Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2012-07

Add topic
Active discussions

Proposed additions

  This section is for completed requests that a website be blacklisted

hghlook.com/



See here --Addihockey10 (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnsteltalk 11:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Adsense 4973677253223834 Related







See WikiProject Spam Item


X wiki accounts;
it:Special:Contributions/213.31.11.80
de:Special:Contributions/213.31.11.80
ru:Special:Contributions/213.31.11.80
fr:Special:Contributions/46.146.190.202
ru:Special:Contributions/46.146.190.202
ro:Special:Contributions/46.146.190.202
de:Special:Contributions/46.146.190.202
en:Special:Contributions/46.146.190.202
fr:Special:Contributions/46.146.66.252
ru:Special:Contributions/46.146.66.252
es:Special:Contributions/46.146.66.252
en:Special:Contributions/46.146.66.252
fr:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
pl:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
it:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
ja:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
de:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
nl:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
pt:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
ro:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
sv:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
tr:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
el:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
hu:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
ru:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
uk:Special:Contributions/94.50.7.9
it:Special:Contributions/46.146.166.37
es:Special:Contributions/46.146.166.37
be-x-old:Special:Contributions/46.146.166.37
fr:Special:Contributions/46.146.166.37
id:Special:Contributions/46.146.166.37
ro:Special:Contributions/46.146.166.37
ru:Special:Contributions/188.18.94.147
en:Special:Contributions/188.18.94.147
ro:Special:Contributions/Crocoss77
ro:Special:Contributions/31.162.0.129
ro:Special:Contributions/94.60.106.5

When the spammer was asked to stop, the reply was " ....FU* off you co*k suc*er ! "--Hu12 (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  Addedbillinghurst sDrewth 03:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Calculator spam





(redirect)

See WikiProject Spam Item


Cross wiki spam
ca:Special:Contributions/82.145.73.32
en:Special:Contributions/82.145.73.32
es:Special:Contributions/82.145.73.32
fr:Special:Contributions/82.145.73.32
it:Special:Contributions/82.145.73.32
en:Special:Contributions/94.42.227.183
es:Special:Contributions/94.42.227.183
it:Special:Contributions/94.42.227.183
en:Special:Contributions/94.42.39.123
pl:Special:Contributions/94.42.39.123
en:Special:Contributions/94.42.19.56
pl:Special:Contributions/94.42.19.56
en:Special:Contributions/94.42.44.189
ca:Special:Contributions/94.42.250.156
de:Special:Contributions/94.42.250.156
en:Special:Contributions/94.42.250.156
es:Special:Contributions/94.42.250.156
it:Special:Contributions/94.42.250.156
pl:Special:Contributions/94.42.250.156
ru:Special:Contributions/94.42.250.156
sv:Special:Contributions/94.42.250.156
en:Special:Contributions/94.42.249.228
en:Special:Contributions/94.42.243.243
pl:Special:Contributions/94.42.243.243

--Hu12 (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 07:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

songlexikon.de



Thanks, --Hu12 (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like regular spam imo as it uses the "Deutsches Volksliedarchiv". Why do you think it's an unwanted link? Trijnsteltalk 11:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, don't have an opinion on whether its unwanted, however, it does look like most link spamming behavior; cross project abuse by an account created to mass spam the link.--Hu12 (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Additionally It doesn't matter--being "Deutsches Volksliedarchiv" related, it doesn't confer a license to Mass cross-Project spam even when it's true. Being this is simply a "project" of the above, does NOT mean it has inherited value or appropriateness. Often Wikipedia is spammed by these institutions in attempts to both legitimize "projects" and increase their 'project' exposure in hopes for more/new funding and donations to the institution. Unfortunately, a closer look reveals the links are nothing more that low value, re worded, Wikipedia Mirror and fork style knock-off "Song Encyclopedia"... which does not provide a unique resource and fails our links policies. --Hu12 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
User is definitely spamming, but I am not sure if this site should be blacklisted. The user has been blocked indef on en.wp and warned on de.wp. Apparently several German users feel these links do comply with their guidelines. Seeing the discussion on en:User_talk:Hu12#Your_edits_in_de:WP:_songlexikon.de I feel the local vandalism patrol will adequately protect the encyclopedia if necessary.
Regarding relevance of the site: The site is not a unique resource but may be a reputable source since it is linked to the university of Freiburg. On the other hand wikipedia is not a collection of links and the contents of this site could/should be on wikipedia. EdBever (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Local oversight sounds to be a better way to manage these links.   Request withdrawn.--Hu12 (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Travel package spam

































































