLinkBot doesn't work on links contained within references. And I still want to know the performance hit on submitted edits if either list is expanded by almost 350 entries. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 6425 entries now. Increasing it by 5.4% doesn't seem like that big of a deal. If XLinkBot doesn't do references, then it's not going to help - the spammers were including their links in references. --B (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
XLinkBot can do References, see User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. In light of the sockpuppetryANI Report, severe long term spam abuse (above), I see no reason is should not be added to XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. Therefor this has been plus Added. More discusion may be needed for perminant blacklisting, because typical of spamming, they tend to just revert XLinkBot's revert...--Hu12 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Removals

camera-wiki.org

I have just now done some editing to the article Camerapedia. Briefly, Camerapedia.org was a camera wiki that did not meet WP's criteria for an RS but that was occasionally cited here all the same. Its owner sold it to Wikia and turned it into a redirect to camerapedia.wikia.com. It was also legally forked to camera-wiki.org. I'd say that links to camera-wiki now are no more or less legitimate than links to camerapedia.org last year. (And Wikipedia doesn't merely cite Camerapedia, it takes whole articles from it.)

Camera-wiki.org is clearly relevant to Camerapedia, and I was amazed to find myself unable to add the single link at the foot of the article that I eventually commented out.

The article Camerapedia obviously benefits from a link to camera-wiki.org. Other articles might too. Take a look for example at http://camera-wiki.org/index.php?title=Semi_Leotax_DL_and_R -- this is, I think, an intelligently written, informative article (and it carries no advertising); and so even if it can't be a source to a WP article it can be a legitimate external link. Also note the degree to which it is illustrated, with scans and photographs that are there legitimately but that could not all legitimately be copied to Commons (or Wikipedia).

I'm nowhere near as familiar with the blacklisting procedure as I should be, but it seems that a number of IPs went on some sort of linking rampage, which triggered COIbot. I'm no fan of linking rampages. On the other hand:

  • Older links to Camerapedia will now be automatically directed by camerapedia.org to pages with advertising (for many if not most viewers) at Wikia.com. A change of these links to the corresponding pages at advertising-free camera-wiki.org would not strike me as obviously bad, let alone destructive.
  • I don't notice warnings to those IPs, telling them to stop.

Statement of possible personal interest: I was at one time an active contributor to Camerapedia (of which I was even an admin), even if I have not yet made any contribution to either of its successors. -- Hoary (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an illustration of what's been going on, here's the recent sequence of events in a single article, Ami 66. (The article is unsourced and poor, but this I think is irrelevant to the matter here.)

  1. A version that lists the article in Camerapedia as an EL.
  2. On 11 March, an edit of the external link, replacing the link to Camerapedia (which would redirect to Wikia) with one to camera-wiki.org; the IP provides the summary updated camera-wiki.org link from old camerapedia name, which strikes me as confusingly expressed but intended to inform.
  3. On 18 March, removal of this EL by Beetstra, with the summary External links: bl'd.

I do not understand how the IP's edit degrades the article or how Beetstra's (however well intentioned) improves it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several concerns. First there is the Serious Recent Spamming, Which includes Excessive crosswiki spamming
Camera-wiki.org articles are no more Reliable as sources than would linking to a blog, personal website or a Wikipedia article. Anyone can edit with no editorial oversight and articles are essentially self-published. Therefore Camerapedia Links;
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
In addition, camera-wiki.org is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy. Another serious concern is the photographs and other uploaded content violating WP:COPYRIGHTs, specificaly, Linking to copyrighted works. I'm not entirely convinced how this could even be used in Camerapedia. --Hu12 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you have addressed any of my points (which admittedly were made after my bedtime and thus a little incoherently), and I do not follow your logic.

First, at least some of what you term "Serious Recent Spamming" seems to be a matter of the switching of existing links to camerapedia.org (links that worked when made, but now redirect to the same material at Wikia) to links to the same material at camera-wiki.org. I gave a concrete example of this above; any comment on that?

Secondly, I have not claimed that camera-wiki.org was a reliable source. Indeed, I pointed out that (together with its forerunner) it was not. No, I had in mind links to camera-wiki.org under the rubric "External links", which are of course for links to material that does not breach copyright but that could not be subsumed within WP articles if well developed.

Thirdly, I think you have conflated (a) the use by some wiki of photographs and scans that could not be legitimately incorporated into Commons with (b) copyright violations. Plenty of the illustrations are scans that are in the public domain. However, other photographs are neither in the public domain nor copyleft but their presence in a free camera wiki is entirely legitimate because permission for this was explicitly given by the copyright holder. This kind of permission is of course incompatible with copyleft or Commons, but the incompatibility was made very clear at camerapedia.org and is now made very clear at camera-wiki.org -- neither has ever purported either to be or to mimic Commons or Wikipedia.

Perhaps I need to make this simpler by analogy. The short set of "External links" at the foot of Muammar Gaddafi contains one titled "Gaddafi: The last supervillain?". This contains a set of photos. I can't be bothered to look at more than the first, but this is credited to "AFP/Getty Images". We can trust life.com (which of course is no Commons or Wikipedia) to have ensured that that website's use of it is legitimate. This of course doesn't mean that somebody can copy it to Commons. Yet our article links to the Life slideshow, unproblematically. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, shortly. No. More reason why this was added can be found here. But let me explain:
Once, there was camerapedia.org, a wiki. Wikis are NOT reliable sources, and wikis are discouraged as external links - of course, with some consideration, if the wiki is significantly stable etc, it could be an external link, for certain info they can be even references. Camerapedia was taken over by Wikia, all fine, websites get taken over by other companies all the time, that does not necessarily/immediately change the suitability. But some of the editors there were not happy with that (see http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Camera-wiki.org:About), and started camera-wiki.org. I did not see many active editors on camerapedia (which would give stability .. see WP:ELNO), I see even less on camera-wiki.org (both according to their statistics pages). Hence: unsuitable references, unsuitable external links.
Now, in the edit you show here, the, maybe stable camerapedia is replaced with the IMHO NOT stable camera-wiki.org. Without reason. What was wrong with the same article on camerapedia.org? The only reason that one could think of is 'camerapedia is a commercial wiki'. But both are wikis, and both these wikis seem unsuitable as external links.
Similarly: here the link was updated , that was a reference! The data on wikipedia was written with camerapedia as a reference, NOT with camera-wiki as a reference (and the same happened on de.wikipedia, see diff - hence, cross-wiki). That is simply misleading the readers, both are wikis, both are NOT a WP:RS, and whether commercial or not is with references NOT an issue or question. In NO form; we link with references to sites which are plainly commercial, but with editorial overview etc.
So, what can have been the reason? I think it is that these are editors who were NOT happy with the overtake (as they clearly state on camera-wiki.org, and what is also mentioned in the article on Camerapedia (that camerapedia has an own article makes me think that it is notable enough, and stable enough, and that was what kept me from blacklisting that site as well). Moreover, practically ALL additions of camera-wiki were by anons, there is no good explanation. In other words, these editors brought their conflict from their own site to here. And as that type of edits were performed cross-wiki, I have meta-blacklisted this site. And though I believe that there will have been some good-faith edits (for the addition of camerapedia, vide infra), most of this is pure personal interest, trying to 'win' a battle by purposedly changing links to a preferred wiki. And as I said, neither are suitable links.
Camera-wiki is brought here almost exclusively by IPs (the only named editor is you, Hoary). I do not see many good-faith edits by IPs adding camera-wiki.org. And it is cross wiki. This is link-hijacking, inappropriate attribution, and for the sole reason to promote camera-wiki.org over camerapedia.org. One of the very definitions of WP:SPAM, even if it is not for the improvement of a personal financial situation. If the IPs had chosen to add the second wiki as another external link, and as another reference, the situation would have been completely different (though still, they are not suitable external links).
Now, bringing Camerapedia here. There are quite some articles which state 'the original article contains data from camerapedia'. It is NOT properly referencing to them, and it is in some cases plainly NOT true. this is the original of Ground glass, which is alledgedly 'scraped' from camerapedia - current version (I can't get the history) - version where Hoary tagged the article: diff/version. I find it difficult to check as I do not see the history on camerapedia, but I don't think this was a rip, the article was there earlier, and though I can not see the history, the current version on camerapedia does not look at all like the wikipedia article (maybe it was completely overhauled on camerapedia.org).
I am sorry, Hoary, bringing in a comparison with links on Muammar Gadaffi is a form of WP:OTHERLINKSEXIST or WP:WAX. Maybe Muammar Gadaffi needs a cleanup as well.
I will have a second look into camerapedia, I have a STRONG feeling that even camerapedia was mainly brought here by IP editors to have their site linked. But since it is here for a long time, there are many edits by regulars as well (some of which will be vandalism reverts), I have a lot to check. First, ALL the camerapedia references should be removed, and I think the external links as well. Then the cases of tagging from the articles scraped from camerapedia .. which may also need pruning. Let me be clear, the only reasons why camerapedia.org is not on the blacklist yet, is that I did not have time to check how it was added in detail, the existence of Camerapedia on this wiki, and the many links which attribute local wikipedia articles as being 'scraped' from camerapedia.
Note, this is meta-blacklisted, I will leave decisions on de-listing there to other administrators, but my advice is to decline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC) - added info --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the additions of camerapedia.org. I can only see very, very minor 'spamming' (i.e., accounts who mainly use camerapedia.org, or do only link-additions of camerapedia.org), and quite a number of good faith edits (which include some misplaced good-faith edits .. ). This is unlike the IPs mentioned above, where there are accounts whose only contributions are 'updating' old links to new links with .. not correct edit summaries - camera-wiki.org is NOT the new name for camerapedia.org.
So IMHO there is no reason to blacklist camerapedia.org - I did however add this to XLinkBot's revertlist (well, it detects the redirects to wikia.com already, which is already auto reverted). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, you write:

