MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2010

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

Proposed additions

esybuy.com

Would it be possible if esybuy.com was added to the list of prohibited spam URLs? A number of users (different IPs) keep adding the URL to Taobao; note how they've piped it so that it appears as [(http)esybuy.com/taobao_english.asp www.china.org.cn/english/business/239421.htm], which seems to be an attempt to fool people who click the link, anticipating a reference. Diffs: [1][2][3] -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

literateur.com

Spammers

Frequently spammed blog - MrOllie (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given some of the contention over these links, I suggest also check-usering the accounts you've listed. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I have not added any links to literateur.com since I was first told about the COI rule. I cannot be held responsible for other people adding links to it. I would also like to refer you to the External links noticeboard where I have explained the matter in more detail and there has been a response that suggests that the link is relevant, useful and that this blacklisting is an overreaction. In fact it is quite clear that MrOllie has added the website here without informing me about this following an editing dispute where he deleted a link to the site made by someone else, which I find sneaky and underhand. I request that the site be taken off the blacklist. Let me point out that the magazine is not a 'fan page' for it has many articles, interviews, reviews, stories etc. It is not a 'personal blog' because it has at least fifty contributors. It also has interviews with Pulitzer prize winning poet Paul Muldoon, two leading academics who were knighted for their services to literature, the famous and award winning writers Will Self and Hanif Kureishi and former Poet Laureate Andrew Motion. It has published two new poems by Simon Armitage whose poems are on the GCSE syllabus. It regularly gets review copies from leading publishers including Penguin, Faber, Little Brown. It has connections with organisations funded by the Arts Council. In short it is a bank of literary information and to blacklist it counteracts Wikipedia's drive to provide useful information. --Youngpossum (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we remove sites or whitelist individual pages when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. We have a whitelist specifically for these types of requests.If such an editor asks to use a link to a specific page on your site, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and such a link may well be whitelisted.
I blacklisted this domain because we had a problem with several IPs and user accounts, most of them single-purpose accounts, adding it in spite of repeated requests not to do so. I believe this site is a high-quality, self-published blog but not generally recognized as the literary magazine it claims to be. A Google News Archive search turns up zero relevant media references when I search for   "The Literateur" magazine;   a Google News Archive search for   "literateur.com"   is equally fruitless. Google Scholar and Google Books searches also return nothing.[5][6][7][8] I don't think this site meets our requirements to be a reliable source.
The one possible exception: interviews with the subject of the article in which the interview is used as a reference. This might meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Even then, I think any decision to use an interview from such a site should be only made by trusted, established, neutral editors after a talk page discussion as to how that source uniquely benefits the article in providing information not otherwise available.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Mr. Ollie did not blacklist this domain. I did this after reviewing his request and the history of this domain on Wikipedia. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was given one request at the very beginning to stop adding links to the magazine and I have done so. As I have said before and will say again, I have not added links since the first request. I do not know about the others.
There have been opinions expressed by two different people that the link be added back onto the page.
It is not a 'self-published blog' since there are many, many contributors and a large proportion of these writers are professional academics and journalists who have contributed to publications such as The Guardian, London Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement. It is only a year old so it is hardly surprising that there is little reference to it out there yet. However I note that the magazine has already been referenced in academic dissertations about individual authors. Its youth and whether it's on some news archive does not affect the fact that there is a great deal of quality information about writers on the site that is unavailable elsewhere. An example would be that Will Self started out as a stand-up comedian. I could give many other examples if you care to hear them. Another point I wish to add is that this magazine is totally non-profit and there is no financial gain from links. All it does is link wikipedia users to information given by the authors themselves in interviews. Often these interviews are by far the most recent, the most detailed and sometimes the only one freely available online. I also note that no articles or creative works have never been linked, it has always been interviews. I find it difficult to understand why the writer himself speaking to someone is an unreliable source for information about that writer.--Youngpossum (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • I don't see a groundswell of support at the external links noticeboard, rather one editor that likes a particular link.
  • While your site might indeed be recognized in the future as a great resource, for now we have to go with what we can independently verify. Your site's not showing up in any of the tens of thousands of mainstream media publications and scholarly journals that Google indexes. If that changes, we can always revisit this decision in a year or two.
  • Perhaps you in particular did not add this link after the request to stop but looking at the records, I see a clear pattern of spamming your domain by someone despite repeated requests and admonitions to stop.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have voiced their opinion that the link to Mark Ford's interview ought to be included. Noone given me a real explanation as to why the only interview with him online (now one of two, the other being an audio file which someone has said is less of a reliable source than the literateur) should not be included in the page. The magazine would of course not be on Google Scholar as it is not a scholarly journal. It will of course not be on Google Books as it is an online magazine. I did not add those links and I will request site users/contributors to stop doing so with single-purpose accounts. It seems to me hugely counterproductive to block the domain altogether thus preventing more "legitimate" editors from using our interviews as a source considering that there is a great deal of information given by the writers themselves that is not available on any other resource. Surely the decision should be based more on whether the site has a reliable resource which is unavailable anywhere else than whether it shows up on google news archive. I would also point out that the magazine's interview consistently show up very high on google searches of the author's name plus interview. For example, 'Sir Frank Kermode interview' puts the magazine interview third. 'mark ford poet interview' puts us fifth. 'james shapiro interview' puts us second. Magazine reviews have also been quoted in promotional material for books and resources published by respectable publishers. For example British Literary Manuscripts Online links to us just below the Today programme, The Guardian Education Online and The Sunday Telegraph, putting us above the Reading Chronicle. It seems that they and countless publishers, writers and academics regard this as a respectable magazine and not a personal blog.
Well I have made my case and if you insist on keeping it blacklisted anyway, I suppose there's nothing I can do unless some other editor bothers to interfere. Although this too seems strange as the onus should I feel be on the proposer to demonstrate why the links are useless. In any case thank you for actually listening to and responding to my points. --Youngpossum (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think blacklisting this magazine is an excessive response to the problem of its enthusiasts being ignorant of Wikipedia policy, and more interested in adding what they consider useful information on a topic they know about than they are in becoming general editors here. There is no way this respectable source of hard-to-find information about respected literary figures deserves to be blacklisted as if it were a trivial fansite or somebody's blog larded with adlinks. I have no connection with the magazine and my interest is in making Wikipedia better. If Wikipedia is only to be edited by oldbies who have a wide range of interests and contribute to lots of different articles, while anybody with a special interest or knowledge who comes here to add something he knows and cares about should be sharply rapped on the knuckles as a SPA, then Wikipedia will be impoverished. Questionic (talk) Here are 3 links from the contributions of the alleged spammers above. I find it easier to understand why people were eager to add them to the relevant articles than to understand why people interested in these authors should be deprived of a chance to read more about them in the LIterateur:

Unfortunately, this edit will not be posted if I link to the articles that should surely be considered as part of the evidence. So, for "redactedbythisblacklist" you will have to type in "www.literateur.com" Questionic (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for bothering to get involved!--Youngpossum (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed it from the blacklist, at least for the time being. I don't want to start a wheel war, but it appears the blacklisting may have been premature. While the site is probably not a reliable source (to be debated elsewhere), that's not a reason for keeping it on the blackist and there doesn't appear to have been any sort of spam on the level that would warrant balcklisting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I see a link being added by a large handful of IPs, and some unestablished accounts(some of which have a very likely conflict of interest), while discussion seems to point that it is not reliable, and generally not good, then that is generally enough reason to blacklist it. We see 8 IPs (some not too far away from each other) and some unestablished accounts; that is not something that can be stopped by blocking all the accounts (if all the IPs were in a closer range, and if the ranges were not widely used by others the question may have been different). Youngpossum said that they did not add the links anymore after the warning, however there are IP additions after Youngpossums' last additions. I would not call this blacklisting premature being shown that evidence, whatever is going on (self promotion, inappropriate use of a certain domain, even Joe Jobbing; even if some additions are good, we are not a linkfarm or an internet directory), if blocks are not helpful, and if page protection is not helpful (and both have their collateral damage), I would suggest to blacklist and let whitelisting of specific links do the job for some time.
That being said, lets see what happens now, now that the link is of the blacklist. But if misuse continues mainly by IPs or unestablished accounts, I would suggest to swiftly place it back here and let the whitelisting take over. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's been established that there is a malicious intent behind the posting of the link and it has yet to be determined that the domain is totally useless in terms of reliability. Blacklisting should be a last resort and I'm not sure all avenues of discussion have been exhausted, though perhaps the short period of blacklisting may have deterred further disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this sane response. I would also like to point out that whether one is indexed on Google News Archive seems to me quite an odd way to decide whether somewhere is a reliable news source. I just submitted the site yesterday and I received an email today admitting it for inclusion and will be indexed in a few days. It appears that it's pretty easy to get one's site included and therefore inclusion on its archive doesn't seem to me to be a particularly good way of filtering out resources. All it shows is how google savvy you are. Either that or The Literateur easily makes the grade for being considered a reliable news resource by Google. But I find it hard to believe that they checked the site very thoroughly within a day...--Youngpossum (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been looking at the actual contribution histories of the accounts described above as "Spammers". For example, the very first one 131.111.141.97 (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) is clearly an occasional editor of Wikipedia articles about literary figures. One link on Jan 25, reverted Apr 1. 2 edits to TS Eliot in March. 3 informative edits to Will Self and 2 to Hanif Kereishi on Apr 14 based on material in the Literateur, all reverted. It seems to me circular reasoning to declare that all links to literateur.com are promotional spam so anybody who wants to use information from it must therefore be a spammer. Here is another from the list of "spammers" 79.68.196.107 (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), who on April 2 made 2 constructive edits to Stanley Wells, one adding a new publication and the other linking to Wells' interview at Literateur.com. In my opinion, such editing is not somebody spamming for Literateur, it is somebody adding information about Stanley Wells.