Other domains spammed by the same users (not travel package related)






Innocent-looking links used to point indirectly to above spam links
Accounts and IPs

Many of these are already on the blacklist, but I'm listing everything here for reference. Sorry for the trouble. Jafeluv (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Struck out the domains that are already on the blacklist. Jafeluv (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Admin attention: This looks like something that ought to be added (or am I missing something?) Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 06:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

bookofraspielen.info



See here --Addihockey10 (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  Added Snowolf How can I help? 04:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

in-disguise.com



See here --Addihockey10 (talk) 10:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nikefreerunfr.net



















Spam. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC) To expand a bit, users are creating meaningless articles in English/gibberish at smaller wikis, with plenty of spamlinks to these two sites, plus some other external links that seem to be just "camouflage". The Xwikireports gives a rather clear image. Should be added asap IMO, Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  Added. --Trijnsteltalk 20:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

vpn-enigma.com



See here --Addihockey10 (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The contributions of ip 178.121.212.77 linked above shows one mentioning of this site in an edit summary, no linkadditions as such. Even if the edits of said ip are spammy, this is not enough to warrant adding the link to the global black list. Moreover, even if it was listed, that would not prevent edits like writing the url in an edit-summary. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  Declined then. --Trijnsteltalk 20:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

millioncolour.com



See here --Addihockey10 (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The diff you're providing shows one addition at one project, and thus doesn't come close to the requirements posted on top of this page for blacklisting. As far as I could see, link has not been added at other projects. Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  Declined then. --Trijnsteltalk 20:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this bot is from a string of bots, and I recognize this particular format. There is no plausible way of finding any links as any of them are almost certainly deleted already. --Addihockey10 (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I would agree that we will leave it on this occasion. We now have the basis of a xwiki and links report, and we can watch for further misadventures. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cakay08









See here, here, and here. There are also deleted revisions that I cannot see. --Addihockey10 (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  Declined on this occasion, and I have the system generating xwiki reports and we can block them if they reoccur. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Holiday spam

bg-dest.us









Holidays-info spammer again. Jafeluv (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnsteltalk 12:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

bgvacation.info





New domain yesterday on pt.wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnsteltalk 18:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Continued Adsense pub-3132917916465494 spam on Wikipedia

Previous incidents
Sites spammed








Spammers






































MER-C (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  Added. --Trijnsteltalk 13:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

borcutaksitlendir.com





Turkish credit card spammer again. See /Archives/2012-06#Turkish credit card spam. Jafeluv (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  Added — MA (audiencia) 15:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed removals

  This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted.

