This section is for archiving Additions. |
maltagenealogy.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
saidvassallo.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
This link has historically been spammed. We've got a probable sockpuppeteer. I'd like this site blacklisted to take the wind out of his sails. This will save much volunteer time. Jehochman Talk 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
signsvisualny.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 -- user has spammed this url to signage unabatedly. semi prot was denied as it was said that the site should be added to the blacklist instead, since it's one spam site and multiple IPs Theserialcomma ( talk) 17:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
earlywarningsys.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 - Various IPs have spammed this site onto the article for Civil defense siren for months, resuming as soon as the various rounds of semi-protection have lapsed. Dayewalker ( talk) 02:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
worldphototour.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
Persistent spamming over two years. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
All listed sites are part of the triond.com network. An account with Triond.com allows a user to upload a story to any of these sites, all of which are within the triond.com network. The network allows anyone to self-publish material, with no editorial oversight. A handful of the articles may have some degree of research - but the authors are unknown, and most appear to be using these sites to publish material that would fail WP:NOR if posted directly to Wikipedia.
From triond.com/info/how-it-works :
"Triond helps showcase your content so your work gets maximum readership and you earn recognition. As soon as your content is published, it begins generating revenue from several income sources, such as display and contextual advertising that appears on the pages of your content. We share with you 50% of the revenue generated by your content."
Given the content and the "how-it-works" evidence, this site appears to be a variant of the ehow concept. Some links may be reasonable to be white-listed if established editors find quality links to request; but most are simply allow original research to be disguised as a reliable source. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Repeatedly added to multiple articles by many different IPs. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of the IPs:
Actually, having checked the archives, this was blacklisted by Beetstra a day or so ago. However, there are a lot - a lot - of URLs that redirect to brownplanet. They all seem to have been added by the same IP, 76.168.240.25.
I had actually gone through and checked most of the IP's edits, and the vast majority of the URLs a) all redirect to brownplanet, and b) all originate from the same IP (according to WHOIS). I'd almost finished blacklisting them when my computer crashed (grrr) so I'll have to settle for posting this note for now. If anyone wants to take on the task of blacklisting these URLs before I get back to it, that would be great. I've indef-blocked the IP, as they're the only one using it. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 10:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Multiple editors have been spamming these related links, sometimes as "M a n h o o d 1 0 1 . c o m" of a totally non-notable men's rights website. Most of the accounts have been blocked for spamming, but replacements are recreated every few days to continue the edits, as well as making some disputed assertions on the Fort Hood shootings page.
Thanks.-- Slp1 ( talk) 18:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring to add link to the Content delivery network article. Attempts have been continuous for more than a year - and escalated to 3RR violations in September ( [7]). I had originally reported this here in September, but removed it when the spammer finally posted to a talk page. Recently, the linkspamming has resumed, with no further attempt to discuss (the most recent IP has even resorted to vandalism to user pages of those who revert the spam [8]). --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
paperspoint.net: 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
Paperspoint.net appears to hold pirate copies of exam papers, mark schemes etc (e.g. [http: //www.paperspoint.net/o_level/chem_5070.html CHEMISTERY 5070] [sic] has Cambridge University copyright material), so fails the Linking to copyrighted works test.
The link is being added to exam articles, so far by four Worldcall Telecom dynamic IP addresses in Pakistan and a newly registered account (Zrt1992). In each case I've warned with spam1 or spam2. Examples: GCE Ordinary Level ( diff 1, diff 2, diff 3), International General Certificate of Secondary Education ( diff) and GCE Advanced Level ( diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). - Pointillist ( talk) 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC), updated 18:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Repeated addition of link over past three months. Has continued despite warnings from multiple users and a block for repeatedly adding the link. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 22:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this but could someone check out this site? It was used in the Guy Fawkes Night article but Norton Safe Search flags it up as a malaware site. I've removed the link from the article but I'm concerned someone may put it back in. Richerman ( talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Links to mbtvp.com and nikecoo.com have been appearing on articles relating to footwear. Users have been replacing existing references and links with the business website.