There has also been ongoing discussion at Talk:James_S._Shapiro#literateur, where several different editors have urged the inclusion of a link to the Literateur interview. I do not see why non-spammer editors who think a source is useful should be blocked from using it just because "spammers" linked to it in the past. Questionic (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questionic, WP:REFSPAM is currently a serious issue. You see the IPs, you see the edits, and loose from each other, there seems nothing wrong. Let me be clear, A. B. above suggests to do an SPI, and I think it is warranted. These are likely all the same editor, or a closely related group of editors, and Daneltro does strongly seem to be the one which has a conflict of interest here. And YoungPossum seems to acknowledge he has a conflict of interest. This is an editor (or a related group of editors), who, albeit probably or maybe in good faith (though they could have known better!), 'spams' (in Wikipedia terms) their domain. You are right, these links may certainly be useful here and there, and I acknowledge your knowledge about that, but your remark here clearly shows that you do not have the experience in spotting what is going on. Nonetheless, I agree with A. B. that this is very likely a campaign-like action, where owners of the site were using multiple accounts and IPs to add their links. Links were removed and re-added without discussion. And since they use multiple accounts and IPs (an other IP is easy to get!) over a long period of time, blocking would not have helped (XLinkBot might have a bit, true). Since page protection would not help either (it is multiple pages!) blacklisting gets very close to the final measure (especially if there are then accounts adding the links just as external links. We are still not a linkfarm or an internet directory, and though it may be of interest here and there, I do not think that all the additions pass WP:EL). I could work this out further (YoungPossum here acknowledges that they have a COI. YoungPossum stopped in 2009 after a warning, the IPs continue, the IPs all seem related, Daneltro is another likely COI account, also likely related. There is hardly any use by non-involved editors over a period spanning more than a year, is it really a useful link?). I am sorry, I am here for a long time, this rings a lot of spam-bells in my case. The people involved in Literateur have been very careless, and got their links blacklisted, while they were warned early on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking closer I think that WP:DUCK applies (except for Daneltro, likely another editor, but still a likely conflict of interest). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of ducks in the world, and a few platypuses. Many useful contributions to Wikipedia content are made by new people. These new people may not have a wide range of interests and expertise, they may not have an overall desire to edit Wikipedia articles. My own first edits were made from an IP, weren't yours? Very likely some of my early edits were made from different IPs as I moved from home to office to web cafe. This does not make them SPAs or spammers. The two listed "spammers" with user accounts made no effort to trick us into imagining they were not affiliated with Literateur. There is a difference between a person who is enthusiastic about a new literary magazine and somebody who spams us on behalf of flashing adpages or malware. Here are two "real" Wikipedians who did try to add links to Literateur: Xover [9] and John Foxe [10]. Questionic (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you were going to say that. No, Questionic. The problem is worse. And those are reverts, not separate insertions. They did not use the site without having seen the edit before, they did not come with the resource themselves, they did not pick it up somewhere else and found a separate addition. I said, I have been around spamming a long time. If I say it is a case of WP:DUCK, then expect that I did my research, as I expect that Mr. Ollie and A. B. did. The IPs are in two closely related geographical areas (not just all over the world, so that they are completely independent editors). But see diff vs. diff. Two completely different IPs, being 2 months apart, doing edits which are adding the same content with just slightly different wording, then we have diff by a third IP range, clearly pushing the insert. Then another IP just adds it as an external link in diff, and diff by YoungPossum (almost two weeks later, this is the only mainspace edit in over 2 weeks .. how did they know that the link here was deleted (OK, maybe looking at Mr. Ollies edits, still it is searching)?) to show they are all really related. Oh wait, in between, this IP identifies himself as YoungPossum, which is clearly in the ranges that we are discussing here (note the "You're not actually listening to me are you? I have stopped. You just insist on deleting any link to The Literateur made by people other than me!." by 88.224.220.88, and the reversions of removals by 'other' adders by Special:Contributions/88.224.220.88). By the way, this recent set of edits is by another range. Now, the 88-range is in a different country, but still by an editor who says he is involved in Literateur (YoungPossum). The others are all close, geographically and in type of edits, and clearly spamming. But then we go on. See here, on the 16th of March, where YoungPossum notices that the poem is with a dash inbetween .. strikingly, on the very same day, 'someone else' had repaired that on a completely other article .. I've been along spammers a long time, I do not believe in coincidence. But well. We always have diff and diff, or diff and diff, or even aggresively do this. All unrelated, you say, and still in good faith?? The info was contested, maybe for the wrong reason, but pushing it does not help, discussing - something that they knew how to do - would have been the way forward, not defending other spammers, and saying you yourself are not doing anything wrong. Maybe it was not YoungPossum doing all the insertions, the other editors (which do seem clearly involved as well!) did on themselves already do enough harm to make it suitable for blacklisting. This is a campaign, and I think YoungPossums defence should be here. Feel like filing an WP:SPI to see whether these groups of editors are really independent, or whether this is really a spam campaign? I am sorry that I had now to post all this here, I think this does not shed a good light on the people who have added the link .. Law_of_Unintended_Consequences. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a spam campaign that needs to be stopped by a blacklist, it is curious that for two weeks after the blacklisting nobody in the hypothetical cabal knew it -- until I tried to add a link on August 24 and raised the issue at WP:EL/N. I have no affiliation with Literateur and don't know a soul involved with it, but I feel these people have already been punished enough. At this point, allowing a new source of literary arcana to be accessed by Wikepedians benefits our encyclopedia more than would a perpetual block. Questionic (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questionic, of course editors run sometimes into documentation on sites which are blacklisted, but nonetheless are useful. That is where the whitelist is useful. But the accounts above are all related, I would guess they are one person (it might be 2, but if it are 2, they are very closely related and they know of each others actions). I have run into bloody good sites, highly respected organisations, where the site owners spam, really, plainly spam their site, only link to promote their site, in full and complete disregard of our inclusion policies and guidelines (people spam to earn money, spamming is not just a form of vandalism!). This site is not one of those sites, it is (may be?) of use left and right, but all the accounts listed above have been here for only one goal, getting their sites linked on Wikipedia in the hope for more traffic to their site. You say, that it is curious that nobody in the cabal (nothing ' hypothetical' about it; really, I don't need the checkuser here, I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion: plain sock/meat puppetry) knew it. Well, they edit very sporadically, there are sometimes months between additions. It does not need to be high speed, maybe they really laid low for 2 weeks, maybe they did not how to proceed. I am with you that I hope they understand the situation, and that any further promotional edits, inappropriate linking etc., by editors involved with this site may have extreme effects. They may have done more of a disservice to their site by these actions than they realise. I did not link to the Law of Unintended Consequences for nothing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that there were efforts to add links despite Wikipedia policies to the contrary. Those efforts were inappropriate and the consequences for them were harsh. But in a world full of people red-hot to read more about Lindsey Lohan's manicure, the folks at Literateur are really on our team, on the side of opening up wider chances for people to become more enlightened and humane. Super-excited about literary figures, modern poetry, and obscure theories on Shakespeare; they give their own time to this in copious measure, and my guess is that they thought our readers should also be made aware of the super-cool information they had gathered and nobody else knew. It may have been site-promoting and COI, but their enthusiasm for those additions was real. Said editors will be more aware of our policies now, let all us regular Wikipedians go back to adding useful stuff to articles with occasional admonishments when they are needed. I don't think any further blacklist will be required here. Questionic (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, Questionic, but they were warned early on to follow policies and guidelines (in 2009), and in stead of reacting to concerns (especially when their links go re-removed and re-removed), they persisted. But I agree with what you say further, lets close this discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

leawo.com

The spamming just goes on and on. The spammer now uses a new IP address every time, so blocking the user would not help, and it is also not a case for the sockpuppet investigations. So please add leawo.com to the blacklist.—J. M. (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pickegg.com

pickegg.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

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

decorationpoint.com

decorationpoint.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

Continual spamming by IPs at Cuckoo clock, Beer stein, Weather house; here are a few examples:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianhe (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 September 2010