bet-at-home.com



Was added to blacklist 2007 because of this edit, today the company have articles on cs, de, en, hu and pt. I think blacklisting could be removed... Greets --AleXXw 11:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Do note that all the articles were created by single-purpose accounts. Seen the way that that is done on many wikis, I would consider their goal still to 'promote their company'. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that, but at least at de.wp the entry is relevant (there was an deletion request in 2007 decided to keep) and edited by some other users... I think its not useful to have an article for an internet-company and not be able to link to their homepage ;) greets --AleXXw 12:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
To that I agree, but that does not necessarily mean de-listing (there is always the whitelist to list something suitable). For en.wikipedia, I found the article pretty much primary sourced (and the secondary sources were more for statements like 'they sponsored this event'). I found the current entries on other Wikis similar (I'll have a read through the German article as well). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: the current version on en.wikipedia seems a straight translation of the current German version (which was rewritten not too long ago). Both versions have as a first secondary source a reference for 'they sponsored this' - overall that seems quite thin for notability. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I know it was written shortly, I was "Mentor" (sth like "adopt a user") of the writer. I agree to your point, but I don't think notability should be discussed here. And I still not see why one added Link into a nearly matching article can create an alltime-blacklist-entry, but this shall not be my problem ;) greets --AleXXw 22:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
"And I still not see why one added Link into a nearly matching article can create an alltime-blacklist-entry" .. You did not notice the large set of sockpuppets who have a similar modus operandi now? And that one edit was just an example of more, that link, and a set of others, was clearly spammed in the past. I am sorry, I see editors out of that sockfarm (with a large COI appearance) create articles of questionable notability on several wikis, and then we are asked to de-list to facilitate that?
And please note, I did not decline. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I did not noticed it right now, I just wanted to add the webpage of a webcompany to its article... It is notable, at least on de.wp :) What is COI? Sorry for my bad english... Greets --AleXXw 16:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
w:Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, I would think that there is a similar article at a WP site in a language that is familiar to you if you follow the interwiki links from that page.