- Reconsider ! 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Use of frames for spamdexing. See WikiProject Spam report I'm sick of cleaning this up. MER-C 09:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Some more frame redirect sites. MER-C 03:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
A gaming fansite which has members of it spamming the Empire Earth article for over a year now. Also has illegal pirated copies of the game which it instructs its visitors to download. Piracy page at http://save-ee.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1572 Discussion of them spamming the article at http://save-ee.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&p=9893
Needs to be added.-- Thearmed1 ( talk) 15:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
cinegemini.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
IP hopping block evading spammer(s). See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 11:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Removals. |
This site (CAIS-SPAS) was apparently added a couple of years ago due to somewhat dubious reasons. It is an important and credible reference site for Iranian archeological sites as well as related publications.-- Mehrshad123 ( talk) 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Here: Here: associatedcontent.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 Why is this site blocked? Argues spam. Please remove this site of the blacklist. Associated content is a site recognized. Thanks! ( Mago266 ( talk) 04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
HU12, thanks for attention, but I need very much this source.( Mago266 ( talk) 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
Art rock article, but no longer need because they are not considering the article. If I need, then I ask here. Thank's ( Mago266 ( talk) 02:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
For some reason this site is listed here and blocked as spam. I can see no reason why this site is blocked as it has a large archive of useful information on the Fiero... from maintenance information on stock engines to build-up threads for engine swaps and body modifications. The userbase is extremely knowledgeable and, for the most part, quite friendly. If you would, please remove this site from the blacklist so that others interested in learning more about this car can do so.
Thanks. 76.114.90.132 ( talk) 06:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)skuzzboomer
This site is in the spam list for some reason. Actually doesn't know why this is in there.
I'm admin and I haven't engage with Wikipedia before.
I suggest this site to be included in the section of Google wave. because this site giving Google Wave Invites to people: colombopro[.]com/12/01/google-wave-invites/.
Site is even not containing any ads or materials that are inappropriate. I'm proposing you to remove the site from blacklist and enlist it in the section of Google Wave, because many people be able to get Google Wave Invites. Thank You.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wickumsiha (
talk •
contribs) 13:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems strange that we would have this site on the blacklist when we have an article about it. I've used it as a source in a few articles, so this must be a fairly recent addition. I noticed this when I was editing Boo Boo Stewart to re-include a source that was in an older revision [15], only to get a note from the filter. In any case, unless there's been misusage of the links somehow, I'd like to request a removal. Glass Cobra 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have seen the block page a few times. It bothers me how poorly explained it is, and how it is not linked to a suitable explanation for the block. Editors can and do use webcitation and other backup services to avoid these restrictions, if it were properly explained we might be less inclined to route around this damage.
We could get into a whole other discussion about the quality and credibility of news sources, there are definitely some good articles on Examiner.com and blocking it doesn't seem like the right solution to improving article quality or encouraging editors to go to the real source.
Personally I try to avoid linking to sites that have content that is likely to disappear behind a paywall or have a noarchive/norobots policy since they are a severe detriment to easy WP:Verifiability and a cause of excessive link rot.
Despite those flaws in the blocklist there is a much bigger flaw, examiner.com.au a Tasmanian newspaper and a site not affiliated with the Examiner.com network has been blocked and is flagged by the blocklist. This block needs to be lifted as soon as possible and frankly the whole block on Examiner.com should be lifted if it cannot be done properly. -- Horkana ( talk) 23:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
So I had a look at the error message and now that I'm not just being annoyed and blocked from making the edit I wanted to make I can see the error message is not so bad for what it is.
Unfortunately the error message is far too generic, it explains only that a site might be banned without giving any reason why
citation needed. I'm supposed to take your word for it? In all other things I'm supposed to be skeptical and expect references and the people who have blocked this site have failed to provide an adequate relevant explanation in context. If this was an article it would be rejected so fast it would have skid marks.
I do sincerely appreciate
Dirk Beetstra taking the time to explain why the site was banned but it is not something he should have to do, and it is not something I should have to come here and ask about to find out about either. When a site is blocked the reason for it being blocked and necessary context should be linked/referenced and directly included in the relevant context of the error message. Page deletions include a message to the deletion discussion and blacklisting should be just as transparent.