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

soo.co.in

Accounts
Simple spamming over three years. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

daveglenn.com/2010/08/20/butt-karma.aspx

These socks have been attempting to add this link as per here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Junepar65/ArchiveDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James. 20 of the sockpuppets were created over a 3 week period to target a number of articles. I am a bit concerned at the determination of this editor and I think that the link needs to be black listed. I am not sure how to edit REGEX or to go about adding a link to the list.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
daveglenn.com/2010/08/20/butt-karma.aspx: 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
Added {{LinkSummary}} for reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

securityking.com

Accounts
Aggressive spamming on Card printer and Dye-sublimation printer. Has racked up lots of warnings and blocks, but just keeps rotating IPs. Has spammed securityking a lot, bestcardprinter a few times. Judging by the whois records for the other two, smartcardking seems to be another URL for the same company and we'll likely see that one soon. - MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tellynagari.com

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vardh.com

vardh.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.vardh.com

Site consists primarily of advertising—more than 80% on most pages. Non-advertisement content is of poor quality (aggregation of un-cited quotations) or readily available elsewhere (public domain literature). I have reverted links from multiple articles here and at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined … for now. I agree these are not links we want but I'm declining this request because the IPs have not received enough warnings. There are rumours some non-Wikimedia sites use this blacklist in programming their own link filters, so we try to avoid blacklisting domains if simple spam warnings will discourage site-owners from spamming us.
Since these links have been spammed to another Wikimedia project (Wikiquote), if the spamming continues, the link should be blacklisted not here but on the Metawiki's global blacklist. (That blacklist is definitely used by 1000s of non-Wikimedia sites for spam-filtering).
I've gone ahead and given these IPs warnings here and on Wikiquote. Thanks for catching this; if you see any more, please leave me note on my talk page and I'll get the domain blacklisted on Metawiki.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

karomasti.com

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 05:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

searchandhra.com

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 02:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

leimo.com

Spammers

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Aug 1#Leimo Laser comb. MER-C 06:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

natural-weightloss-energy.com

Related domains:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sweepsplay.com

prior spam reports
accounts

Ongoing abuse for over a year by SPA accounts, continuing again today despite multiple warnings and discussions with other editors. At this point, enough is enough - the site has no encyclopedic value and the demonstrated ongoing abuse of promoting the site on Wikipedia demonstrates a persistent individual who does not wish to abide by site content policies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

axetue.blogspot.com

  • Note the prior warnings, now deleted[11]

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals

OoCities.com / OoCities.org

OoCities is a web archive, which is a helpful source to turn dead geocities links into working ones It was considered spam because oocities is ad-financed and there are alternatives (archive.org and webcitation.org) But it is stil helpful because many sites are only to be found there.

Yet, fortunately OoCities reacted and stated on their FAQ: "As of Sebtember 13. OoCities is free of ads for all visitors who are directed to us by Wikipedia to meet consensus with Wikipedia's regulations and the ad free nature of Wikipedia. Please send any further questions,feedback or suggestions to oocities[at]gmail[dot]com"

OoCities should be removed from the WP blacklist as the reason to put it here is no more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.198.5.172 (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OOcities has removed the ads for Wikipedia inbound links before, and then restored them. After I noted they were back yesterday, they seem to be gone again. So it is not the ideal replacement for archiving geocitiers. WP:Webcite says it has a complete archive of Geocities pages used by Wikipedia. And it is much faster than the Wayback Machine. But it does not convert internal links. For example, the first external link, at the top, of this article goes to a splash page, archived in oocities. Then from there you can click to the whole archived site. But if we use WP:Webcite, we get this instead. The internal links beyond the splash page do not work, because they are "geocities.com". That is the only problem with WP:Webcite.
I thought about posting to here to request some exceptions to the Blacklist, such as this case, but I'm still not sure. The many issues about oocities (linkspam, copyvio, verified policy on making changes to the archive, etc.), can be found here:
OoCities has yet first stated on their Page to have succesfully removed all ads, there is no reason to disthrust them.
Pityfully Webcitation did only get very few sites, http://www.geocities.com/vwtyp181/181_1-1.htm and most others are not available there, but they are at oocities
The discussion you talk about was about the behaviour of the user Updaterhelper who updated many links in an unkonventional way. but this does not make the Archive itself any bad,
it has to be taken off the blacklist so that people can make use of it, everywhere where it actually makes sense to them --79.198.4.205 (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oocities.com is a commercial website that benefits from Wikipedia traffic whether or not they show our readers their ads. There are many places besides oocities.com with archived material from Geocities.com. The thousands of spamlinks to oocities.com introduced just a month or so ago included many ad-filled pages saying they did not have the material at oocities but a clickthrough to archive.org might find it. Questionic (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You link estimates the page currently gets 4% of their visitors from wikipedia. How is that a reason to blacklist it? Yet ad free flawnless archive pages can not rightfully be considered spam. --79.198.4.205 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on blacklist, agree. I am working on a lot of oocities cleanup and have only found a very few where it would be helpful. I use Webcite and Wayback to replace it. It is definitely commercial and playing with the ads. Some of its pages are now showing up on the first page of Google results. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on blacklist. The last time we were told ads would be removed for Wikipedia, they weren't. I was easily able to find many examples of pages still carrying those ads, even though I followed all links from Wikipedia. Too, while Updatehelper's behavior launched the discussion, there was strong support for the blacklist at AN during that conversation on the basis of copyright concerns, accuracy concerns and commercial interest. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from Blacklist:: The OoCities Archive itself gave no reason to distrust it. it stated to disable ads for the first time on 13 September The page clearly indentifies itself as a non commercial community driven effort which needs some ads to pay their hosting but (without any proven doubt) willing not to show ads to Wikipedia visitors There is no more reason not to make use of its service as much as for other archives as archive.org, webcitation.org, reocities.com, geocities.ws which are constantly used to update geocities.com links. Oocities.com is yet the most complete one archive. http://www.google.de/search?q=site%3Aoocities.com+oocities.com [8.8 Million results] Especially for those pages which are to be find at OoCities only people will need to use their Links. --79.198.4.205 (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep on blacklist. Apologies if this messes up your business model, but your actions have been dishonest in the past, so there seems to be plenty reason to 'distrust' them. You've changed the appearance of your ads to suit the current discussions, and you've even placed ads on redirects to other archives after changing the wikilinks to your site. I'm sorry, but I have yet to stumble across a good reason to link to your site. Most of the geocities links are crap, the rest are either in new author-supported locations, or covered by reputable archives. Kuru (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet all appointments against the OoCities archive are based on the same preconceived impression by advertisments which were shown in the past. Since the archive clearly decided to remove thos advertisments permanently these reason is gone. Please make some uninvolved persons look up the issue instead of posting the same complaint several times. Please make your own Impressions to see if the Archive itself acts liable and permantly and sticks to its terms. Please give your vote not before you are able to make it up applying more to the present state than to the past one. — 79.198.4.205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Speaking of uninvolved, it seems curious that both the IPs that have weighed in here (including this one, which has "voted" twice) are from Nuernberg Germany. Please be careful not to suggest greater support for a position than exists, as this is a problem under our sock puppetry policy. If you are not the same person, coordinating activities outside of Wikipedia is also problematic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice;) But as its not a similar ip but exactly my IP this can hardly be an attemped to look like two persons, please dont make false conclusions. --79.198.4.205 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about " 79.198.5.172", which left the first comment above and is not exactly "79.198.4.205", but which is from Nuernberg Germany, just as your IP. These are both the IPs that have weighed in here. If you are the same person, you should log in and use your registered account for clarity. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More on the question of "uninvolved", 79.198.25.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also from Neurnberg Germany. This IP's edits to Wikipedia make clear that he or she is User:Oocities: note the "we" here and the affixing of this signature. User:Oocities, would, of course, be the same person who created User:Updatehelper (see [12]), whom you refer to here as "the user Updaterhelper", whose dedication to adding this link to Wikipedia went so far that after writing "i definately agree not to change any more links" at 19:43 14 August 2010, he changed nine of them less than 24 hours later. There does seem to be strong involvement here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i did nowhere claim to have no idea about the issue, i said the site first stated to removed ads in sebtember, which is a fact. id rather wonder what is your involvment? your reasoning makes no point against the site, to claim one in 5.000 edits out of a timeframe, made by a user representing this site, appears like nitpicking —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.198.4.113 (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, then, you are User:Updatehelper attempting once more to add links to your site. My involvement: I am a passionate contributor to Wikipedia for 3 1/2 years, an administrator who has given more hours than I could easily calculate to improving the project. I object to links that are not good for the project. If you are truly disinterested in this website and only want to help the project, why not put your efforts into updating deadlinks by using websites that are not blacklisted, like archive.org? Your persistence in this line in spite of all the objections you've received suggests that you may rather be more interested in Oocities' goals than Wikipedia's. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on blacklist as the strong motivation of someone(s) to increase traffic to Oocities from Wikipedia created hours of extra work for editors in the past and could easily do so again if the ban is lifted. If there are individual pages in oocities that cannot be found elsewhere, Wikipedia has a "whitelisting" option available. Questionic (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#User: Updatehelper Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive216#Bot making hundreds of links to oocities.com.2C when links to Archive.org would be better
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
 Denied MER-C 13:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pantheon.org

Following a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, Encyclopedia Mythica was recently blacklisted. The premise of the argument for blacklisting was that the site contains gross misinformation, and pantheon.org/articles/e/eisa.html is cited as containing "total nonsense". As a result of the discussion, a bot was configured to purge references to the cite from our articles, and at least three AfDs were initiated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perendi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prende, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verbti.