That a local language article does not have the url of its site may be considered unfortunate, however, the language wiki can manage that through the whitelist to circumvent a global ban. billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thx, I just didn't know the abbreviation. I'll try a whitelistentry on de.wp. Greets --AleXXw 22:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw over the past weeks several additions of links that redirect to bet-at-home.com. I have a feeling this company is actively spamming wikipedia with articles. I do feel this company lacks notability, but this is not the place for that discussion. I suggest we ask the wikipedia community of they see notability. We can then delist if this comapny is notable. EdBever 14:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I whitelisted the domain at w:de temporary, so that it could be linked in the article about itself. I removed the whitelisting afterwards, so that the meta-block is active again to prevent spamming. -- seth 12:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  Declined at this time as there has been no further support for removal of blacklist billinghurst sDrewth 15:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Nonetheless I guess temp unblocking could be useful to let authors use those links in articles about the domain, e.g. w:de:bet-at-home.com. -- seth 19:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have written the article de and en. For pt, cs and hu I worked together with a mother-tongue speaker. This was the reason why we opened a new account in the special language Wikipedia and not the reason “promoting the company”. My adopter told me that spamming was 2006-2007 and maybe from a person from ex-Yugoslavia. I don’t know who this person is. But I am writing the articles from Austria. Due to the fact that my aim was to write an article which compares to all Wikipedia guidelines, I asked in every language where an adopter program exists, an adopter to help us. Therefore I can guarantee that I am not willing to spam with the article. It makes no sense for me because I only would like to have an actual article for bet-at-home.com. Because the company is international I would like to translate the same article from the German Wikipedia also to other language. The languages compares to the markets where the company is working in. Therefore I would be pleased if the link www.bet-at-home.com could be deleted from the global blacklist so that it would be possible for us to have the url of the site in the articles. --Bah2011 06:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing currently prohibiting the writing of the articles, just the insertion of the url. billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know that I cannot use the url in the articles. And this is my problem. Is there some possibility to change this situation? What has to be done to delete the url from the blacklist?--Bah2011 07:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
user Bah2011 contacted me via e-mail a few days ago. And I'm quite sure, that this user is not going to spam.
Of course Bah2011 could go to every local sbl and ask for whitelisting (like at w:de), such that links to bet-at-home.com could be added to articles about bet-at-home.com. But that would be unnecessarily complicated. So a temporary global unblocking is the least thing we could and should do. -- seth 22:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I have issues <-> concerns about the interest that seems somewhere between vested and conflict, even indicated by the username. While the contributor may not spam, it offers a level of control for individual wikis to watch and manage a previously problematic url, especially I don't feel that there should be an perception of an imprimatur given where the notability discussion which is being relied upon (mentioned above) at enWP was a "no consensus" decision, not a definite decision for notability. Being involved in the discussion, I am not making any decision. billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi!
I agree with EdBever who said "We can then delist if this comapny is notable."
It's not us who have to decise what is notable and what is not. As we can see, all articles about bet-at-home.com (at cs, de, en, hu and pt) are still existing. That means that bet-at-home.com is notable enough.
Now it's our (admins) duty to make it technically possible for the users to place links to the website the wiki articles are about. So at least the temp unblacklisting must be done.
The only thing we have to discuss about is whether it could be reasonable to even permanently remove the entry from the blacklist.
The domain is blacklisted for a couple of years now, so imho we could give it a try. -- seth 21:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
unblocked bet-at-home.com (at least temp). after 7 days (or if Bah2011 tells here, that all needed links are placed, whatever comes first) we can decide here, whether blacklisting is still necessary. -- seth 18:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! All links are placed now. As mentioned before, the spamming was 2006-2007 and maybe from a person from ex-Yugoslavia. The aim of this articles is not to spam Wikipedia! Therefore I would be grateful if you could remove bet-at-home.com from the blacklist. Thanks!--Bah2011 08:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The temp unblocking seemed to be a success. Now the remaining question is: what reasons are there to re-activate the blacklisting? -- seth 20:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I firmly disagree with how this is now progressing. For now there is maybe no reason to re-list it, but I do think that there is a promotional thought behind all of this - the (single purpose sock) accounts all to clear have a conflict of interest, their interest is not solely to improve Wikipedia, they mainly focus on this site and its appearance on Wikipedia. Do note, that I think that de-blacklisting - linking - reblacklisting as a method is asking for problems. A specific link should be found that points to a homepage (e.g. an index.html) and for each wiki a whitelist rule should be added that enables solely that link (and still should only be on the page where it is intended) and then that link should be used on the pages (and that is what I did suggest above). Every time now that one of these pages on one of these wikis gets significantly vandalised (in a way that breaks the link) it would be impossible to revert (OK, here we maybe do not re-blacklist). This also is a way around local discussions on all wikis whether a link and/or article is really needed on that wiki. Moreover, I think there was not a clear consensus for removal, and now a temporary removal is turned into a permanent removal. I am afraid that this is setting a bad precedent, next time it will be an SEO asking for de-listing so that they can spam the company, and when we decline they can point to this discussion. Please, get the whitelisting in place on all wikis, that is why we have whitelists, or get a proper consensus for de-listing (something that I would not necessarily be against, though I do have concerns, but do get proper consensus for de-listing). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I re-read the discussions above, and I see that sDrewth and EdBever have similar concerns as I have, while AleXXw and Lutiger seth seem to have an opposite view (which IMHO is a great reason to whitelist it locally, not to de-blacklist). Seen also that the editor used a redirect (since the official place trips the blacklist) and has a conflict of interest does make me come to the conclusion that this needs a better discussion for de-blacklisting. I have hence undone the removal that Lustiger seth carried out a couple of days ago. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 20:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I only can say again that I’ve worked together with mother-tongue speakers. This was the reason why we opened new accounts in the special language Wikipedia and not the reason “promoting the company”. The aim was to actualize the old article and to translate the article in other languages because the company is international. When I actualized the article I mentioned that the website is on the blacklist and therefore I had problems when I prepared the article. This was a reason why I asked for re-blacklist. --Bah2011 06:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the perspective that I am seeing. We have an editor who is taking interest in a single company, across multiple languages, with no evident previous background, nor edit history anywhere; has a name that aligns with the product in which they are writing. The articles don't exist cross-wiki apart from where this editor has started, despite them having a reputed notability. The editor ignores or dismisses commentary about the surrounding aspects of their specific interest, and does not state their reason for focusing on the subject. The focus of the discussion is solely on writing the article and their working with those who have the language skills.