This will hopefully be my last comment on the issue, I much prefer to be adding and editing. --
Horkana (
talk) 19:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why this is on the blacklist, but I am writing an article about it, so I am requesting it be removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninlyoko ( talk • contribs)
This is the official website for a Royal Air Force section that is higly relevant to the article Wellingborough School CCF. Please whitelist the link. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0o-JayParmar-o0 ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a useful page on this site which describes the types of Instant hot water dispenser available (the article originally described only one type); the page has useful factual information although it also displays advertisements. The specific http is kitchen-gadgets.suite101.com/article.cfm/home_electric_instant_hot_water_dispensers. I would suggest that this site, or at least this page, be unblocked, or alternatively that a page with equivalent content be found. I couldn't find either "gadgets" or "suite101" on the local or global spam blacklists, but that may be because I'm not familiar with spam filtering on Wikipedia. I have put a reference to the page (without leading "http://") in the article for now. Pol098 ( talk) 07:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be a legit hotel group, and owns a five star hotel, Grange City Hotel which would normally have a link to the hotel website, e.g. to www.grangehotels.com/hotels-london/grange-city-hotel/grange-city-hotel.aspx?int=1
I don't know why it's on the blacklist. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This website provides merchants with information regarding merchant cash advances. It discusses the entire lending process, and what merchants should be looking for when taking out a merchant cash advance. Many merchants don't know about this relatively new form of funding and this site provides them with answers to many questions they may have. Why is this site on the black list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merchantcashadvances ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm the webmaster of the Internet Review of Books, which has been blacklisted for spamming. Apparently some of our team attempted to post too many references to our website on various other Wikipedia articles. Although I was not part of the ensuing email exchange, I understand from our editor that he promised a Wikipedia administrator that he would stop the offending practice. He did so.
Please allow me to explain ourselves, so that at least you know our offense was unintentional. We are a book-review website that publishes approximately 20 or so reviews each month. If permissible by the rules of Wikipedia, we would from time to time look for Wiki articles about the authors of books featured on our site, and add a link to our review of the person's book. Our intent has never been to blanket Wikipedia with references to the Internet Review of Books; indeed, those references would only be to the pages of authors whose work has been reviewed by our reviewers.
We are in our third year of continuous operation and are slowly building a faithful readership. Meanwhile, our reputation is important to us, so news of a blacklist is painful. Would you please either remove us from the blacklist or explain the steps we must take for you to remove us?
Kind regards, Organmountains ( talk) 03:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Bob Sanchez
http://www.nariphaltan.org/nari/index.php
" for use in that article only. Done. Be sure to use the link exactly as presented, variations of that format will not work.--
Hu12 (
talk) 05:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)I feel this listing is inappropriate. Is it because it is a commerical website? Because it contains an high amount of valid information about cities, I came across it when expanding the Kathmandu article. Even if not accepted as a reference believe it is a very good resource to link to related pages as an external link. For instance google Kathmandu education and it has a lot of info about all aspects of cities. Please remove from the blacklist. Hell, I fail to understand how if fallingrain.com can be accepted and not this site!!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I really don't know what point you are trying to make about telling me to reach OTHERLINKS (as if I havne't read it before). Fallingrain is known by many of us, Darwinek, myself and many pthers to contain false information about population and altitude yet is used in thousands of articles, particularly developing world to reference articles. That is more damaging to the encyclopedia. The fact that you allow lesser informed individuals to think it reliable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because I'm not sure whether unlisting this subject is appropriate. There's been an article about Redtube ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a few weeks, but I notice the site itself is blacklisted. As the article contains independent references which verify a certain degree of notability, I'm wondering whether it might be useful to be able to include a link to the site itself. Having said that, I have heard of problems involving this stie in the past, one being that clicking on some of the links can result in the user receiving unwanted pop up windows requesting bill payments, which are locked for a certain amount of time. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy ( talk) 15:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the website of a self-publishing company with ties to the open-source software community which I believe was added to the blacklist in error. At the time when associatedcontent.com was requested to the blacklist, a number of other sites were piggybacked onto the block request. However, there was no convincing argument that Lulu was a problem. While the other sites were described as paying editors for link hits, and that there was a flood of hundreds of users and articles involved, Lulu sells books and not web articles, and the justification was about one user adding one link to one particular page(!) [18] I came across this when working on our page about Lulu Enterprises a while back, and would like to fix a nontrivial amount of broken references to its policies and procedures. As this is an less likely target of abuse, and it appeared to be added in haste, I feel that it is appropriate to remove this publisher's website from the blacklist. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems. |
This section is for archiving Discussions. |
The following discussion 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.