  • Once, there was camerapedia.org, a wiki. Wikis are NOT reliable sources, and wikis are discouraged as external links - of course, with some consideration, if the wiki is significantly stable etc, it could be an external link, for certain info they can be even references. Camerapedia was taken over by Wikia, all fine, websites get taken over by other companies all the time, that does not necessarily/immediately change the suitability. But some of the editors there were not happy with that (see http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Camera-wiki.org:About), and started camera-wiki.org. I did not see many active editors on camerapedia (which would give stability .. see WP:ELNO), I see even less on camera-wiki.org (both according to their statistics pages). Hence: unsuitable references, unsuitable external links. I'll agree with all of that except the last part. I'd make that "external links presumed to be unsuitable, but to be judged on their merits".
  • Now, in the edit you show here, the, maybe stable camerapedia is replaced with the IMHO NOT stable camera-wiki.org. Without reason. What was wrong with the same article on camerapedia.org? The only reason that one could think of is 'camerapedia is a commercial wiki'. But both are wikis, and both these wikis seem unsuitable as external links. The edit was made on 11 March 2011. At that point, the link to camerapedia.org/wiki/Ami_%28WZFO%29 had become a redirect to camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ami_%28WZFO%29. At the time there was no article on camerapedia.org: your premiss is mistaken. Five obvious options were available: (a) do nothing, assuming that the redirect would continue to work; (b) scrap the/any link; (c) adjust the link to point to the article at web.archive.org; (d) adjust the link to point directly to the article at camerapedia.wikia.com (one successor of camerapedia.org), and (e) adjust the link to point to http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Ami_%28WZFO%29 (another successor of camerapedia.org). The IP chose option (e). Option (e) is arguably not the best. Somebody might even argue that it's the worst. Did you, or did anyone, attempt to tell the IP this?
  • Similarly: here the link was updated , that was a reference! The data on wikipedia was written with camerapedia as a reference, NOT with camera-wiki as a reference / Yes, you're right; it was. Let's assume for a moment that sourcing a claim to a wiki is fine (though you and I both know that it isn't). The link should have gone to the specific version. But as we well know, most editors of en:WP aren't so fastidious; and this link instead was to www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Box_camera. However, www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Box_camera no longer exists (other than as a redirect). Again, the editor is faced with five choices. Perhaps his choice among them was poor. So the thing to do is to attempt to communicate with him.
  • So, what can have been the reason? I think it is that these are editors who were NOT happy with the overtake (as they clearly state on camera-wiki.org, and what is also mentioned in the article on Camerapedia... (my emphasis). But a little way below: This is link-hijacking, inappropriate attribution, and for the sole reason to promote camera-wiki.org over camerapedia.org. (your emphasis). First (and again), camerapedia.org doesn't even exist, though you probably mean camerapedia.wikia.com. Secondly, you've moved pretty fast from (i) thinking something to (ii) stating it (in boldface) as fact. How about raising a matter in discussion before determining the facts and the measures to be taken and taking those measures?

Further, I don't think you have read what I wrote about the Gaddafi article. Perhaps the subject of Gaddafi is now even less appealing than usual. So let's instead look at Eindhoven. It has a set of external links. Some look dubious, but let's look at this one (labelled "A photo history of Eindhoven"). It contains photographs that can be presumed to be legitimately at that site, but that cannot appear within the WP article. As such (if not in other ways), it resembles camerapedia.org and its successors. Wikipedia rightly lists under the rubric "External links" sites that can't be used as sources.

Incidentally, I have not encouraged the adaptation of articles from camerapedia.org (or of course its successors). Here you'll see me complaining about the slipshod way in which Rama (an admin in at least two Wikipedias) was then doing it. (For another example of his work, see the early history of 35mm Bessa.) But on rare occasion, yes, I've done it myself. Camera (the Japanese magazine) is an example. I did it because I first wrote the original at camerapedia.org, scrupulously citing my sources, and the result seemed -- after adjustment of categories, etc -- suitable for Wikipedia too. Should I not have done this? If I did do it, should I not have acknowledged Camerapedia? Now that Camerapedia is acknowledged, would an attempt of mine to elaborate, alter or update the relevant template be denounced (in boldface!) as "link-hijacking, inappropriate attribution, and for the sole reason to promote camera-wiki.org"? -- Hoary (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camerapedia.org does still exist. see http://camerapedia.org. More info: the base address that the site redirects to is now a http request 301 'Moved Permanently' to http://camerapedia.wikia.com. For all the examples, if I click e.g. http://camerapedia.org/wiki/Box_camera then I get redirected nicely to camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Box_camera, the article it was originally pointing to. There is no reason to change, except for that a redirect site would be a WP:ELNEVER, and hence should be moved to camerapedia.wikia.com in all cases (or to a web-archive). Changing it to camera-wiki.org is changing it to another server which is a fork/copy of the former, it is another document, the camerapedia document starts with 'Box cameras are a class of mainly 19th century camera types, except the rollfilm variants which remained popular as cameras for beginners until the mid-1950s.', the camera-wiki document starts with 'Box cameras are the earliest class of camera types, originating in the 19th Century; later evolving into simple rollfilm models which remained popular as cameras for beginners until the 1960s.' My premiss is mistaken, yes, maybe, but you will not see me revert any link-adaptations from 'camerapedia.org' to 'camerapedia.wikia.org' (I would even encourage it, and actually, I at first thought that that was the situation, that camera-wiki.org was the 'rename' of 'camerapedia.org' .., see diff). But changing from camerapedia.org to camera-wiki.org is link hijacking.
Both wikis do not have a significant stability. They do not have a huge number of editors. I would discourage using wikipedia as an external link, except if it tells WAY more than is includable. And well, seen that we scrape(d) articles from camerapedia, I think that all is includable .. wiki-articles really seldomly make good external links, the only reason to link to a wiki is when the wiki itself is subject of the article on wikipedia, like is done on camerapedia. And that goes for all wikis, articles I generally remove articles on wikis as unsuitable.
The first 'I think' is about them being unhappy with the overtake. Other options are: that they have interest financially in hijacking the links, that they simply want to be linked and therefore hijack the links, or whatever, I think (still) that it is that these are 'unhappy editors' (possibly mainly one, see my remark about edit summaries below), but other options are there. Still, changing the external link from one site to another is link hijacking, and here it even results in inappropriate attribution via link hijacking. Yes, the original link should be to a stable revid, and preferably not to a wiki at all. But there is no thinking from my side involved in that part of my statement. it is link-hijacking.
Now, when do we blacklist. In principle, when other means are either exhausted, or likely not to work anyway. Camera-wiki was introduced, mainly via the mentioned link hijacking, by several IPs, on several wikis. Yes, I could have chosen to notify all these IPs, and let them go on on a new IP or another wiki. The report was automatically noticed by the bots, has been open for a couple of days, until I noticed the existence (as meta admin), saw the relatively large number of IPs, and the link hijacking (for whatever reason). My judgement, any form of warning or questioning would very likely not have been noticed. The IPs work from significantly different IPs (not in the same range - Special:Contributions/50.9.189.31 uses the (misleading!) edit summary 'update camera-wiki.org link from old camerapedia name', Special:Contributions/173.74.254.143 uses the same edit summary, and de:Spezial:Beiträge/88.76.47.87 uses 'Aus camerapedia.org wurde camera-wiki.org. Name und Domain "Camerapedia" wurde an Wikia verkauft, deshalb Abspaltung der Inhalte ins nach wie vor freie Camera-Wiki.' (rough translation: 'out of camerapedia.org became camera-wiki.org. Name and domain 'camerapedia' is sold to Wikia, therefore the content was split off to the free camera-wiki' ..). Three completely different IPs on three domains, warning, even blocking would have been of NO use. I judged this last week as 'uncontrollable link hijacking' - and uncontrollable spamming, for whatever reason, gets blacklisted.
Regarding the Gaddafi/Eindhoven example (sorry for my misinterpretation) - yes, some links are good, but here the information was and can clearly be incorporated (it was), it is to a wiki (open, editable by everybody), subject to vandalism, etc. etc. Private photo-pages have that less, images there are generally not overwritable by others, only by the owner (and may 'rot' because of that, but that is less of an issue than with an open wiki). And when I see that the wikis were/are sometimes linked from articles with >50 references on Wikipedia, then I wonder whether the external wiki actually adds so much that is not already covered in the article and in the other external links (same goes for stubs linking to stubs). We are not a linkfarm.
Now, if I made a wrong choice, then maybe it is that I should have moved all links to camerapedia.wikia.org instead of an almost blanket-blank. But as I said, I don't even think that camerapedia.wikia.org is in many of the cases a suitable external link. But I stand firmly behind my assessment that this was uncontrollable link hijacking, and that is why I, after some thoughts and consideration, and even some (albeit off-wiki) discussion with others, decided to blacklist this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I had another check on the Ground glass-case. The version that Hoary tagged was indeed a (partial) rip of the article, or better, a merge. My apologies for not checking that more thoroughly (I could not find the page history in Wikia..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So:

  • you assume bad faith in the person or people who changed the links or anyway made no attempt to communicate with him/them;
  • you (A) are in favor of changing (x) what are links to camerapedia.org to (y) links to successors of these articles at camerapedia.wikia.com; but (B) are adamant that any change of (x) what is a link to camerapedia.org to (z) a link to a successor of this article at camera-wiki.org is "link hijacking" (a term that you repeat but nowhere justify);
  • after some thoughts and consideration, and even some (albeit off-wiki) discussion with others (unnamed), you blacklisted this site right across Wikipedia.