Call me a cynic, but I don't buy it. Part of the role at meta is to be on the lookout for people linking cross-wiki one url and exhibiting a conflict of interest. If it was a humanitarian organisation, I could see why someone could have the passion to do that, for a business in this business sector, I don't buy it. There are not multiple people/communities writing the articles nor expressing interest in the article, there is not. The statement was that the domain url has been spammed, and that is usually a pay for fee process, not a whimsical matter, and if that the organisation on the blacklist at that time, those are the consequences of that action. I believe that I see self-interest, not the interest of the projects. In my opinion, get a whitelist at the wikis if you can, ensure that you link to this discussion when you make the request, as I doubt that when the matter was previously raised that you clearly expressed that you were single article focused crosswiki. If I was investigating motive, I would be suspecting a paid professional writer, or a sock. That sounds like an opinion and that clearly rules me out of assessing the balance of the argument. billinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully with billinghurst so   Declined. No valid reason to remove and local whitelisting is available if the community require it. --Herby talk thyme 11:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@Bah2011. On en.wikipedia I have expressed concerns as to the notability of the subject (I nominated it for deletion), and seen the article, I believe that it still lacks sufficient references to give it notability (most of the independent references state something like 'it was sponsored by bet-at-home.com' .. that is about as much as there is. So, start a company, sponsor something, people will write that you sponsored it, and you are notable? No, it does not work that way IMHO). Moreover, the domain got originally blacklisted because of promotion, and now these pages are created/edited, IMHO that is still because of promotion. I do not buy anything else. If you get linked and found on the internet, it is because of good SEO, not because of proven notability (where are reviews that compare bet-at-home.com with other online betting companies, etc. etc. - are they there? do they exist?). I am sorry, Bah2011, IMHO you are only here to promote bet-at-home.com. That was the case when it was originally blacklisted, and that is still the case. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 13:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree in that point that Bah2011 probably has got self-interest. But I also see that this users aim is, to write articles that totally fulfill our rules. And as we can see, this user doesn't do a bad job. At the RfD at w:en there was no consensus for deletion. Bah2011 wrote the article in five wikipedias, and not a single one of those articles were deleted. So the subject is notable. (Or am I wrong?)
There had been some (not really much) spamming of this domain back in 2007. That's more than 4 years ago. How long shall a link be blacklisted? 100 years? Even if the article about the url exists?
One suggestion to user Bah2011 was get a whitelist at the wikis if you can. I already set the domain on the whitelist at w:de, temporarily, s.t. the link could be placed in the article. Of course that user can do that in every single wikipedia, where a article shall be created. But it's senseless to have an url blacklisted globally and multi-whitelisted locally. Afair we unblocked an url, if it got whitelisted in two big wikipedias. -- seth 17:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Seth, yes, there was a suggestion to whitelist, which IMHO should be a start - and that was done. That that happens on 2 wikis does already suggest that the link may be ripe for de-listing. And I did initially not decline, actually, I did not decline anywhere. Others were also not very positive, and some have declined delisting - at that time certainly there was no consensus in favor of delisting.
Noting the whitelisting, I see you said that you whitelisted it on de.wikipedia, added the link, and then de-whitelisted again. The common practice on en.wikipedia is to whitelist a index.htm, index.html, or even an about.htm specifically for use as 'official homepage' - although that does not prohibit further spamming of the homepage on that wiki, it does prohibit the use of other pages on the same site (pages that IIRC were used in the original spamming). Someone who seriously vandalises the page will still make the original unsaveable, and an admin may have to go again through the same process. That is not the function of the whitelist.
And I agree, in 4 years a lot can change, companies can change to serious, notable companies. Serious requests are indeed often granted, but those were not arguments given at any stage in the delisting request. Do note, that several editors here do think that the notability is thin, very thin (but notable nonetheless).
What I disagreed with, and why I did re-list is that you then go ahead with a temporary delisting, and then after a couple of days unilaterally decide that it is going to be kept off the list. I still think that that is setting a bad precedent, and goes against the non-consensus for delisting. Several editors have given their concerns, which means that we need to get to consensus before a permanent delisting should be performed. To enable for that discussion, I have re-listed awaiting that.
Regarding delisting, seen that the original spamming was 4 years ago, and that the company does seem notable enough for articles, I will again not decline de-listing, but would like to see additional arguments. I do still have concerns that this is clever SEO of a not-too-notable company. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 19:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  Comment at English Wikpedia, the article for deletion process closed as no consensus which should be considered differently as keep and having achieved notability. billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