Now, I am certainly not an expert in this area, but there does not appear to be any objective evidence to support any of these actions. The content of Encyclopedia Mythica's article on Eisa is echoed by a fair number of books, one dating back as far as 1895. The nominator did mention that we once propagated deliberate falsehoods from the site, but no verifiable examples of such were cited. Unless empirical information to support these actions can be found, I move that we delist the site and attempt damage control of related bot activity.   — C M B J   21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some entries on that site may be semi-correct doesn't of course mean it's a reliable source. They don't document their own sources in any way. As for the "Eisa" entry, I don't know what the person who made that judgment thought about it, but I can see at least one potential serious error: referring to Loki's "second wife" (according to other sources, there are two distinct traditions mentioning a different name of a wife each (along with different genealogies of Loki himself), but not a single tradition mentioning a sequence of Loki having two wives in succession). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And their entry on "Prende" (pantheon.org/articles/p/prende.html) certainly is a lot of nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far, everything contained in the Encyclopedia Mythica's entries on Eisa and Prende has been echoed by multiple independent sources. Again, administrative action must be justified by empirical evidence, and every claim that this site is less than reliable remains unverifiable.   — C M B J   22:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be bothered to point out all the contradictions between these sources above – only, for instance, that a "second wife" isn't the same as a "first wife", and 26 July isn't always a Friday. But in any case: to prove that this isn't a reliable source, we don't even need any particular errors. It's technically unreliable simply because it fails the criteria of academic standing, editorial review and documentation demanded by WP:RS. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Friday detail is not really relevant to this discussion since it isn't mentioned in the Encyclopedia Mythica entry, but even if it was, that would not be evidence of an error; it is entirely reasonable that a weekly pagan tradition would differ from (or perhaps coexist with) an annual Catholic day of feast. I have re-read the aforementioned Encyclopedia Mythica articles about four times each now, yet "second wife" is nowhere to be found. Are you perhaps mistaking one of the books for this site?   — C M B J   09:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this ad-supported website is an unreliable source cannot be overstated, and it is guilty of pumping misinformation all over the internet. The site is the bane of mythology articles on Wikipedia and, as we're usually one of the first Google hits on any given subject, we are doing the internet a service by maintaining a ban on this site. Just as an example, there is absolutely no source for any other wife of Loki outside of Sigyn (Angrboða is attested as simply mothering three children by him) and, further, there is no source for Loki having a daughter outside of Hel (who is attested as one of the three children mothered by Angrboða). Where then does this information stem from? It seems that someone has equated Loki with Logi, and that they've just ran with it (Glut is an anglicized form of Glöð) and presented it to the world as fact.
A Google Books search turns up that this anglicization used in this manner appears in at least one of H. A. Guerber's (died 1929) works about Norse mythology (for example: [13]), where she is clearly combining heavy moralizing with fast and free treatment of attestations. Presumably, "Encyclopedia Mythica" got a hold of one of these works, took it at face value, and half-assedly slapped it up on their website, where it has been bouncing around ever since (and even spreading to recent non-scholarly publications, as Google Books indicates).
In matters Norse, this is hardly the only example where "Encyclopedia Mythica" churns out misinformation for advertising dollars, in fact it gets much worse—they presents figures by the names of "Brono" (no reference provided—no Google Books hits), "Geirrendour" (where their article presents the theory that the Mothers of Heimdall and Daughters of Ægir are the same figures as simple fact), "Glaur" (no reference provided), and "Laga" (???) as deities in Norse mythology, whereas they seem to have similarly come from some other dubious source or, in cases like Brono and Laga, may have been derived from who knows where. They are certainly not found in Old Norse sources, as a quick look in the major Germanic mythology handbooks (Rudolf Simek, John Lindow, Andy Orchard) will indicate. On top of that, they present the Nordic Baroque and Rococo creations of Astrild ("In Norse mythology, Astrild is the goddess of love"—!) and Jofur (apparently removed) as Norse deities.
However, these facts, at the very least, shows some serious confusion on the part of "Encyclopedia Mythica", and well illustrates how unreliable a source it is. Of course, this is ignoring how poor the quality is in the entries for figures who actually are attested. Every effort needs to be made to keep this terrible site blacklisted. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read these discussions, and I think the answer is simple:  Defer to Whitelist. If you have specific links, from which specific information can be used following our policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:RS, etc.), then those links can be whitelisted (if on the whitelist a plethora of pages is whitelisted then maybe we could reconsider this). CMBJ, it seems above that you prove reliability of this site here by using other sources .. are those other sources then not by definition the ones you should use here on wikipedia .. obviously, there seems to be misinformation mixed in with the correct information (if I have a document that says that grass is green stuff, that grows on the inside of my office windows, drinks beer for lunch and can't swim, then obviously, it is right in saying that grass is green .. but the rest of the document is completely unverifiable, and I would even have to find another source to show that grass is actually green ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fredlwm.iblogger.org

fredlwm.iblogger.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

I'm requesting a whitelisting of this specific subdomain of iblogger.org for use as an additional External link on Lynx (web browser). The site is maintained by Frédéric L. W. Meunier, and is linked to from the Lynx homepage (see http://lynx.isc.org/current/#other, under DOS/Win32. The second link, http://www.pervalidus.net/cygwin/lynx/, which is maintained by Mr. Meunier, redirects to the iblogger.org site.). This site is one of only two places I could find current stable releases of Win32 ports of the Lynx browser. The parent domain was blocked in December of 2008 (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist/Log/2008#December_2008) by Mike.lifeguard, after freewebtown.com was requested to be blacklisted on Dec. 5, 2008. It was included in a list of 117 domains with this explanation: "In addition, the following 117 domains are involved (after removing anything even remotely legitimate)". Thanks. Earthsound (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh .. this is the spam blacklist, basically,  Defer to Whitelist. I fail however to see how this would pass WP:EL, we are not an internet directory, and this does not exactly add a lot of non-includable information, except for a bit of a manual and the download links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

iwawaterwiki.org

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.15.93 (talk • contribs)

Why? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following my editing a series of articles on water, wastewater and environmental science subjects, the iwawaterwiki was backlisted. The premise of the argument for backlisting was that More than 66% of the placing and addition of this link was performed by one editor. As a result of these additions, a bot was configured to prevent the addition of more links to the iwawaterwiki.org.
In order to explain these activities, I would like to introduce myself as the IWA WaterWiki Community Manager. The iwawaterwiki.org is an online resource aimed at the global water community. We have articles on all areas of water, wastewater and environmental science. Many of these articles are linked to related articles on Wikipedia, directing our users to useful content on the site. We wanted to create similar links on Wikipedia, so that people reading your articles can access related articles on the iwawaterwiki.org. We intend to target only those articles related to areas of water, wastewater and environmental science and will only be including links to useful content on our site. In summary, the reason why more than 66% of the placing and addition of this link was performed by one editor is that, as the IWA WaterWiki community manager, I am responsible for establishing links and disseminating our articles to the wider global water community.
The addition of links to the iwawaterwiki.org on Wikipedia is in keeping with the Attributution Share-ALike policy of Wiki sites. In order to develop both of our resources, I would hope that the iwawaterwiki.org can be removed from the Wikipedia Blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.15.93 (talk • contribs)
Hmm. Wel, first I would like you to read this guideline. And then you should really consider to read the warnings on you talkpage, which gave you enough time to realise that your links were not appropriate for wikipedia (the specific policies and guidelines are still linked from your talkpage). Since you still believe that your links should be here on wikipedia, and that you clearly don't understand why Wikipedia blocked your links, I am going to mark this discussion as no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


lmgtfy.com

This is not a spam link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.75.50 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not blacklisted here, but at the meta blacklist. You would want to request removal there instead. However, I'll save you some time: this site is not a useful link on its own, and it can be used to work around the blacklisting of other links, so it will not be removed from the blacklist. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