I'm amazed. I'd realized that Wikipedia was not a democracy, but I'd no idea that any one person (other than Wales) wielded such power. Was this naïve of me? -- Hoary (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. In good faith would have been: add camera-wiki.org next to the camerapedia.org/camerapedia.wikia.com link. This person is, clearly, knowledgeable in how a wiki works, is specifically targetting camerapedia.org links, gets warnings (operating an IP adding external links ..). I have seen this before Hoary, editors who change links in this way very, very seldomly do that in good faith. But yes, this may be in good faith, the editor may be thinking that this is the right thing to do. I would have loved to talk to that person about that, but how would you have communicated with this editor, and what are the chances that you would have reached them (and since that chance is next to nihil anyway, the next question is: how many editors do you think that would run behind an unreachable editor to repair their link additions (OK, this is not a 'bad' case, but this is certainly not the only case of links which may need to be looked at at least a second time)). This is actually one of the very little ways of having a good chance of contacting this editor, and I am waiting for their comments - none of this needs to be a final result! But if your suggestion is that, with the very little manpower that there is already on these pages, we wait until we finally we are lucky enough to hit the same IP as the user is using and then discuss, then we may be a long, long time further. Yes, chances are that the editor now tries and finds out they can not do this anymore, and not come back, but on the other hand, chances are that we 'try' to warn and never reach the editor, and still having to go through all the edits (I am sometimes trying to stop clouds from entering the Netherlands .. I fail miserably and still get wet).
Camerapedia.org is a redirect to camerapedia.wikia.org - in other words, when you go to an article on camerapedia.org you get the SAME content as when you go directly to camerapedia.wikia.com .. if that was the change that was being pushed, then NO, I would not have had any problem. But when you change from an article on camerapedia.org to the same article on camera-wiki.org, then you get OTHER content. Yes, I call that, consistently, link-hijacking, a term that is used for that type of terms. And if you would be a regular on this page, then you would know that when that is encountered in edits, that that is regarded a bad sign. And if the editors on camera-wiki.org have the same way of handling their references, as that they did here in changing them, then that says even more about the reliability of the wiki. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the domain .. lets try and discuss with the IP-editor. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Beetstra's reasoned opinion on the facts. Withought question this was a Trifecta of 1link-hijacking, 2obvious Link vandalism and 3blatent External link spamming. None of these actions are signs of good faith, particularly egregious when its over our multiple language wikis. Additionaly camera-wiki.org was Created On:31-Jan-2011, fails inclusion criteria of our External Links Policy and fails multiple requirements of both Wikipedias Verifiability and "Reliable Sources" guidelines. Ownership is clearly a key here; "Wikia has purchased the domain name <camerapedia.org> as part of the moving agreement, and will point this to the new URL at camerapedia.wikia.com"[6] camera-wiki.org is outside this, unrelated, unreliable, non-notable and not particularly relevant. I would even go as far to say the article Camerapedia be considered for deletion or renamed to camerapedia.org and redirected to its "official" parent article, Wikia, as it appears to fail wikipedias inclusion criteria of our general notability guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the two of you have a point, why does its delivery require so many misrepresentations and so much exaggeration?

  • In good faith would have been: add camera-wiki.org next to the camerapedia.org/camerapedia.wikia.com link. / Yes, adding camera-wiki.org next to the camerapedia.org/camerapedia.wikia.com link would have demonstrated good faith. But to say that omission of the camerapedia.wikia.com link demonstrates bad faith denies the antecedent.
  • But yes, this may be in good faith, the editor may be thinking that this is the right thing to do. / I doubt it. Far more likely, I think (and perhaps unlike you, I hesitate to claim to know), is that the editor thinks that this is an acceptable thing to do -- given that the ELs should be updated (the thought of deleting them not having occurred to him), they can be updated one obvious way or another obvious way (alternatives such as Wayback also not having occurred to him). To you, it's obvious that (if they are retained) they should be updated to camerapedia.wikia.com. To me, it is not. To him (rightly or wrongly), they should be updated to camera-wiki.org. Yes, I am willing to entertain reasoned arguments that this was and is the wrong thing to do. No, I reject any allegation that this is straightforward "link hijacking", or most of the other epithets that you continue to fling at it.
  • if the editors on camera-wiki.org have the same way of handling their references, as that they did here in changing them, then that says even more about the reliability of the wiki / It's a wiki, and wikis are not reliable. Is this clear enough? Now that this is out of the way, I invite you to take a look at the wiki that you sometimes seem keen to smear. The full history of "Olympus Chrome Six" shows that it was produced by a single editor, with the most minor assistance from three -- as far as I notice; perhaps more -- others (including myself). There is absolutely no reason why the average photographer or historian of technology, let alone you, should be interested in anything that it says. But please devote to it just one fiftieth of the time that you have spent website here. Skim-read it? Right, I challenge you to come up with any treatment of this camera -- on the web or in print, and in any language -- that is as good. You'll come up with one: the corresponding article at wikia.com; and that's all. Do any of the references not check out? (At least once the libraries here in Tokyo have picked their stock off the floor, I shall have access to most of it. If you'd like to check, or to have a Japanese-reading acquaintance check, I believe that copyright laws would permit me to send you a small number of scans of short articles, or of scans of the relevant parts within longer works.) Whether or not the wiki is reliable as a whole (it is not), and whether or not its content is of interest to you (it probably is not), it is clear that in this example the editors on camera-wiki.org do not "have the same way of handling their references". (Or would you like more examples?)
  • Withought question this was a Trifecta of 1link-hijacking, 2obvious Link vandalism and 3blatent External link spamming. / "Without question? Nonsense. ¶ "Link-hijacking": you present no reasoning and no link. ¶ "Link vandalism": you link to an explanation, which says: Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling. This charge is unjustified. The target is not disruptive and not irrelevant. That it is inappropriate is arguable, not obvious. ¶ "External link spamming": you link to an explanation, which exceeds one screenful (not that I am complaining). Just which part of this are you appealing to?
  • Ownership is clearly a key here; "Wikia has purchased the domain name <camerapedia.org> as part of the moving agreement, and will point this to the new URL at camerapedia.wikia.com"[7] camera-wiki.org is outside this, unrelated, unreliable, non-notable and not particularly relevant. / "Outside": camera-wiki.org is self-evidently outside the purchase of a second website by a third. ¶ Of course it's related: if there had been no purchase, it wouldn't exist. Unreliability: Dealt with above. ¶ Notability, right, it is not particularly notable, but asking news.google.com for "camerapedia" brings a grand total of one (1) hit, which is about camera-wiki.org. A "population" of one is of course ludicrously low, but 100% of the "news" (as unreliably defined by Google) coverage of Camerapedia is about both of its successors. ¶ "Relevance" of what to what?
  • I would even go as far to say the article Camerapedia be considered for deletion [...] / So take it to AfD. This talk page is about the blacklist, not about the article.

-- Hoary (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wrote a long part here again, but I do see that we are not getting anywhere. I see this case as a, maybe (and maybe even probably) well-intended, but total disregard of several of our core policies and of even more of our guidelines. I hope that the editor will come here and discuss their actions themselves, and consider to go forward in a more constructive manner which is in line with our core policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might have found one of the IP's, seems its conected to this user on camera-wiki.org. probably an admin.--Hu12 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I've found an email address for him, and shall contact him. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- it was suggested I join this conversation. I've created an account so I won't have to post from an IP. I'm one of the guilty parties being talked about here, so maybe I can shed some light on things or at least answer any questions you have. As Hu12 notes above, I'm steevithak on camera-wiki. I am an admin there. I made a handful of edits correcting (in my mind, at least) several references to the now defunct site, Camerapedia.org. I did not make the other edits and do not know who did, however it is possible they were made by other camera-wiki.org editors. An email has been posted to our mailing list requesting that no one make Wikipedia edits mentioning our URL pending the outcome of your discussion. It was not my intent to spam Wikipedia or circumvent any normal editing procedures.