dsbworldwide.com & webitemspro.com





I am not sure how to approach having dsbworldwide.com and webitemspro.com removed from the wiki black list. I have reviewed the report -1.79 dsbworldwide.com related spam- At that time I was trying to figure out how to use wikipedia when my competitor kept removing my links and I kept adding them back in. I do not remember receiving any messages until after I was blocked. I am not sure if it was due to not receiving email or if the notifications went into my spam folder. Since then I have not made any efforts to edit/create a page on wiki as I didn't want to cause any further issues. I would like to create a page for my design firm, dsbworldwide.com and for my software, webitemspro.com. If possible it would be nice to create a page for our local community portal, Texomaland.com. It allows clients to post a profile, news and events. The other three, Planoland.com, Mycraigranch.com and Mylocallink.com do not recieve enough traffic for me to worry about them. Also, in the report it connected us to CarInsurance.com. I don't believe I have had any clients with that domain name. Plus the domain, webitems.com, is not mine, as much as I would like it to be. Please let me know what the next steps would be. Tony.dean (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

initial request in 2007 clearly seems to indicate that there has been problems with your domains xwiki. If you think that you have a valid reason for having domains added, then maybe try to convince a enWP to whitelist your domain(s). You are listed here due to the accusation of xwiki spamming, and IMNSHO you have not presented a case sufficiently to get removal from the global list. Though I would like to see how a local responds to your request and if they whitelist, how well the scenario flows from there. billinghurst sDrewth 08:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how to apprach an enWP. What exactly is an enWP? Otherwise my intent is strictly to have a page for my design firm and for our software. Really not sure what case to offer in getting my domains whitelisted other than it was a mistake I made years ago trying to understand wikipedia and how to use it. The gentleman who black listed our domains commented that he expected to see more spam from us. Not the case. As soon as I found I was black listed which really shocked me as I tried to do the right thing, I didn't try to work with wiki again in any real way. Now I am just trying to promote my business and software, no different then other firms. I never had any intention of spamming Wikipedia.Tony.dean (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You can request whitelisting at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. EdBever (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned about the general approach being taken by the user, especially with their basic premise. Wikipedia is not for web listing nor a site for promotion of websites, it is solely an encyclopaedia where this is notability requirements for addition, having your url blacklisted is irrelevant to articles and is purely supplementary. Based on your basic premise, I wouldn't be inclined to recommend the removal for your purposes. billinghurst sDrewth

Thank you for the information. I will go to the whitelist page. As my skills with wikipedia are limited as I have not had a chance to use the system being black listed so quickly. I was not looking at it as a platform to promote our portfolio with links, but would like the fundamental links to our business web sites. I feel I am approaching Wikipedia no different then my competitors would be approaching Wikipedia. e.g. The Richards Group in Dallas has a page discussing their firm. Microsoft Office has a page discussing their software application as does WordPress, etc. Tony.dean (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Socialfire.net.tc



I recently added the site to the blacklist (As I was confused where to put this) but I was told to defer here. The reply stated that the domain 'net.tc' was blocked globally, not the actual domain I am concerning about. In my opinion the site should be whitelisted because this site in its own rights has specifically not been blocked but rather the root domain itself. I will benefit my Article writing of the SocialFire article. The Domain is currently attempting to be used in my sandbox. If this does not meet the specific requirements, just state the failing requirement and I would be more than happy to solve the issue. Connor Savage (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Text is Cut&paste from whitelistreq. at enwiki in April [1], user is blocked as a sock of en:user:OwenReeceBaines who created the now deleted article, en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SocialFire. I leave it to an admin to add the decline-template ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note that my comment above has been removed twice, first by Connor Savage and then by an ip. Hardly reassuring if anyone is considering offering this user/link a second chance here :P Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  •   Declined Local whitelisting is available if local projects require it. COI issues too be the look of it. --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