literateur.com (removal request)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This site was blacklisted without notice or discussion by MrOllie following an editing dispute with him. I would like to point out that I have not added any links to literateur.com since I was first told about the COI rule. The only thing I have done is to undo his deletion of a link to the site made by someone else. I cannot be held responsible for other people adding links to it. I would also like to refer you to the External links noticeboard where I have explained the matter in more detail and there has been a response that suggests that the link is relevant, useful and that this blacklisting is an overreaction. I request that the site be taken off the blacklist. Let me point out that the magazine is not a 'fan page' for it has many articles, interviews, reviews, stories etc. It is not a 'personal blog' because it has at least fifty contributors. It also has interviews with Pulitzer prize winning poet Paul Muldoon, two leading academics who were knighted for their services to literature, the famous and award winning writers Will Self and Hanif Kureishi and former Poet Laureate Andrew Motion. It has published two new poems by Simon Armitage whose poems are on the GCSE syllabus. It regularly gets review copies from leading publishers including Penguin, Faber, Little Brown. It has connections with organisations funded by the Arts Council. In short it is a bank of literary information and to blacklist it counteracts Wikipedia's drive to provide useful information. Let me repeat that I have NOT added any links to it since the first warning when I was a newbie naively thinking that if it's relevant, it's ok. I won't add any in the future without at least proposing it first in a discussion page. I request the site's removal from the blacklist.--Youngpossum (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid spitting the discussion, please discuss removal for now in the section above where the addition is discussed. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second the removal request. The discussion above seems to be getting little attention except from the person who proposed blacklisting and the person who did the blacklisting. Not one of the people accused of being a spammer was notified that their actions were being discussed here, nor were they given any opportunity to present their side of the case. This blacklisting was extremely premature, and it should be undone long enough for some consideration by uninvolved editors. Just to clarify, I am not among those accused of spamming, and I have no connection to the site in question aside from having seen an "External Links" discussion on a page where I was taking part in discussion of another topic. Questionic (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request is redundant and moot. MER-C 08:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

mynipples.org (removal request)

This is not a spam link. The site is entirely about Nipples and Nipples Health. Why is this even tagged as spam? I only had one link I put on the Nipple page. You don't want me to put my link on it. Alright, I understand it, but why did you flagged this as spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.187.101.12 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does this help the encyclopedia? MER-C 06:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are a) not a linkfarm, b) you were pushing that link, while it got removed over and over, without discussion and while being warned, and c) as MER-C notes here, that type of edits is against our policies and guidelines. The behaviour you showed when adding that link, is here defined as spamming, and this request is hence no Declined.

As a specialist on the subjects, maybe you could actually help out with the articles without promoting your site? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.pidolphin.com

May i ask the reason why you blocking web sites (www.pidolphin.com) which provides free advanced financial calculator in many asset classes ? There are many external links in many wiki pages which is not blocked or verified. PiDolhin is purely an educational web site based on financial engineering text books. It is unfair to be blocked. I am sure many financial engineering students will use www.pidoplhin.com when they study financial (derivatives) theorems. regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.36 (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. This domain was repeatedly added and removed, without discussion. Then User:XLinkBot reverted the link for some time, resulting in a handful of warnings to the editors, still without significant discussion. Blacklisting is then the last option. I am sure, that when those financial engineering students will be interested in the use of an advanced financial calculator, that they will go to google. If they need to know what financial engineering is, they will go to Wikipedia. removal: no Declined --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk: I don't agree with your decision but thanks for your time and consideration. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.36 (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchanaburi-info.com (removal request)

kanchanaburi-info.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

I'm not sure why this domain is blacklisted. Kanchanaburi-info.com is an on-line destination guide to Thailand's Kanchanaburi province in English & German language and offers up-to-date information for tourists visiting this province. Such as bus & train timetable, sights with current entrance fees, calendar of events etc. which could be useful to visitors of wikipedia & wikitravel.

I would like to ask you kindly to review my website and remove it from your blacklist.

Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.41.50.182 (talk • contribs)

The problem is, we are not an internet directory for destinations. The link was (aggressively) added to several articles, and the link is in violation of our policies and guidelines. Hence, no Declined. (by the way, it is globally blacklisted on m:Spam blacklist, not here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com

This turned up on the blacklist. As best I can determine, this is a consortium of local newspapers (some of them major newspapers) in the United States that share the name "Examiner"--which would normally be considered an ideal, proper source for the articles on Wikipedia. So why would this site be blacklisted? I think it should be removed. Trackinfo (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, you are wrong. Examiner.com is a site where users can become a member (practically without any form of scrutiny), and create documents. When then readers are accessing these documents, a revenue is paid to the writer (and that goes for every time someone even only visits the document!). That is a huge spam incentive, and examiner.com was spammed for that reason (editors even blatantly requested whitelisting for just that reason, so they could link it here and get the money). Moreover, examiner.com deliberately tries to confuse their site with newspapers with a similar name (I think Baltimore Examiner is one of them), and the site owners themselves were also spamming the site. As there is no editorial oversight, it does (generally) not qualify as a reliable source anyway (and for those documents which are I would suggest to  Defer to Whitelist), and one should be careful for scraped content, and content which is available elsewhere as well (as I said, it is an easy way to make money, so why not scrape the content and make money with it). More information can be found by following the 'tracking' link in the above linksummary. As such, delisting no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CafePress (removal request)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am respectfully requesting a reconsideration of the blacklisting of cafepress.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 and am ultimately requesting that it be removed from the blacklist for the reasons outlined below. I have included the reason for the blacklisting including a link to the initial blacklisting explanation, the reasons it is not necessary anymore and the link summary reference to the domain.

(1) It seems that with this blacklisting a significant amount of content that could contain relevant information or be useful to Wikipedia site visitors or those looking for information is now inaccessible. Therefore the blacklisting of the entire CafePress site save for one page seems overly excessive, controversial and in some cases detrimental to the spirit of Wikipedia and to its position as a relevant resource to the internet as it exists today and as it will evolve.

(A.) One example of a piece of content that exists on the CafePress site which may be useful to Wikipedia site visitors includes the content at this sub domain http://blog. Within the following folders and at the following page: /2010/08/09/pillow-fights-in-the-sky-paella-and-a-gaga-crowd-surfing/ It’s silly that I have to reference the URL that way, but necessary due to the blacklisting. It is also a hassle for me to list the page that way and for anyone who wants to view the page to visit that page when it is listed that way. In any regard the post contains useful information which may be used as a citation in some Wikipedia articles and contains relevant information but is not promotional.

(B.) Other areas where CafePress may serve as a viable reference could include (a.) the tags page or (b.) the XML site map which may serve as references in technical articles that delve into subjects as specific as mega site maps where a link to an example of what a site map looks like on a live domain may improve the comprehension level of those trying to understand the article or as general as a section of an article on websites talking about how large websites make content accessible.

(C.) Additional sections of the site that can serve as valuable resources which can be used as citations in Wikipedia articles while not violating any of Wikipedia’s terms may include some of the pages in some or all of these sections of the site:

(a.) The press release section, (b.) the cultural barometer, (c.) the historical time line, (d.) the team section and a multitude of other sections which would require an extensive amount of time to list. Much of the content on these pages cannot be added to Wikipedia articles where they may be relevant. Due to reasons defined by Wikipedia including copyright and lengthy amount of detail the text on these pages cannot be added directly to articles and therefore should be referenced as sources or links per the Wikipedia external linking policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL . However these links cannot be added due to the blacklisting and therefore all of the articles that would benefit from these inclusions or for sourcing are weaker, less accurate and less relevant resources than they could be as a direct result of the blacklisting.

(2) Additionally in the What Should Be Linked section of the Wikipedia external linking policy page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL it states that an article about a book or some other type of media should be linked to a site hosting a copy of the work. Since CafePress is the only source that hosts copies of certain books and certain media published through CafePress, it should definitively be linked to according to that statement. Many of the pages mentioned above also fit within point number 3 in the What Should Be Linked section of the external link policy page of Wikipedia.

(3) The purposes mentioned above for including these types of links would fall outside any of the purposes listed in the Links normally to be avoided section of the External Linking Policy page, reasons listed on the SPAM page, external link spamming page, what Wikipedia is not page and specific sections within those pages that were listed in the original blacklisting.

(4) CafePress is an extremely prevalent part of today’s internet culture with a top 500 U.S. Alexa ranking and a top 1500 overall Alexa ranking according to http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/CafePress.com (according to the data on the day I am posting this). Therefore the potential for ground breaking changes, technology, information, media or news relevant to the CafePress domain which may need referenced is extreme and therefore warrants the ability to be referenced.

(5) At the time the site was added to the blacklist, it was questioned as a controversial decision. Not only is this blacklisting extreme and somewhat detrimental to the overall quality of Wikipedia as an informational reference, it is also likely unnecessary at this point in time.

(6) It appears the only links that the argument for a blacklisting of CafePress specially refer to or that were said to have violated the spam policy several years ago when this blacklisting was made are affiliate links. Specifically the complaint which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=208339685#Cafepress is due the fact that affiliates were adding their links to Wikipedia for the purpose of sales. Affiliate links within CafePress can easily be blocked from Wikipedia to prevent this problem from occurring as detailed in possible solution 1. Additionally, this problem will likely not occur now due to the evolution of internet culture as outlined in possible solution 3. The good, relevant or useful content on the domain does not belong on the Wikipedia blacklist.