I can't address many of the questions argued here since I'm not familiar with the extensive Wikipedia policies on these matters. But I can address the question of whether camera-wiki.org is the legitimate successor to Camerapedia.org. Wikia purchased only the domain name, they did not purchase the website itself nor the community that created it. We're all still here and use a new name now. This was not a "split". None of the original Camerapedia.org admins or major contributors are now at Camerapedia.wikia.com. So if Camerapedia was just a domain name, then you're right that it's now owned by Wikia. But if Camerapedia was the community of admins and editors who created the site, then we're camera-wiki.org. Obviously, my view is the latter one.
Steevithak (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hu12 for finding that, thanks Hoary for contacting Steevithak.
Thanks Steevithak for the explanation. First of all, camerapedia.org is not 'defunct', it is a working redirect to camerapedia.wikia.org. It does not need to be corrected (yet, maybe). And as the modus operandi of the main IPs is all the same, I do think that they were done by one editor (the edit summaries are just too similar).
As you say, Wikia just purchased the domain-name - so technically, the site is completely the same. That the community has changed does not invalidate the content on the old site (it may be that the camera-wiki site is now better than the camerapedia site, still .., it does not invalidate the old data). We are not linking to 'the community', we link to the data.
If this were only 'updates' of external links, then the problem would have been smaller. The situation of 'taking over the links' is already 'bad' enough - as I see that, the original editor chose to link to the content on camerapedia as they found it complementary to Wikipedia (though I think that it is already there often superfluous per our external links guideline, and of questionable suitability), to change that unilaterally to camera-wiki (which has different data than camerapedia), is at the least pretty brutal, in the worst case a direct violation of our neutral point of view principles. To do it for references - the original editor found the data on a specific revision of camerapedia (they should not have used the wiki in the first place, and should then still have linked to the specific revid then anyway), to change that to another site, which may contain the same data (but the pages have changed) is a change of attribution, which I found so grave that I found the need to immediately stop this and not wait for discussion. Then, it would be futile to try to contact an editor on a changing IP (giving remarks to the IP is likely not helping as the editor will use a new one, blocking the IP similar (and would probably give collateral damage), protecting pages would give more collateral damage than help the situation) - the quickest way and surest way (with minimal collateral damage) would be to hope that the editor(s) would come after they found the site blocked.
Anyway, I am happy that this is now solved. I hope that editors will use the site within the limits of the reliable sources guideline and the external links guideline (and the policies these are based on). Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, thank you for the courtesy and thoughtfulness of your response.

That said, you write a few things that strike me as odd. Here's one: Wikia just purchased the domain-name - so technically, the site is completely the same. This takes the form of "A, so B". However, A (though true) does not entail B, and indeed B is untrue.

I too hope that the newly regained technical ability to link to camera-wiki.org is used responsibly. Because I may be perceived as lacking neutrality (as well as for other reasons), I don't propose to add any links. However, I can imagine occasionally proposing on talk pages that they be added to articles. I hope that such suggestions (whether by me or anybody else) will be judged on their merits: to have an interest elsewhere may lead to a conflict of interest but need not do so.

All Steevithak can do is hope that the other person [singular here for simplicity's sake] who has been controversially -- you say wrongly, I say rashly -- changing URLs reads his message asking that this activity stops and acts on it. But it's possible that the perp isn't even a subscriber, and it's possible that the link-flipping (or, if you like, spamming) will resume. Of course I hope that it does not. If it does and I happen to notice it, I'll try to stop it. If I do not happen to notice it and any of the regular denizens of this talk page do, then I hope that they will start by notifying me. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I still think that we don't understand each other here. If there is a site, camerapedia.org, which has content, and then the content is moved to camerapedia.wikia.org, and camerapedia.org is changed in a HTTP 301 'Moved Permanently' - how did that change the site? OK, there may have been edits since, but that would anyway be the case. I do not see my logical fallacy there. Did Wikia purchase and change the content? For me, maybe the mediawiki software has changed, there may be advertising around, whatever, but that does not mean that the content changed. And it is the content that we link to. That a site contains advertising does not mean that we should not link to it (in fact, we link to a LOT of sites with advertising in our sourcing, we link to purely commercial data in sourcing, we link to official homepages of companies, etc. etc.). But it is the content that counts, and I do not see how the content that we linked to has changed here. However, if I see the current state of a page on camerapedia.wikia.com and the corresponding page on camera-wiki.org, then the content has changed (probably because both sides have 'evolved' in the mean time) .. So could you please explain me the logical fallacy that I make - can you show me, with links e.g., what the difference is?
camerapedia.wikia.org was already reverted by XLinkBot (and XLinkBot has reverted several of the editors already ..), I have also revertlisted camera-wiki.org as being a wiki, and I think that new/IP users should be informed that wikis have a threshold to pass when being linked to. Single additions / change-overs will then still pass largely unnoticed, but when that is done in a systematic way, we should notice soon enough, and the editors will receive multiple warnings then. Obviously, I have also enabled reference-reversion on these wikis (my personal thought is that wikia.com should just generally be reverted when used as a reference, that would have only so few false positives that that should be fine - but that is an entirely different discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it .. I think I get what you mean. Lets move on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complicated situation. Much like the when the Cleveland Browns franchise was relocated then renamed to the Baltimore Ravens. The result ultimately was that the Cleveland browns keeped their legacy in Cleveland, despite the players moving and were now the Baltimore Ravens. Since we all know that camerapedia.org is now camerapedia.wikia.com and supported additionaly with the statement at camera-wiki.org; "Wikia has purchased the domain name <camerapedia.org> as part of the moving agreement, and will point this to the new URL at camerapedia.wikia.com"[8]. therefore, when links to <camerapedia.org> are replaced by links to <camera-wiki.org> with an edit summary stating "fixed link - camerapedia is now camera-wiki.org", despite "camerapedia.org" now being "camerapedia.wikia.com", that becomes the essense of "link hijacking". no matter how well intentioned. Replacing any existing linked domain with a link to another domain that has a different domain-server, owner and content would clearly be the inappropriate target.. ie "Link vandalism". Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website is considered "External link spamming". Hopefuly that helps Clarify. Want to thank Steevithak for chiming in, its appreciated. Despite that which has overflowed to wikipedia, its never easy to see the disruption caused by the sale of camerapedia and breakup of a community. hopefuly we can all move on. --Hu12 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dirk/Hu12/Hoary, can you point me to a document that describes how/when a link to camera-wiki.org can be added without violating guidelines? If so, I'll post this information to our mailing list and do whatever I can make sure all our editors are aware of the current problem and know how they should interact with Wikipedia. So far, I understand that we must not change historical links to Camerapedia. I take it we should not make edits from IPs, we should not use camera-wiki.org as a reference, but can(?) use camera-wiki.org as an external link (I'm not entirely clear under what conditions).
Also, a quick note regarding the content of the two sites. The textual content of the original site was GFDL, so Wikia was able to duplicate all of it. But they have not taken additional updates from us since they shutdown Camerapedia (it's possible they may in the future). For now, the Wikia site is basically an outdated version of the original. Work has continued on camera-wiki.org. We have more articles, and the articles contain more accurate information. The photos used in the articles are largely licensed for specific use. Many thousands of images are now unavailable to Wikia, some because of Wikia's commercial nature and others because the contributors withdrew permission. Many of our editors are working on the removal of these images from the Wikia site. So the number of photos contained in Wikia's fork is rapidly declining while the number of photos on camera-wiki.org continues to increase. Also, Wikia has opened up anonymous access; already spammers and vandals are beginning to alter the site (I've reverted vandalism there myself several times). Unless Wikia finds new contributors and admins who are actually camera experts, their site is likely to continue to decay. I'm not proposing that this should alter the outcome of your discussion, but it might be wise for someone to check what Wikipedia is linking to over there from time to time.
Steevithak (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steevithak, generally, links have to comply with the external links guideline, and wikis there specifically a) generally/often contain a lot of info which can simply be incorporated (not always, but since we have a lot of that data, it may be the case here), so linking as an external link would then become superfluous (it would not add anymore), Wikipedia already has sometimes the data available (so adding the link would not enhance the page anymore), and c) wikis should generally be sufficiently stable and have a strong base of editors. Some other parts which may (or may not be relevant) are WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:NOT#DIRECTORY/WP:COI/WP:COPYVIO, etc.). As long as there is no campaigned addition of links, and editors respond/discuss when a link addition gets challenged (go discuss with the editor in question/on the talkpage of the page being edited), then no problems occur. As you said, it should hardly ever be used as a reference (except maybe as a primary source about the wiki itself, like the one source to camera-wiki now on Camerapedia - and even that one would still need a backup reference). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a new email to our internal mailing list in which I attempted to summarize this and provide links to the related Wikipedia articles you referenced. I suggested that if editors see a page that they believe really should have an external link to camera-wiki.org that they do not add it themselves but instead mention it on the article's talk page and identify themselves as editors on camera-wiki.org. Hopefully that is acceptable. I think there will be cases where this is desired as we are one of the definitive sites on vintage cameras. I'd like to see camera-wiki.org convert to the same licensing scheme as Wikipedia uses but at present we use the GFDL only, which I believe means our content can no longer be directly incorporated into Wikipedia articles. Back when Wikipedia was using the GFDL, you guys were taking entire articles from our site to create your camera articles but I don't think that's possible any more.
Steevithak (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Steevithak, as long as any website (camera-wiki.org, camerapedia.wikia.com, en.wikipedia.org) is an open wiki, it can't be a definitive site about anything. Now, I happen to agree that much of camera-wiki.org is in effect definitive; just as a substantial minority of en.wikipedia.org is in effect so definitive (and so closely monitored against degradation) that journalists (and not only unthinking university freshmen) refer to it. [Note to any thinking journalist who may be lurking here: I don't want to encourage this practice. Think thrice before doing it.] ¶ My own idea of the usefulness here of links to camera-wiki.org is centered on its use of photographs that are legitimately there but could not legitimately be here; I can imagine the occasional item in a list of "External links" pointing to one or other (conceivably both) of the successors to camerapedia.org, saying "[Article] at [camera wiki] presents photographs of this", or similar. ¶ Yes, the way to add such a link would be to suggest it in the talk page of the specific article, and to wait for one or more "established" editors (editors with some history of contributions here) who are unrelated to either camera-wiki.org or camerapedia.wikia.com to approve the suggestion. ¶ Back when Wikipedia was using the GFDL, yes, a small number of guys were indeed taking large sections of articles, or even entire articles, from camerapedia.org to create articles here. However, I don't think there was any joint effort to do this. As I've admitted above, I was one of the people who did this (on rare occasion), but my way of doing it was so different from that of somebody else (Rama, who was and is an admin) that I was his bitterest critic. So the copying was a more complex business than it may at first appear. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not thinking about wholesale copying, but just that Wikipedia can contain quite a lot of the information that camera(pedia/-wiki) can contain/also contains. The external page should contain something that the Wikipedia page does not (and probably can not) contain (our WP:LINKFARM-policy-points (and the external links guideline - see a.o. the intro) come into play there). I've seen camera(-wiki/pedia) links here on Wikipedia pages where the local page contained a massive number of references and were quite big, while the external page was significantly smaller. Though I do not exclude that there will be cases, and maybe even the case that I had in mind (don't know which one(s)), that the external page contains information that Wikipedia did not have (in prose, or in all the other external links already there), I find it difficult to believe that was the case here.