parascientifica.com



So after some time I would like to request a removal from the blacklist. I've had a discussion with User:Beetstra and some other people when the site was initially blacklisted, but to no avail. Now I would like to try it again, as I believe that content wise the website has become a lot better. We now focus mainly on physics and astronomy, next to some other fields of science, and our entire crew is composed of Physics or Astronomy bachelors or masters. We currently are working on a FAQ section which will answer questions in the field. For example; why is snow white? And I do believe that some of the material discussed here would be a good addition to wikipedia, for example the question above is not mentioned in the snow wiki, while it is a important characteristic of snow.

I am very much willing to discuss changes with other users and get their approval etc, but you probably have noticed how very little people reply to talk pages and such. So I would very much like to ask for a trial period or something similar.

And if you do not wish to unblock the site in general, I'd like to know how this selective unblocking works. If I have a decent addition to a wikipage, who do I come to? --Parascientifica (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding de-blacklisting - I'd like to see that uninvolved users (i.e. editors who do not have any involvement with the site itself) do think that the material is worth linking to. Hence, delisting   Declined.
Of course, the proof that others do see it suitable to link to would require a whitelist-discussion ("selective unblocking", as you call it). That would have to be done on the specific wiki where the link is going to be (so, if the link is going to be on en.wikipedia, you need to do that request on en.wikipedia, if the link is going to be on nl.wikipedia, it has to be whitelisted on nl.wikipedia; hence not on the global meta.wikimedia, i.e., here). For en.wikipedia, the specific whitelist is en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. There you request for the specific link for the specific document that you want to use a whitelisting request. It should tell you why you think that that link is appropriate for that page where you need that link. Note, 'specific link for the specific document' means 'parascientifica.com/page/blah.html' .. not 'parascientifica.com'. Every wiki has such a page, but it may have a different name, I believe that there is a list somewhere (bottom of this page??), I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There a list of active whitelists here. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

How do I get into contact with these editors/groups? Or how else do I go around doing this. Do I write out the part I want to add, and pm it to someone? Because the talkpages are dead most of the time. --Parascientifica (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Post to the page, wait for a bit (a week or so), and if no-one edits that page at all in that time, find an admin who a) in the past did edit that page, and b) who is still editing on that wiki, and ask him whether he could have a look at the request. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 04:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

  This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.

x.co



The current filter entry is too strict, as it even blocks urls containing this string which is a frequent one. For example www.san-x.co.jp is blocked, which doesn't make any sense. --Mps 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  Done fixed as per seth's previous lookbehind regex. Thanks for taking the time to post here and to tell us about this matter. billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

cjb





For some reason every cjb.net-Website is blocked. Somebody wanted to add the site http://hateplow.cjb.net/ and failed. Maybe it's beacuse of the \bcjb\.net\b entry, but I'm no expert. --Gripweed 09:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a url shortener/redirect. Look at http://do73i.cjb.net billinghurst sDrewth 09:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple of possible solutions:
  • You can just use another (not blacklisted) link to the same page: http://www.arcticmusicgroup.com/hateplow.
  • If hateplow.cjb.net is mentioned much more often than www.arcticmusicgroup.com/hateplow, it's possible to unblacklist this special domain
    • locally at w:de or
    • globally her at meta, by using a special syntax (zero-width negative look-behind assertions)
I suggest, using the www.arcticmusicgroup.com-link would be the best solution. -- seth 16:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks... Didn't know the url-shortener-thing --Gripweed 20:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  Not done then. Trijnstel 14:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

pump.pp4l.me



The site was added by Vituzzu (talk · contribs) but it still displays on en.wp. It Is Me Here t / c 13:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The blacklist will not remove a link already in place, though it should prevent the continued addition. Remove it from the article and all should be good. billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  Declined   Not done nothing to do billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  This section is for archiving Discussions.
Return to "Spam blacklist/Archives/2012-07" page.