(7) Therefore I would propose one of several solutions to allow Wikipedia and its site visitors to benefit from content that could be useful within CafePress but to avoid the small section of the site that fits the complaint. Possibly consider one of these resolutions:

1. Including only affiliate pages on CafePress within the Wikipedia blacklist This is probably the most logical and apt solution as those are the only pages that have been mentioned in the argument for the blacklisting. Since the URLs of all of these pages contain a common character that the pages which I’ve mentioned would serve as relevant resources do not contain (the ? character), all pages containing a ? on CafePress could be blacklisted while other pages would not be on the list. This could be done with use of a script.

2. Extensive white listing of pages within CafePress that could serve as relevant sources or all pages outside the affiliate section. This would have the same effect as possibility 1 but would be a far more manual process.

3. Provisionally removing CafePress from the blacklist. The blacklisting was implemented over 2 years ago. The Wikipedia site, the CafePress site and the communities associated with each site have evolved significantly in that time period. Therefore, there would likely be no issue at this point in time if CafePress were not on the Wikipedia blacklist. Therefore, removing CafePress entirely from the blacklist may at this time be a viable option.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebTech02 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 1 September 2010

  • This would be an appropriate matter to  Defer to Whitelist. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your connection to CafePress? Can you point to a single page on CafePress that might be used as a reliable source for any article on Wikipedia? The only possible link I could imagine being needed is one link to the official website on the CafePress article. Above, you've made a lot of spurious arguments, such as Alexa rankings. I'm not too inclined to read your wall of text. Jehochman Talk 12:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

INTIMA Official Website

intima.intimal.co.cc: 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 My university official student government website turned up on the blacklist. Actually, I can get it, it is because we using co.cc domain. But, I can ensure you this site is highly maintained and information is always qualified which would be considerable ideal to put at a qualified link as intima.intimal.co.cc. The official website didn't have any ads and just information regarding what is the student government acting currently and upcoming news or events. I think it should be removed.

Thanks in advanced.

The domain .co.cc is on the blacklist due to its disproportionate use for URL redirection and this blacklisting is not likely to be reconsidered. I recommend you try to get this domain whitelisted. MER-C 11:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tasselnfringe.com

Please Remove my Site from BlackList www.tasselnfringe.com I am not expert and do not know how this work, Once i have listed my site in wiki and they blocked it, Do not know why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honor Cords (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this discussion, tasselnfringe.com and some related sites were heavily spammed, and it doesn't appear that there's anything there that would be of use to Wikipedia. Also, if this is "your site", you are the same person who asked the same question previously. As explained to you back then, we generally don't remove sites from the blacklist at the owner's request, but only if established editors feel that a link would benefit Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
Therefore, no Declined. MER-C 11:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Thornton, Yvonne S. Thornton

Hello. I am writing because I am attempting to place a new site on an American physician notable for a bestselling book in the 1990s that was turned into an award-winning television movie I recently saw. I did some research and found more information supported by references that I believe makes this person noteworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I saw that in October 2006 someone attempted to post a wiki page on this person, which was deleted and subsequently blacklisted; one of the people who made this decision, Altenmann, has since been banned from Wiki for sockpuppetry.

Please reply at your earliest convenience with your decision, and I would be happy to post the entry with the references I have found. Thank you and have a nice day. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC),[reply]

Eh, what domain is this about? If you leave off the http://, you can post the link here without being prohibited to save by the blacklist. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beetstra; the domain I am referring to is the Wiki website for Yvonne Thornton, which I was informed was on the blacklist when I attempted to post my entry with references. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So probably one of the references is on the blacklist. It is difficult to see now which one. If you try and save the text, it will tell you the 'offending' domain, which is the one you need to report here. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beetstra. It worked...thank you so much for your help! Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

elusiva.com

elusiva.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

I am unsure why this site was added to the Wikipedia blacklist, but I can only imagine that it because people were forcefully trying to add links from the website to certain articles back in 2008, and it might have been a violation. Nevertheless, I would request that it be removed from said list. While I am an employee of Elusiva, I am not making this request on their behalf, I am not a member of their marketing department, and I hope to present this case in the most unbiased way I can. Elusiva is a software company which licenses virtualization software to over 30,000 customers and partners. Elusiva software is featured on the websites of several software resellers and there have been press-articles released dedicated to describing the benefits Elusiva software. It seems that the Wikipedia articles regarding Desktop Virtualization and Application Virtualization are both somewhat incomplete without the mention of Elusiva. Additionally, perhaps, in the foreseeable future, an informative article covering Elusiva—itself becoming a well-known technology provider—would be something of interest to the public. I cannot determine whether or not the excessive editing with links to elusiva.com (which indicate some conflict of interest) will ever happen again, but I would argue that it seems to have ceased for some time now. Perhaps, in light of all the above, the site should be removed from the blacklist.TovB (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site is listed on our global blacklist, not this one. Please take your concerns to m:Talk:Spam blacklist. MER-C 11:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

algbiotek.com

Dear wiki-friends, I have spammed my website in external links area and it seems as if it is in blacklist now (probaby locak spirulina blacklist). I have rearranged the external links and now it should be fine. Could someone check it or help me to get my webpage out of spam list? The external links that are present now (the scientific abstracts) on Spirulina topic belong to me also. I have finally found a way to publish scientific documents except of my website. I am not expecting to get hits for that. I would like the information which are scientific, to be published anywhere. True scientific information should be available and for free for everyone. As you may check all the external links, there are no spam. I am a PhD student writing my thesis and publishing some information on my webpage, and try to do the same in wiki pages. please get me on whitelist for spirulina. no more mistakes from me anymore. See external links of spirulina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirulina_%28dietary_supplement%29 Please check this out. algbiotek.com is mine also as Spirunella.com, as well as bioalg.com, mikroalg.com, hawaiian-spirulina.com, spirulina-hawaii.com, hawaiian-spirulina.info, algalogy.com, algaloji.com, spirulinam.com, etc. I JUST WANT TO publish true information in the right way and also it should be OK for the rules. This is just a misunderstanding so please get me on the whitelist.

I would like algbiotek.com and balgbiotek.com and algbiotek.com to be removed from local spirulina and/or general spam blacklist. I have by mistake added external links, and I have spammed this link. I will not spam about external links anymore because I have read the rules of Wiki and now it is clear for me. Now i can no longer post algbiotek.com, even if it is not spam link - a scientific link... i want to clean this thing. I learned the rules are clear and I will try to improve and contribute without any spams in future. Please help me get these links on the whitelist or out of the blacklist. Thanks in advance. Sonerh (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site is listed on our global blacklist, not this one. Please take your concerns to m:Talk:Spam blacklist. MER-C 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CafePress - New Section as requested

This is a follow up to answer the questions asked by Jehochman and is in a new section as requested on the old CafePress section.

Q: What is your connection to CafePress?

A: I don't work at CafePress if that is what you are implying by this question. But this is not the main point we are discussing here. The question is whether or not the site deserves should be removed from the blacklist.


Q: Can you point to a single page on CafePress that might be used as a reliable source for any article on Wikipedia?

A: Yes, if you would take the time to read the several paragraph re-inclusion request then you would find many examples. Overall there are too many pages to list, but here are a couple examples:

Highly pertinent information about the history of the company which should be listed from the CafePress article: cafepress.com/cp/info/about/timeline.aspx

Current event relevant information that could be used as a source in various articles such as one on Lady Gaga: blog.cafepress.com/2010/08/09/pillow-fights-in-the-sky-paella-and-a-gaga-crowd-surfing/

Information about executives relevant to the company which could serve as further information on some of these people: cafepress.com/cp/info/about/team.aspx#fdurham


Statement: The only possible link I could imagine being needed is one link to the official website on the CafePress article.

Answer: Please see above listed pages. There are more pages than I can list, but hopefully those three will give you the generally idea.

Statement: Above, you've made a lot of spurious arguments, such as Alexa rankings.

Answer: Perhaps you are not familiar with how Alexa rankings work. The lower the Alexa ranking, the more traffic and pages views you have. So the site with the most page views should have an Alexa ranking of 1. That is the top Alexa ranking. Now that you know this, you can see that the comments about Alexa rankings are not spurious arguments. In fact there are no spurious arguments in the request to de-blacklist. Please don't make accusations that are not supported by facts.

Statement: I'm not too inclined to read your wall of text. Jehochman Talk 12:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Response: If you won't read the request for removal from the blacklist, can you please at least find someone to read it and respond apropriatley?


I hope that these clarifications move things along in a positive direction.

Please let me know if you have any other questions or please fulfill the request.