It was proposed for removal above and then withdrawn, but I'd like to reopen it. I agree that it's not a particularly reliable source. If someone used it to back up a dubious fact or to establish notability, I'd challenge them on it. But sources of questionable reliability are not blanket banned using technical means; there's no community consensus for that (that I'm aware of). Our reliable source guidelines say that articles should primarily rely on reliable sources, but as with all our guidelines, it's subject to discretion and exception. I believe that using the spam blacklist in this way exceeds the scope of what it's supposed to be for, and that this case is gray enough that it shouldn't be listed. As well, I don't believe that examiner.com has any unique conflicts of interest in terms of the author's compensation... I can't imagine many web sites where a goal isn't to drive traffic. Anyway in summary, I agree that it's "blog like"... I agree that it should be used with caution, but I disagree that it should be blanket banned using the blunt instrument of the spamlist. Gigs ( talk) 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Before we take this to a wider audience, I'd like to at least get some more or less neutral questions agreed upon. To me, the main questions are:
In taking this to the community, I would want to remind people that we do have XLinkBot as well for doing reversible reverting of possibly ill-advised links that can be undone by established editors, so that people are aware that we do have tools other than the blacklist for this sort of thing. Gigs ( talk) 14:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I actually would like to turn this discussion around. We have until now only few cases of link-types which go onto this blacklist without discussion, and sometimes even without abuse, or even without any additions to Wikipedia (redirect sites like tinyurl.com are one, sites which are installing malicious software another, referral links are sometimes also blacklisted very fast without widescale abuse). I'd like to hear some community input on what to do with these 'free web hosts which offer money to the creator of documents on a pay-per-view basis' (like associatedcontent, ehow, examiner). IMHO, such sites should not be linked to, except after careful examination of specific documents and whitelisting of such documents on a need-to-link-to basis, and that such sites can actually be blacklisted to avoid abuse. Thoughts? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist for further discussion. Gigs ( talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's my attempt at a neutral summary:
User:Gigs/blacklistRfC. It's not live yet so don't start commenting there, but I'd appreciate editing of the "Arguments" section, especially if anyone thinks I have mischaracterized a position.
Gigs (
talk) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
A few comments on this whole topic. Blacklisting is evidence-based and isnt used Pre-emptively (With exception to malware/exploits). Removal requests are treated on a case by case basis where outcomes are based on community established policies and guidelines, which carry community-wide consensus. These core principles are agreed by all here, except for Gigs who is alone in opposing these priciples.
Additionaly, the discussion of Pre-emption started by Beetstra appears clearly intended to get thoughts and ideas on a hypothetical, and does not seem to be a proposal, nor does it attempt to trump current practice. So them, Why a Rfc? The RfC wholey miscaracterizes the purpose, intent and actual practice of blacklisting and appears to be an attempt by its creator to usurp discussion, further a viewpoint, and to imply that the MediaWiki:blacklist is somehow being improprly used.-- Hu12 ( talk) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Gigs, one of the feelings I tried to get into the RfC yesterday evening was a reflection of what is actually behind blacklisting.
For these sites like examiner.com, there are billions of pages possible, all of them possible spam targets, what, even likely ones. Associatedcontent.com made it a long, long time without being fully blacklisted. And you don't want to know how much work has been behind it to keep up with spammers coming up with new stuff. There are a couple of whitelisting requests (for specific documents) a month, and some get declined as useless anyway. Yes, a couple. Those documents are really not worth the effort that would be behind cleaning up behind the spammers.