All of this should of course be handled with common sense. Sometimes the external link can be used to improve the article itself, can be used as a suggestion (though, technically, we have talkpages for that), &c. I would not say to new editors, go only through the talkpage (WP:COI does not forbid editing with a conflict of interest in any form!), but just try to be sensible. After all .. the best thing to happen would be, that some of the specialists on camera(pedia/-wiki) would also become (a bit) active here, and push up the level of the articles here. And if that in some cases means that they add an external link to camera(-wiki/pedia) because it does contain more info which can not be incorporated, then that is also fine. After all, with wiki links, we are talking about WP:ELNO, not about WP:ELNEVER. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kayladasilvaliterature.net.tc

This site is not spam, just an author's webpage for providing information about her novels and herself. I dont see why it cannot be used as a reference for one of the author's books, as it was created, I assume, for that purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylaelyse219 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is .net.tc tld - I suggest you use the real homepage: http://kaylaliterature.books.officelive.com/default.aspx --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

google.com/cse?

I do not know why these are blocked, so in all honesty I can't tell you why this one should be unblocked. It seems perfectly harmless to me. Speaking as a newbie to the Spam apparatus here, I can say with some authority that it is set up in an unnecessarily arcane and uninformative manner. The current blocked list is nowhere in sight, and yet users are supposed to check the list to see whether it is a Meta block or a local block. So I am putting this up on both. Surely software can determine this for users. Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC) google.com/cse?: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com[reply]

 Defer to Global blacklist It's in the global blacklist. Please see meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#google.com/cse?. Jafeluv (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typemock.com

A terminated employee of Typemock - a global high tech company - violated the TOS and resulted in Typemock.com and blog.typemock.com being added to the Wikipedia spam blacklist. That employee is no longer with Typemock.

Typemock is an international company that makes development tools for .NET and C++ developers. Customers include Microsoft, Intel, Morgan Stanley, and numerous companies in the US, Europe, Amdocs, and around the world. We have been featured in the software development media, such as SDTimes and EE Times. We are a Microsoft Development Partner, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amechad (talk • contribs)

I see that spamming of Typemock continued with blacklist evasion:
You have failed to argue why Wikipedia benefits from linking to this site. We also do not remove entries from the spam blacklist in response to requests from the site owners.  Denied. MER-C 03:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems

Comment by blacklister A reasons was given in the log; repeat spamming of NN zine. It was spammed by more than one role account. I'm strongly against removing it from the blacklist based on this, and I highly doubt that a non-notable music blog gets any exclusive scoops not available on other sites. If such a situation did exist, it would be more appropriate to whitelist for individual cases. Furthermore, I can't help to be suspicious of a freshly created account requesting a blacklisting removal so quickly. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hellwars.com

Hello. I'm wondering why was website with URL stated above blacklisted? I'm a player of this MMORPG and I would like to create a Wiki article, it took me hours to write everything, and now when I wanted to save the page and ask for feedback, I can't, since it says this URL has been blacklisted. Could I get some help regarding this, because I don't really see how this site could break any rules :/ Thanks. ClammieR (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was blacklisted globally at Meta, not here, which suggests that it was spammed heavily on multiple wikis. Before you bother petitioning there, ask yourself if the site would meet our WP:WEB policy (which I personally doubt it will) before you spend any more time on it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see. Didn't know that. But I'm wondering how can torrent sites or similar games to this be on Wikipedia, while this one can't. I'll be reading more about your policy & Meta stuff tomorrow, but I don't get it why you have double standards for similar or even worse websites. Could it be because mabye nobody reported other sites or they weren't checked for abusive behaviour or something similar? Thanks for fast reply by they way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClammieR (talk • contribs) 00:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The normal action if you see an unblacklisted site that is similar to a blacklisted site is to blacklist the former site, not remove the latter. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

ip address URLs

I have often wondered why we allow pure IP addresses to be linked to, its one of the easiest ways to bypass the SBL, and it also means that these links break often, and are unable to be corrected due to now knowing the previous host name. Any random thoughts? ΔT The only constant 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello???? any one notice this section? ΔT The only constant 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a good reason to allow IP address links off the top of my head. I don't think the regex to do it would be too difficult. Anyone else? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice, Δ, and I think the answer is that IP address links might be useful outside of mainspace. I agree that they are surely not wanted in mainspace, and outside of mainspace they need not be linked. However, blacklisting such a wide class of links probably needs broad consensus, or at least a willingness to turn the blacklisting off if there are complaints. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the regex would be
\b\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\b — although this will also match impossible address like 666.777.888.999. It's probably good enough, although if you really want to match the legal ranges 0-255.0-255.0-255.0-255 you'd need a complicated expression:
\b(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\b - yech! ~Amatulić (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of governments have been seizing or blocking domains which point to content they deem inappropriate (I believe some governments blocked WikiLeaks recently.) Linking directly to the IP is often an effective way to get around censorship if the domains have been seized.Bpodgursky (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the unlikely event that comes up, the individual addresses can be whitelisted on a case by case basis. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

It is proposed to relocate this process and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist to Wikipedia:Blocked external links in order to reduce the "spam" connotations. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

Ive done just a basic check for dead links assuming that \bname\com\b is name.com and have discovered that about 1,200 of the links listed here are dead, Im also working to cleanup the dupes and merge some regex. Ill post the list of merged/dupes in a day or so, but should we removed the dead sites? ΔT The only constant 21:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful mergeing regex. "Clever" merged regexes may take less lines but they are not necessarily faster (or slower). Rich Farmbrough, 02:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Trust me, anything too complex gives me a headache with regex. see below for the adjustments. each list has all the old regexes and the last item in each group is the new regex, except when the # comments state something else. ΔT The only constant 04:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
\b123(baisakhi|chinesenewyear|christians|durgapuja|janmashtami|kazaa|movingcompany|newyear|pongal|refills)\.com\b
\b123breakingnews\.com\b
\b123(baisakhi|chinesenewyear|christians|durgapuja|janmashtami|kazaa|movingcompany|newyear|pongal|refills|breakingnews)\.com\b

ncaa09rosters\b
ncaa2009rosters\b
ncaa(20)?09rosters\b

\b3fatchicks\.com\b
\b3fatchicks\.net\b
\b3fatchicks\.(com|net)\b

\b360bracketz\.com\b
\b360elite4free\.com\b
\b360(elite4free|bracketz)\.com\b

\b1000daysofhell\.blogspot\.com\b
\b1000daysreality\.blogspot\.com\b
\b1000days(reality|ofhell)\.blogspot\.com\b

\b1909svdbcent\.com\b
\b1909vdbcent\.com\b
\b1909s?vdbcent\.com\b

\babbie-cornish\.com\b
\babbie-cornish\.org\b
\babbie-cornish\.(org|com)\b

# on the list twice
\babsolutechinatours\.com\b
\babsolutechinatours\.com\b

\bacne(busterpro|empire)\.com\b
\bacneguide\.com\b
\bacnevulgaris\.blogspot\.com\b
\bacne(busterpro|empire|guide|vulgaris\.blogspot)\.com\b

\badsenserevenue2u\.blogspot\.com\b
\badsenserevenue\.blogspot\.com\b
\badsenserevenue(2u)?\.blogspot\.com\b

\baion-powerlevel\.com\b
\baion-powerlevel\.net\b
\baion-powerlevel\.(net|com)\b

\balaska(-defensivedriving|cruisereview)\.com\b
\balaskanorthernlights\.com\b
\balaska(-defensivedriving|cruisereview|northernlights)\.com\b

\ball-(about-seashells|voip-info)\.com\b
\ball-business-advertising\.com\b
\ball-media-converter\.com\b
\ball-(about-seashells|voip-info|media-converter|business-advertising)\.com\b