WebTech02 (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined We can individually whitelist page for the Cafepress as needed. The "Lady Gaga crowdsurfing" example is not useful to Wikipedia. First of all, it's most likely too trivial to be added to the article, and even if it was, there are scores of other sites to get the same info. It's likely that most additions of this link would be users using Wikipedia trying to hawk their wares; we have enough problems as it is with people attempting to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also support declining the unblock. The pages about cafepress itself could be individually whitelisted for the cafepress article. For the other, blogs are rarely appropriate as external links, and the one presented would also fail as a reliable source. Worse yet, it simply acts as a vehicle to advertise products sold on the cafepress site via the linked key-terms within the blog. If anything, that example pretty solidly reinforces why the site belongs on the blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suite 101

suite101.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 I was editing Interzone (magazine) this morning and was shocked to find Suite 101 blacklisted. Suite 101 is an excellent book and magazine review site and I've never seen them engage in any spam related activities. Their reviews are well respected by authors and readers and are often written by well-known or emerging authors and critics. For example, the article I was attempting to link to from within a reference was written by Colin Harvey, a SF author with a major book just released by one of the biggest SF publishers in the UK and US. I searched through the log but couldn't determine why someone blacklisted this site. I have no connection with Suite 101, aside from regularly reading their SF/F reviews. Thanks for considering this.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suite101.com:
  • Allows anyone to contribute with little editorial oversight (suite101.com/about/how_it_works.cfm)
  • Is essentially self-published
  • Offers its writers financial incentives to increase page views (suite101.com/writer_faq#payperarticle)
no Declined. If you have one or two articles you want to use, you can request to have these whitelisted. MER-C 02:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suite101.com is globally blacklisted on Meta-Wiki due to uncontrollable spamming by Suite101.com authors who were being compensated based on the traffic they could drive to their pages.
Only tiny percentage of their pages meet our requirements for reliable sources and we will whitelist those pages on individual projects if requested by a trusted regular editor. Examples of exceptions we've made:
  • Pages written by notable authors
  • Interviews with notable subjects
  • Some images
If you have a masochistic desire to read the entire history, here are some previous discussions in no particular order:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scout website sfvs.co.cc

If you go to www.sfvs.co.cc you will see that this is not a malicious site. I don't even know why this site is listed as spam. I need this site to be un blocked because it is needed for citations for 1. trail mix and 2. SFVS. So please will you spare a helpful scout from his hardship and unblock this site :( -- Talk Republic of Ireland«««OisinisiO»»»Republic of Ireland Talk 19:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined
The problem is that's not the true website URL. "co.cc" is a website URL shortener and/or free domain service; the URL you listed actually points over to www.wix.com/slievefoyvs/SFVS - which is the true URL for the site.
That said, I question if this site even meets the requirements of being a reliable source, but I don't know the specific subpages you are considering to be able to review in any detail. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

duplicate entries in blacklist

I was doing a scan of the blacklist and came across a handful of entries that are listed twice, and some that are both here and on the global blacklist.

I can remove the duplicates here; but I wanted to ask before removing the entries that are both listed here and on global - to me, it's reasonable to remove the local entry if it's also on global; but wasn't sure if there was a reason for having the entries at both. Also, for those who have access to the global blacklist, I found a handful that are listed multiple times on global. Note in the lists that the entry for \bbestdissertation\.com\b is both listed twice locally and listed on global.

Double on local
\baprilcalendar\.net\b
\bastrocytoma\.org\b
\baugustcalendar\.net\b
\bazotemia\.net\b
\bbestdissertation\.com\b
\bblack-cohosh\.org\b
\bcalendaryear\.net\b
\bcompartmentsyndrome\.net\b
\bcure-tinnitus-guide\.blogspot\.com\b
\bddrsdram\.net\b
\bendstagekidneydisease\.com\b
\bfamilyext\.net\b
\bfinancet\.org\b
\bfinancialdict\.org\b
\bfindchalet\.com\b
\bhonestevivere\.com\b
\bhyperkalemia\.net\b
\binfectiousmononucleosis\.org\b
\blupus-erythematosus\.com\b
\bmodifiedcarphotos\.com\b
\bmotorpix\.com\b
\bnintendo-wii-homebrew-unlock-hack\.blogspot\.com\b
\boctobercalendar\.net\b
\bornithine\.net\b
\bparesthesia\.net\b
\bpatio-covers\.com\b
\bpaudarco\.org\b
\bpernicious-anemia\.net\b
\bradiculopathy\.net\b
\btheubie\.com\b
\bthyroidproblems\.org\b
\bturmericbenefits\.com\b
Both local and global
\bafricacupofnationshighlights\.blogspot\.com\b
\bbestdissertation\.com\b
\bbestessay\.org\b
\bbestessays\.ca\b
\bbestessays\.com\.au\b
\bbesttermpaper\.com\b
\bcountryguidebook\.com\b
\bcustom-essaywriting\.blogspot\.com\b
\bdiscussionshome\.com\b
\belectronicmusicfree\.com\b
\bessaydot\.com\b
\bessayontime\.com\b
\bessaywriters\.net\b
\blifesyrup\.com\b
\bmedicanalife\.com\b
\bmedicanatv\.com\b
\bonline-sport-betting\.org\b
\bpsalmtours\.com\b
\bresearch-service\.com\b
\bresumesplanet\.com\b
\brushessay\.com\b
\bslots-machines-online\.net\b
\bsuperiorpapers\.com\b
\bterm-paper-research\.com\b
\btt-group\.net\b
\bwikipediahatescheerleaders\.blogspot\.com\b
Double on global
\bcatatansiboyiiii\.blogspot\.com\b
\beasyurl\.net\b
\bhuaweie220\.com\b
\bhuaweie220\.net\b
\binmassage\.net\b
\bis\.gd\b
\bresearch-service\.com\b
\bre-shui\.cn\b
\bsuperiorpapers\.com\b
\btr\.im\b
\bvornesitzen\.de\b
\bxr\.com\b
\byy\.vc\b

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
I deleted the double entries at meta. You can do the same here. And you can also delete those local entries that are globally listed. The only disadvantage would be that if - at some time in future - a website get's unblacklisted at meta and should still be blocked in w:en (that's a rare case anyway) then one has to put it manually at en-wiki again. But that should not be a real problem. -- seth (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the entries that were duplicates on the local blacklist (leaving one entry for each item). Will cleanup the items that are both here and on Meta later tonight. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was this finished, Barek? --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I had become busy in the real world and forgot to complete this. By tomorrow, I should have time to do a fresh extract to update the lists, then do a final cleanup of the local blacklist based on the refresh. --- Barek (talk) - 20:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing, I've removed the following entries, which were also listed on the meta global blacklist:
List of entries removed from local blacklist (already listed at meta global blacklist)

  • \bbootsluxury\.com\b
  • \bchristianlouboutinmy\.com\b
  • \bhandbagcom\.com\b
  • \b2010nbajerseys\.com\b
  • \b360yd\.com\b
  • \babercrombieandfitchuk\.com\b
  • \babercrombieandfitchusa\.com\b
  • \babercrombie-usa\.com\b
  • \badidas-kids\.com\b
  • \bafricacupofnationshighlights\.blogspot\.com\b
  • \baf-wholesale\.com\b
  • \banimefreak\.tv\b
  • \bapplicationessay\.net\b
  • \bb2bjersey\.com\b
  • \bbagsclothing\.com\b
  • \bbags-replica\.com\b
  • \bbestessay\.org\b
  • \bbesttermpaper\.com\b
  • \bbt-embroidery\.com\b
  • \bbuild-muscle-tips\.com\b
  • \bc2cjersey\.com\b
  • \bcameramarkets\.com\b
  • \bcasino-spielen\.biz\b
  • \bchangande\.com\.cn\b
  • \bcharmed80048436282250\.webs\.com\b
  • \bchaussures-nike\.org\b
  • \bchina-usb\.cn\b
  • \bchnknot\.com\b
  • \bclothes-wholesales\.com\b
  • \bcountryguidebook\.com\b
  • \bcure-acne-tips\.com\b
  • \bcustom-essaywriting\.blogspot\.com\b
  • \bdifferential-pressure-transmitter\.com\b
  • \bdiscussionshome\.com\b
  • \begsale\.com\b
  • \belectronicmusicfree\.com\b
  • \belectronics-store-china\.com\b
  • \bentrainbow\.com\b
  • \bessaydot\.com\b
  • \bessayontime\.com\b
  • \bessaywriters\.net\b
  • \bfat-loss-secret-tips\.com\b
  • \bfcnzz\.com\b
  • \bfcsgame\.com\b
  • \bgelinsoles\.cn\b
  • \bglobalc2c\.com\b
  • \bgoldspace\.cc\b
  • \bgolfclubs365\.com\b
  • \bheatsinks\.cc\b
  • \bhonnypower\.com\b
  • \bhypnosis-secret-tips\.com\b
  • \bjerseyonsale\.com\b
  • \bjuicyjewelrysale\.com\b
  • \blasercuttingmachine\.cn\b
  • \bleddisplays\.cn\b
  • \blg668\.com\b
  • \blifesyrup\.com\b
  • \blights-china\.com\b
  • \blkkreplicas\.com\b
  • \blose-weight-secret\.com\b
  • \bmaplestorymesos4u\.com\b
  • \bmbtmvp\.com\b
  • \bmetin2yang\.cc\b
  • \bmillennium1000\.net\b
  • \bncpdtoo\.info\b
  • \bnikecoo\.com\b
  • \bok1225\.com\b
  • \boka1225\.com\b
  • \bokaygoods\.com\b
  • \bonline-sport-betting\.org\b
  • \bpaypalgame\.com\b
  • \bposhcraze\.info\b
  • \bpsalmtours\.com\b
  • \bregistry-cleaner-guide\.com\b
  • \brenzeba\.com\b
  • \breplicas8\.com\b
  • \breplicawatchesmart\.com\b
  • \bresearch-service\.com\b
  • \bresumesplanet\.com\b
  • \brushessay\.com\b
  • \bsdhongda\.net\b
  • \bsf39\.com\b
  • \bshoemachine\.cc\b
  • \bshoemkt\.com\b
  • \bshuangdan\.com\b
  • \bslots-machines-online\.net\b
  • \bstop-sweating-tips\.com\b
  • \bstoptinnitustips\.com\b
  • \bsuperiorpapers\.com\b
  • \bteennick80048436282250\.webs\.com\b
  • \bterm-paper-research\.com\b
  • \bthebrandshoes\.com\b
  • \btohongkong\.cn\b
  • \btozc\.net\b
  • \btt-group\.net\b
  • \buggcardy\.org\b
  • \bugglist\.com\b
  • \bviviennejewellery\.co\.uk\b
  • \bwealthyaffiliate\.com\b
  • \bwholesale-cheap\.com\b
  • \bwikipediahatescheerleaders\.blogspot\.com\b
  • \bwriters\.ph\b
  • \byouareanidiot\.org\b
Should I also add this removal to the log?
I also have a refreshed list of entries that are listed multiple times on the global meta blacklist (I don't have admin access over there to remove duplicates myself)
List of entries listed multiple times at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist

  • \bbootsluxury\.com\b
  • \bchristianlouboutinmy\.com\b
  • \bhandbagcom\.com\b
  • \bchristianlouboutinshoessale\.com\b
  • \bherve-leger\.com\b
  • \bhervelegerweb\.com\b
  • \bmbt-shoes-discount\.com\b
  • \bvertuexclusiveshop\.com\b
  • \bvibram-five-finger\.com\b
  • \bvibram-fivefingerss\.com\b
  • \b100bhshoe\.com\b
  • \b102bhshoe\.com\b
  • \b104allbyer\.com\b
  • \b106fashion4biz\.com\b
  • \b108akshoe\.com\b
  • \b109elife\.com\b
  • \b110maidi2008\.com\b
  • \b112batsale\.com\b
  • \b114batsale\.com\b
  • \b116kicksquality\.com\b
  • \b118onseeking\.com\b
  • \b120e2to\.com\b
  • \b122luxuryeasy\.com\b
  • \b124green2style\.com\b
  • \b1268000trade\.com\b
  • \b128chicmalls\.com\b
  • \b129elife\.com\b
  • \b130e4cn\.com\b
  • \b132wanderfulshopping\.com\b
  • \b134bbbshoe\.com\b
  • \b136salesuper\.com\b
  • \b138takeofdream\.com\b
  • \b140newflybuy\.com\b
  • \b142newflybuy\.com\b
  • \b144mesoso\.com\b
  • \b146steezecloth\.com\b
  • \b14wowhotsale\.com\b
  • \b16wowhotsale\.com\b
  • \b18ecartshopping\.biz\b
  • \b20uspopularbiz\.com\b
  • \b22etradinglife\.com\b
  • \b24vipshops\.org\b
  • \b26wowcool\.org\b
  • \b28plzzshop\.com\b
  • \b2fashion-long-4biz\.com\b
  • \b30plzzshop\.com\b
  • \b32goladymall\.com\b
  • \b34coolforsale\.com\b
  • \b36overstockes\.com\b
  • \b38sbbshoe\.com\b
  • \b40vipmalls\.com\b
  • \b42vipmalls\.com\b
  • \b44netetrader\.com\b
  • \b46tqshoes\.com\b
  • \b48tntshoes\.com\b
  • \b4fashion-long-4biz\.com\b
  • \b4uaf\.com\b
  • \b50kogogo\.com\b
  • \b52kogogo\.com\b
  • \b54shopperstrade\.com\b
  • \b56goflywire\.com\b
  • \b58fashion-sell\.com\b
  • \b60shoppingtime\.us\b
  • \b62shoppingtime\.us\b
  • \b64iseeshoe\.com\b
  • \b66foruping\.com\b
  • \b68muyuo\.com\b
  • \b6elivestyle\.com\b
  • \b70seekjersey\.com\b
  • \b72bccloth\.com\b
  • \b74domchisport\.com\b
  • \b76domchisport\.com\b
  • \b78ebuyings\.com\b
  • \b80ebuyings\.com\b
  • \b82elivebuy\.com\b
  • \b84stefsclothes\.com\b
  • \b86itemtolive\.com\b
  • \b88itemtolive\.com\b
  • \b8cheapmaket\.com\b
  • \b90ccshoper\.com\b
  • \b92etootoo\.com\b
  • \b94streetcandy\.org\b
  • \b96minewear\.com\b
  • \b98myyshop\.com\b
  • \baj2u\.com\b
  • \ballspymonitor\.com\b
  • \bbalmainboots\.com\b
  • \bbestsales4u\.com\b
  • \bbestvibram\.com\b
  • \bbootsshop2010\.com\b
  • \bbuyvertureplica\.com\b
  • \bcheap-air-jordan\.cn\b
  • \bchesssoul\.com\b
  • \bchristian4sale\.com\b
  • \bchristianlouboutinmall\.com\b
  • \bchristian-louboutin-sandals\.com\b
  • \bchristianlouboutinshoestore\.com\b
  • \bcircuitocerradotelevision\.com\b
  • \bdensitygs\.com\b
  • \bdensitygs\.info\b
  • \bdunk2u\.com\b
  • \becwarmboots\.com\b
  • \bedhardybazar\.co\.uk\b
  • \be-lv\.net\b
  • \bemoncler\.com\b
  • \beshoppingluxury\.com\b
  • \bfivefingervibram\.com\b
  • \bgetsnet\.com\b
  • \bgodswmobile\.com\b
  • \bgouggs\.com\b
  • \bhardingsoft\.com\b
  • \bhervelegernet\.com\b
  • \bhervelegersale\.com\b
  • \bhiebay\.com\b
  • \bhoteldeals\.ae\b
  • \bidevlite\.com\b
  • \bjimmychoocom\.com\b
  • \bjordandi\.com\b
  • \bkissuggboots\.com\b
  • \bkitdetox\.com\b
  • \blinksoflondonstore\.com\b
  • \blouboutinsales\.net\b
  • \bmanoloblahnikcom\.com\b
  • \bmax-sky\.com\b
  • \bmbtforcheap\.com\b
  • \bmenorca-airport\.com\b
  • \bmonclercom\.com\b
  • \bmonclerjacketstock\.com\b
  • \bmylouboutinstore\.com\b
  • \bnbajs\.com\b
  • \bnewgoing\.com\b
  • \bnikempire\.com\b
  • \bnike-star-shoes\.com\b
  • \bourlouisvuitton\.com\b
  • \bphoneworth\.com\b
  • \bpiketrade\.com\b
  • \bqqtwo\.com\b
  • \breplicaestore\.us\b
  • \bsellvibram\.com\b
  • \bshoes\.vc\b
  • \bshoppingherveleger\.com\b
  • \bsilver-tiffany\.com\b
  • \bsoftwarewikipedia\.com\b
  • \bsouthfloridatelecom\.com\b
  • \bsupplyedhardy\.com\b
  • \bsweatboots\.com\b
  • \btiffanyhot\.com\b
  • \btiffanyou\.com\b
  • \btn4bags\.com\b
  • \btobuybattery\.com\b
  • \btopvibram\.com\b
  • \btopvibramfivefingers\.com\b
  • \btotalscreenrecorder\.com\b
  • \bugg2u\.net\b
  • \buggsky\.co\.uk\b
  • \bup2ugg\.com\b
  • \bvibramfive-fingers\.com\b
  • \bvibramfivefingersweb\.com\b
  • \bvibramstore\.com\b
  • \bvibramweb\.com\b
  • \bvipwomenshop\.com\b
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The deleted entries at w:en should be logged.
I began at meta with deleting. I'm at "aj2u" now. Rest will be done later. -- seth (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List/reasons for blacklist

I was wondering if there is some list/reasoning for blacklisted sites that i could view somehow. I recently had requested 1 link to be whitelisted, but would like to see the reasons for its block because the "about" page (and a reading thereafter) doesnt indicate any [obvious] bias.Lihaas (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!
You can use this tool to fid the log entries. But unfortunately not all sbl entries are logged. -- seth (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2010&oldid=1017526020"