\ballbeerblog\.blogspot\.com\b
\ballbeerblog\.com\b
\ballbeerblog(\.blogspot)?\.com\b

\bamber-heard\.net\b
\bamber-heard\.org\b
\bamber-heard\.(org|net)\b

\bamericanidolfanclub\.blogspot\.com\b
\bamericanidolnews2009\.blogspot\.com\b
\bamericanidol(news2009|fanclub)\.blogspot\.com\b

\banidb\.info\b
\banidb\.net\b
\banidb\.(net|info)\b

\banimalopedia\.blogspot\.com\b
\banimalopedia\.com\b
\banimalopedia(\.blogspot)?\.com\b

\banimalsinthecity2\.webs\.com\b
\banimalsinthecity\.webs\.com\b
\banimalsinthecity2?\.webs\.com\b

\bapakistannews\.com\b
\bapakistantimes\.com\b
\bapakistan(times|news)\.com\b

\basyncop\.com\b
\basyncop\.net\b
\basyncop\.(net|com)\b

\bbackroads(blog|marketing)\.com\b
\bbackroadsmarketing\.blogspot\.com\b
\bbackroads(blog|marketing(\.blogspot)?)\.com\b

\bbalajinadar\.com\b
\bbalancivity\.com\b
\bbala(ncivity|jinadar)\.com\b

\bbaltimore(cruises|travel)\.com\b
\bbaltimoremdjobs\.com\b
\bbaltimore(cruises|travel|mdjobs)\.com\b

\bbenovarghese\.blogspot\.com\b
\bbenovarghese\.com\b
\bbenovarghese(\.blogspot)?\.com\b

\bbest-cialis-store\.com\b
\bbest-levitra-store\.com\b
\bbest-(cialis|levitra)-store\.com\b

\bbestbuybirthcontrol\.com\b
\bbestbuys-rx\.com\b
\bbestbuy(birthcontrol|s-rx)\.com\b

\bbloodpressuresafety\.com\b
\bbloodpressuretruth\.com\b
\bbloodpressure(safety|truth)\.com\b

\bbuzzingstock\.in\b
\bbuzzingstock\.net\b
\bbuzzingstock\.(net|in)\b

\bcaliforni(a-contracosta-trafficschool|a-trafficschool-online|abusinessimages|apaintings|aresort|askiresort|cationfan)\.com\b
\bcalifornia-sunrooms\.com\b
\bcaliforni(a-contracosta-trafficschool|a-trafficschool-online|abusinessimages|apaintings|aresort|askiresort|cationfan|a-sunrooms)\.com\b

\bchristinahendricks\.info\b
\bchristinahendricks\.org\b
\bchristinahendricks\.(org|info)\b

\bclassi(ccarbase|fiedswow)\.com\b
\bclassicalviolinvideos\.com\b
\bclassi(ccarbase|fiedswow|calviolinvideos)\.com\b

\bclick2chicago\.com\b
\bclick2detroit\.com\b
\bclick2losangeles\.com\b
\bclick2philadelphia\.com\b
\bclick2phoenix\.com\b
\bclick2sanfrancisco\.com\b
\bclick2(chicago|detroit|losangeles|philadelphia|phoenix|sanfrancisco)\.com\b

\bclientsfirst-us\.com\b
\bclientsfirst\.biz\b
\bclientsfirst(-us\.com|\.biz)\b

\bclosingcostfax\.com\b
\bclosingcostfaxwholesale\.com\b
\bclosingcostfax(wholesale)?\.com\b

\bcolombo77\.com\b
\bcolombopro\.com\b
\bcolombo(pro|77)\.com\b

\bcottagecountry\.com\b
\bcottagerental\.com\b
\bcottage(rental|country)\.com\b

\bcrackcbse\.blogspot\.com\b
\bcrackcbse\.in\b
\bcrackcbse(\.in|\.blogspot\.com)\b

\bcustomeracquisitionmanagementservices\.com\b
\bcustomeracquisitionservices\.com\b
\bcustomeracquisition(managementservices|services)\.com\b

\bddr3800\.com\b
\bddr31066\.com\b
\bddr31333\.com\b
\bddr31600\.com\b
\bddr31600\.com\b
\bddr\d+\.com\b

\bdeepcreekhotproperties\.com\b
\bdeepcreeklakeproperty\.com\b
\bdeepcreeklakevacay\.com\b
\bdeepcreekvacations\.com\b
\bdeepcreekvacay\.com\b
\bdeepcreek(vacay)|vacations|lakevacay|lakeproperty|hotproperties)\.com\b

\bdiscount(-hotels-cheap\.biz|airfaresaustralia\.com|couponsguide\.com|cruisereservation\.com|edpelletstoves\.net|skivacations\.com)\b
\bdiscount-fishing-tackle\.com\b
\bdiscount(-hotels-cheap\.biz|(-fishing-tackle|airfaresaustralia|couponsguide|cruisereservation|skivacations)\.com|edpelletstoves\.net)\b

\bdownunderendeavors\.com\b
\bdownunderendeavours\.com\b
\bdownunderendeavours\.net\b
\bdownunderendeavours\.org\b
\bdownunderendeavou?rs\.(org|com|net)\b

\bdurgapurcity\.co\.in\b
\bdurgapurcity\.com\b
\bdurgapurcity\.(com|co\.in)\b

\benjoydeals\.blogspot\.com\b
\benjoydeals\.com\b
\benjoydeals(\.blogspot\)?.com\b

\bexperthub\.com\b
\bexperthub\.net\b
\bexperthub\.(net|com)\b

\bf150online\.com\b
\bf150online\.net\b
\bf150online\.(net|com)\b

\bfacebookloginhut\.com\b
\bfacebookloginnow\.com\b
\bfacebooklogin(now|hut)\.com\b

\bfitfreak\.net\b
\bfitfreaks\.net\b
\bfitfreaks?\.net\b

# On the list twice:
\bfluoridealert\.org\b
\bfluoridealert\.org\b

\bforex-foreignexchange\.blogspot\.com\b
\bforex-gold-invest\.blogspot\.com\b
\bforex-iforex\.blogspot\.com\b
\bforex-(iforex|gold-invest|foreignexchange)\.blogspot\.com\b

\bgames2cool\.com\b
\bgames2relax\.com\b
\bgames2(relax|cool)\.com\b

\bgeocities\.com\/4christ\.geo\b
\bgeocities\.com/maskedriderthenext\b
\bgeocities\.com/snuffbottle1\b
\bgeocities\.com/(snuffbottle1|4christ\.geo|maskedriderthenext)\b

\bget2dallas\.com\b
\bget2houston\.com\b
\bget2sandiego\.com\b
\bget2(dallas|houston|sandiego)\.com\b

\bgods-and-heroes-gold\.com\b
\bgods-and-heroes-power-leveling\.com\b
\bgods-and-heroes-powerleveling\.com\b
\bgods-heroes-power-leveling\.com\b
\bgods-heroes-gold\.com\b
\bgods(-and)?-heroes-(gold|power-?leveling)\.com\b

\bgraffiti\.net/allinfo\b
\bgraffiti\.net/extranews
\bgraffiti\.net/g2008\b
\bgraffiti\.net/goodinfo\b
\bgraffiti\.net/info4you\b
\bgraffiti\.net/webfaqs\b
\bgraffiti\.net/(webfaqs|info4you|goodinfo|g2008|allinfo)\b

\bgreenday\.cc\b
\bgreenday\.net\b
\bgreenday\.(net|cc)\b

\bgroups\.yahoo\.com\/group\/theincrediblerachellillis\/
\bgroups\.yahoo\.com/group/shanediesel\b
\bgroups\.yahoo\.com/group/(shanediesel|theincrediblerachellillis)\b

\bhanoihotel\.net\b
\bhanoihotelsbooking\.com\b
\bhanoihotelslist\.com\b
\bhanoihotel(slist|sbooking)?\.com\b

\bhotdesigirls\.blog\.com\b
\bhotdesigirls\.blogsome\.com\b
\bhotdesigirls\.blog(some)?\.com\b

\bhotelbargains\.biz\b
\bhotelbargains\.info\b
\bhotelbargains\.(info|biz)\b

\bhotgigs\.com\b
\bhotgigs\.typepad\.com\b
\bhotgigs(\.typepad)?\.com\b

\bhowtogetridofwarts\.doodlekit\.com\b
\bhowtogetridofwarts\.weebly\.com\b
\bhowtogetridofwarts\.(weebly|doodlekit)\.com\b

\bhumansfuture\.com\b
\bhumansfuture\.org\b
\bhumansfuture\.(org|com)\b

\bhyderabadforums\.com\b
\bhyderabadtoday\.info\b
\bhyderabadwow\.com\b
\bhyderabad(forums|wow|today)\.com\b

\bidrivesafely\.com\b
\bidrivesafelytest\.com\b
\bidrivesafely(test)?\.com\b

\binfibeam\.blog\.com\b
\binfibeam\.com\b
\binfibeam(\.blog)?\.com\b

\binfophil.com\b
\binfophil.net\b
\binfophil.(net|com)\b

\binformatics-inc\.com\b
\binformatics-ltd\.com\b
\binformatics-(ltd|inc)\.com\b

\bislafisher\.com\b
\bislafisherweb\.com\b
\bislafisher(web)?\.com\b

\bjustjared(jr)?\.buzznet\.com\b
\bjustjared(jr)?\.com\b
\bjustjared(jr)?(\.buzznet)?\.com\b

\bjwsuretybonds\.com\b
\bjwsuretybonds\.net\b
\bjwsuretybonds\.(net|com)\b

\bkamenriderjapanhero\.com\b
\bkamenriderjapanhero\.webs\.com\b
\bkamenriderjapanhero(\.webs)?\.com\b

\bkenyalyric\.com\b
\bkenyalyrics\.com\b
\bkenyalyrics?\.com\b

\bkhwajagharibnawaz\.com\b
\bkhwajagharibnawaz\.net\b
\bkhwajagharibnawaz\.(net|com)\b

\bknol.google\.com\/k\/illidan-gibran\b
\bknol.google\.com\/k\/john-combalicer\b
\bknol\.google\.com\/k\/onuora-amobi\b
\bknol\.google\.com\/k\/(onuora-amobi|john-combalicer|illidan-gibran)\b

\blapbandguide\.com\b
\blapbandtalk\.com\b
\blapband(talk|guide)\.com\b
\blighthousesintile\.com\b
\blighthousesites\.com\b
\blighthousesi(tes|ntile)\.com\b

\blinexlegal\.(com|it)\b
\blinexlegal\.co\.(nz|uk)\b
\blinexlegal\.(com|it|co\.(nz|uk))\b

\blionball\.cn\b
\blionball\.net\b
\blionball\.(net|cn)\b

\blitchfieldlakes\.com\b
\blitchfieldlistings\.com\b
\blitchfield(listings|lakes)\.com\b

\blord-of-the-rings-gold\.com\b
\blord-of-the-rings-online-gold\.com\b
\blord-of-the-rings-online-power-leveling\.com\b
\blord-of-the-rings-powerleveling\.com\b
\blord-of-the-rings-(powerleveling|online-power-leveling|online-gold|gold)\.com\b

\blovebugcentral\.com\b
\blovebugfans\.com\b
\blovebug(fans|central)\.com\b

\bmahabaleshwar\.com\b
\bmahabaleshwarhotels\.com\b
\bmahabaleshwaronline\.com\b
\bmahabaleshwar(online|hotels)?\.com\b

\bmaterialprofits\.com\b
\bmaterialprofitswildcatter\.com\b
\bmaterialprofits(wildcatter)?\.com\b

\bmaxpages\.com/ackuron\b
\bmaxpages\.com/planetgnome\b
\bmaxpages\.com/reenactor\b
\bmaxpages\.com/tache\b
\bmaxpages\.com/(tache|reenactor|planetgnome|ackuron)\b

\bmicrostockforum\.com\b
\bmicrostockgroup\.com\b
\bmicrostock(group|forum)\.com\b

\bmilakunisfan\.com\b
\bmilakuniswow\.com\b
\bmilakunis(fan|wow)\.com\b

\bmobilefleetservices\.com\b
\bmobilefleetservices\.net\b
\bmobilefleetservices\.(net|com)\b

\bmoola\.com:80/moopubs/b2b/exc/join\.jsp\b
\bmoola\.com/moopubs/b2b/exc/join\.jsp\b
\bmoola\.com(:80)?/moopubs/b2b/exc/join\.jsp\b

\bmustangboards\.com\b
\bmustangforums\.com\b
\bmustang(forum|board)s\.com\b

\bmyspace.com/djshellmax\b
\bmyspace\.com\/fleshjack\b
\bmyspace\.com\/grimestwins\b
\bmyspace\.com\/prophecytrackz\b
\bmyspace\.com\/vpipes\b
\bmyspace\.com/hockeyquarterly\b
\bmyspace\.com/megadry\b
\bmyspace\.com/officialmatthewparker\b
\bmyspace\.com/official_toronto_raptors\b
\bmyspace\.com/paintballersauction\b
\bmyspace\.com/thecocaineknights\b
\bmyspace\.com/(djshellmax|fleshjack|grimestwins|hockeyquarterly|megadry|officialmatthewparker|official_toronto_raptors|paintballersauction|prophecytrackz|thecocaineknights|vpipes)\b

\bnissanforum\.com\b
\bnissanleafforum\.com\b
\bnissan(leaf)?forum\.com\b

\bohio-put-in-bay\.biz\b
\bohio-put-in-bay\.com\b
\bohio-put-in-bay\.info\b
\bohio-put-in-bay\.org\b
\bohio-put-in-bay\.(biz|com|info|org)\b

\bonlinetrafficschoolguide\.com\b
\bonlinetrafficschoolus\.com\b
\bonlinetrafficschool(us|guide)\.com\b

\boptionstradingpedia\.com\b
\boptiontradingpedia\.com\b
\boptions?tradingpedia\.com\b

\bpackaging-labeling\.com\b
\bpackaging-labelling\.com\b
\bpackagingandlabeling\.com\b
\bpackaging(-|and)labell?ing\.com\b

\bpaudarco\.net\b
\bpaudarco\.org\b
\bpaudarco\.(org|net)\b

\bpirates-of-the-burning-sea-gold\.com\b
\bpirates-of-the-burning-sea-power-leveling\.com\b
\bpirates-of-the-burning-sea-powerleveling\.com\b
\bpirates-of-the-burning-sea-(gold|power-?leveling)\.com\b

\bplayadelcarmenvacationpackage\.com\b
\bplayadelcarmenvacationpackages\.com\b
\bplayadelcarmenvacationpackages?\.com\b

\bpotbs-gold\.com\b
\bpotbs-power-leveling\.com\b
\bpotbs-powerleveling\.com\b
\bpotbs-(gold|power-?leveling)\.com\b

\bpremier-business-centers\.(com|net|org)\b
\bpremierbusiness-centers\.(com|net|org)\b
\bpremier-?business-centers\.(com|net|org)\b

\bpriory-of-sion\.com\b
\bpriory-of-sion\.tripod\.com\b
\bpriory-of-sion(\.tripod\)?.com\b

\bpulsemusic\.proboards48\.com\b
\bpulsemusic\.proboards\.com\b
\bpulsemusic\.proboards(48)?\.com\b

\bput-in-bay-hotel\.net\b
\bput-in-bay-lodging\.com\b
\bput-in-baygolfcarts\.com\b
\bput-in-bay(-(lodging|lodging)|golfcarts)\.com\b

\bputinbayattractions\.com\b
\bputinbayfallball\.com\b
\bputinbayhotel\.com\b
\bputinbayhouse\.com\b
\bputinbayonline\.com\b
\bputinbayrentals\.com\b
\bputinbayreservations\.com\b
\bputinbayspringfling\.com\b
\bputinbay(attractions|fallball|hotel|house|online|rentals|reservations|springfling)\.com\b

\bqrcodegen\.com\b
\bqrcodegen\.net\b
\bqrcodegen\.(net|com)\b

\brailay\.co\.uk\b
\brailay\.us\b
\brailay\.(us|co.\uk)\b

\branchocapistranocountryestates\.com\b
\branchocapistranoestates\.com\b
\branchocapistrano(country)?estates\.com\b

\brdujour\.blogspot\.com\b
\brdujour\.com\b
\brdujour(\.blogspot)?\.com\b

\breenactor\.forumer\.com\b
\breenactor\.zoomshare\.com\b
\breenactor\.(forumer|zoomshare)\.com\b

\brussian-services\.co\.uk\b
\brussian-services\.com\b
\brussian-services\.co(m|\.uk\)b

\bsankarv1\.blogspot\.com\b
\bsankarv2\.blogspot\.com\b
\bsankarv3\.blogspot\.com\b
\bsankarv\d\.blogspot\.com\b

\bscribd\.com/doc/(48140751|11074145|30029387|10935894|14423948|14358694)\b
\bscribd\.com/doc/21733512/Principles-101\b
\bscribd\.com/doc/(10935894|11074145|14358694|14423948|21733512|30029387|48140751)\b

\bseelincolnshire\.co\.uk\b
\bseelincolnshire\.com\b
\bseelincolnshire\.co(m|\.uk)\b

\bsifl-and-olly\.com\b
\bsifl-and-olly\.webs\.com\b
\bsifl-and-olly(\.webs)?\.com\b

\bsites\.google\.com/site/artbatiks\/home\b
\bsites\.google\.com/site/dnapolice\/b
\bsites\.google\.com/site/nswcnn\/b
\bsites\.google\.com/site/(datemix|meodatz)
\bsites\.google\.com/site/baglamukhimaa\b
\bsites\.google\.com/site/healthofliver\b
\bsites\.google\.com/site/skytaxi21\b
\bsites\.google\.com/site/spywareanti\b
\bsites\.google\.com/site/(artbatiks|baglamukhimaa|datemix|dnapolice|healthofliver|meodatz|nswcnn|skytaxi21|spywareanti)\b

\bskivacationpackage\.com\b
\bskivacationpackages\.com\b
\bskivacationpackages?\.com\b

\bspicyhits\.com\b
\bspicyhitz\.com\b
\bspicyhit(z|s)\.com\b

\bssfree\.net\.tc\b
\bssfree\.wikia\.com\b
\bssfree\.(wikia\.com|net\.tc)\b

\bstimul-cash\.com\b
\bstimul-media\.com\b
\bstimul-(media|cash)\.com\b

\bsurfacehippy\.info\b
\bsurfacehippyinfo\.com\b
\bsurfacehippy(info)?\.com\b

\bsystemid\.com\b
\bsystemsid\.com\b
\bsystems?id\.com\b

\btahoeski\.com\b
\btahoeskipackages\.com\b
\btahoeskiresort\.com\b
\btahoeskiresorts\.com\b
\btahoeski(packages|resorts?)?\.com\b

\btaipandaily\.com\b
\btaipandaily\.net\b
\btaipandaily\.(net|com)\b

\btestinside\.co\.uk\b
\btestinside\.com\b
\btestinside\.co(m|\.uk)\b

\btexas-defensivedriving-courses\.com\b
\btexas-defensivedriving-online\.com\b
\btexas-defensivedriving-(online|course)\.com\b

\bticketairline\.com\b
\bticketairlines\.com\b
\bticketairlines?\.com\b

\btitle24bid\.com\b
\btitle24requirements\.com\b
\btitle24service\.com\b
\btitle24(bid|requirements|service)\.com\b

\btjoos\.co\.uk\b
\btjoos\.com\b
\btjoos\.co(m|\.uk)\b

\btollywoodnews\.info\b
\btollywoodtalk\.info\b
\btollywood(talk|news)\.info\b

\btvdata\.ru\b
\btvdata\.tv\b
\btvdata\.(tv|ru)\b

\bucoin\.info\b
\bucoin\.net\b
\bucoin\.(net|info)\b

\bultimatecoupons\.com\b
\bultimatecoupons\.net\b
\bultimatecoupons\.(net|com)\b

\bvampire-diaries\.superforum\.fr
\bvampire-diaries\.xooit\.fr\b
\bvampire-diaries\.(xooit|superforum)\.fr\b

\bvanguard-power-leveling\.com\b
\bvanguard-powerleveling\.com\b
\bvanguard-saga-of-heroes-gold\.com\b
\bvanguard-saga-of-heroes-power-leveling\.com\b
\bvanguard-soh-gold\.com\b
\bvanguard-(power-?leveling|saga-of-heroes-(gold|power-leveling)|soh-gold)\.com\b

\bvasanthandco\.com\b
\bvasanthandco\.net\b
\bvasanthandco\.(com|net)\b

\bvietnam-travelservice\.com\b
\bvietnam-travelservices\.com\b
\bvietnam-travelservices?\.com\b

\bvoobly\.com\b
\bvoobly\.net\b
\bvoobly\.(com|net)\b

\bwartremoval\.doodlekit\.com\b
\bwartremoval\.weebly\.com\b
\bwartremoval\.(weebly|doodlekit)\.com\b

\bwealth-by-green\.(com|net|org)\b
\bwealthbygreen\.(com|net|org)\b
\bwealth-?by-?green\.(com|net|org)\b

\bwebspawner\.com/users/arafahospitals\b
\bwebspawner\.com/users/griersonorigins\b
\bwebspawner\.com/users/(arafahospitals|griersonorigins)\b

\bwikijob\.co\.uk\b 
\bwikijobs\.co\.uk\b 
\bwikijobs?\.co\.uk\b 

\bwillsoncomputers\.myallblogs\.com\b
\bwillsoncomputers\.weebly\.com\b
\bwillsoncomputers\.(weebly|myallblogs)\.com\b

\bwindows-vista-update\.com\b
\bwindows-vista-videos\.com\b
\bwindows-vista-(update|videos)\.com\b

\bwwwvacationstogo\.com\b
\bwwwvacationtogo\.com\b
\bwwwvacations?togo\.com\b

\byadavaalliance\.com\b
\byadavaalliance\.org\b
\byadavaalliance\.(com|org)\b

\bzeemap\.com\b
\bzeemaps\.com\b
\bzeemaps?\.com\b

\bzipityzap\.com\b
\bzippygames\.com\b
\bzippy(games|zap)\.com\b
Wow. I wrote a script for detecting some redundant entries some months ago. But that script actually is not very intelligent and would not suggest such merging like you do. Did you write a script for generating your list or is it purely hand-made? At least the last merging proposal (\bzipityzap\.com\b + \bzippygames\.com\b -> \bzippy(games|zap)\.com\b) seems to be hand-made (buggy). ;-)
If you wrote a script, we could try to merge yours and mine in case you are interested.
@Rich Farmbrough: in the sbl merged regexps like /foo(?:bar|baz|quux)/ are faster than 3 separate regexps. However, /(?:foo|bar|baz)quux/ is probably not faster than the separate version.
So I can't see disadvantages in Δ's suggestions. I could write a small script to transfer the suggestions to the sbl. Before that we have to correct replacements like the last one. -- seth (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its done by hand, I have a program that downloads the list and sorts it, then I take a look. ΔT The only constant 03:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
o.O, I guess, that took several hours. I'll write a small script to parse your output and delete/group the entries. -- seth (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I had to make about 10 corrections, but afterwards I could remove about 4kB. -- seth (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the dead links: I don't see a good reason to let them be blocked. In my opinion we should remove all dead links that were added to the sbl more than 12 months ago. -- seth (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im running the list several times to confirm the fact that the links are dead, before I post that list. ΔT The only constant 03:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
great! -- seth (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A team asks to unlist from blacklist important international tool focused on Fukushima and Tohoku 2011

An international team of organizations and individuals: AšLietuvai Lithuanian think tank and national ideas capaign, UserVoice ideas engine, Sahana Software Foundation - Free and Open Source Disaster Management System, translators to Japanese and already many other individuals hard work for a new ideas campaing tool Unexpected global ideas for Fukushima, Tohoku, Sendai, Japan 2011 which is first of all focused to Fukushima nuclear accidents decision making wisdom of crowds.

While this acute Japan crisis is fast evolving and this tool is recently started, fresh and new.

All material about this tool is here

The advanced engine used for this tool UserVoice is blacklisted.

Thanks sincerely fivetrees (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vbs.tv

I'm attempting to add a link to (vbs.tv)/watch/motherboard/colombian-narcosubs at [9], instead of the current link which is a repost. I can't fathom why the site is blacklisted ... especially considering it has had a page at VBS.tv for over two years. Plexitox (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Defer to Whitelist to request whitelisting of specific pages on that site. Reasons for blacklisting are detailed here and here. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

numia.biz

When i tried to add the site numia.biz i couldn't add that site since it is in blacklist. Some spammers unknowingly made our site in the blacklist. So is it possible to remove this site from blacklist so that it can enhance my site popularity and benefical to public who are in need of some free online resources. Gretish (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. We are not here to help you "enhance [your] site popularity". Kuru (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gopetition.com

The site never did anything wrong, but was blacklisted due to someone "preemptively" adding it to the blacklist, claiming guilt by association with baseless comments like "email harvesting" and "online petitions are spam". GoPetition is a member network of over 10 million users that until this day has NEVER emailed any marketing material to their user base (not even internal marketing) or provided any email addresses to third parties EVER. We are one of the few cause related sites that does not sell users information to political parties (i note the three largest cause related sites are not blacklisted even though they actively harvest and sell users information, which ironically has made them more successful). GoPetition is also used by thousands of reputable organisations including many non-profits, that continually request we register our background information with Wikipedia. I don't care if you prevent petition links, apart from one or two exceptions i don't believe they have a place in Wikipedia either. I also believe many petition/cause sites are dodgy, but we are not and consequently i would like to write a Wikipedia article providing background information on our story as requested by our users and denied by someone making baseless assumptions.

[10] [11]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mish15 (talk • contribs)

I am sorry, these sites are not blacklisted for '"email harvesting" and "online petitions are spam"' ... online petitions almost by definition fail our core policies and guidelines. I expect you will have to be on the local whitelist to have a specific link for the homepage of gopetition whitelisted (e.g. the home.htm, index.htm, about.htm or similar). hence,  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks for the quick follow up. I'll refer to the whitelist. --User:mish15 —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Asyncop

It seems that both Asyncop.com and Asyncop.net are listed. This site services developers and is strongly linked from Intel.com and Microsoft.com including MSDN community content. It looks like the website was removed due to political reasons and not professional reasons. The sites focus has always been parallel computing. It is a community oriented website. Please clear it from the list so that it will continue to serve the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.122.16 (talk • contribs)

 Defer to Whitelist. See WP:ELNO. This is a mostly-self-published site that has a community forum. Links to such sites are normally to be avoided. Admittedly the logfile doesn't reference a good record of these domains. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reflectionsindia.org

I was trying to add a link to reflectionsindia.org/knowledge.php in the article Epistemology and came to know that the link is in the spam list. I am not sure why wikipedia blocks sites that have useful content without verifying the contents. The site is not spam, it is present in dmoz [12]. Articles of the author are also found in other sites like advaita.org.uk [13] It is not a spam site and has content relevant to its topic. I find a link to reflectionsindia.org/knowledge.php useful in the article Epistemology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.207.183 (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Defer to Whitelist. The site was recently spammed by abusive sockpuppets and a proxy. That said, if you want to use a specific link then the spam whitelist is the way to go. It would help your request if you built up a constructive editing history before requesting. MER-C 10:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2011&oldid=1109432947"