Is it bad that the whole site is blacklisted, from a sourcing point of view, YES. It hampers referencing the good stuff, it hampers in editing, it implies bad faith on those editors who contribute to these sites without having as primary target 'making money'. You say, there are here 3 or 4 people that have commented and who are mostly also active in blacklist administration (maybe a bad faith assumption, but there are only a few who understand what the problem actually is). Thát is the problem, and if the RfC does get more active in actually keeping up with the spam, then it is fine. But a likely outcome is the conclusion that many will say 'those sites should not be blanket blacklisted', the spam hence increases, but those who then have it made possible will not be the ones to help cleaning it up. Your remark '"All here" is a pretty biased audience' is not going to alleviate the already existing frustration (actually, it is in part the basis of this rant). Systematically fighting spam comes down to a handful of editors and admins, we all engage in fighting vandalism (even brand-new editors fight vandalism). Let me try again: Spam != vandalism. Vandals don't earn money from what they do. Spammers earn money from what they do, for some it is their job, companies run on spamming, what, even not-for-profit organisations hire SEOs to make sure they get linked in as many as possible places, because more links = more people know you = more people donating money to your good cause. Spam is not just the Sildenafil mails you get in your inbox. Spam is a more persistent problem than vandalism. Only few vandals go through the systematic effort of creating socks, finding ways to circumvent anti-vandalism bots or edit filters. A lot of spammers however do. It's their job. And sites like ehow, associatedcontent and examiner put that same power into the hands of the man in the street.
I am sorry, I don't think that the RfC will in any form be able to convey the significance and the size of the problem, I can however see other outcomes. And I don't think that is the feeling that I, nor you, can get into the RfC. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm .. no, that is not what I mean. It's more that I would like more people to actually get involved in the topic. And I have already seen the much nastier and more personal contexts of it (both from spammers and from experienced editors, both on spam topics and on other topics). It is not my first reaction, this is my second or third rant of this type regarding the more liberal use of sites which impose massive problems. I am sorry that I react this way, but you (and others) place the same common remarks which are made over and over (my apologies to you, Gigs, for the words, it is a reaction to the triggering of just the frustrations by (again, I am sorry) someone who is ignorant about spam efforts and spam problems, again the same remarks/arguments as we hear so often), which exactly describe the problem, but which are not a solution.
Of course I see utility in community consensus, and I am trying in the RfC, but I don't think that the RfC can express the problem, without going into extensive detail (and even then). I'll have a bit more of a go. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Note; Moved the draft out of the MediaWiki namespace to User:Gigs/blacklistRfC. This provides an appropriate development ground with corresponding talkpage, unlike interface pages. Feel free to continue discussions there. -- Hu12 ( talk) 07:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Additions. |
maltagenealogy.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
saidvassallo.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
This link has historically been spammed. We've got a probable sockpuppeteer. I'd like this site blacklisted to take the wind out of his sails. This will save much volunteer time. Jehochman Talk 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
signsvisualny.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 -- user has spammed this url to signage unabatedly. semi prot was denied as it was said that the site should be added to the blacklist instead, since it's one spam site and multiple IPs Theserialcomma ( talk) 17:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
earlywarningsys.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 - Various IPs have spammed this site onto the article for Civil defense siren for months, resuming as soon as the various rounds of semi-protection have lapsed. Dayewalker ( talk) 02:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
worldphototour.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
Persistent spamming over two years. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
All listed sites are part of the triond.com network. An account with Triond.com allows a user to upload a story to any of these sites, all of which are within the triond.com network. The network allows anyone to self-publish material, with no editorial oversight. A handful of the articles may have some degree of research - but the authors are unknown, and most appear to be using these sites to publish material that would fail WP:NOR if posted directly to Wikipedia.
From triond.com/info/how-it-works :
"Triond helps showcase your content so your work gets maximum readership and you earn recognition. As soon as your content is published, it begins generating revenue from several income sources, such as display and contextual advertising that appears on the pages of your content. We share with you 50% of the revenue generated by your content."
Given the content and the "how-it-works" evidence, this site appears to be a variant of the ehow concept. Some links may be reasonable to be white-listed if established editors find quality links to request; but most are simply allow original research to be disguised as a reliable source. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Repeatedly added to multiple articles by many different IPs. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of the IPs:
Actually, having checked the archives, this was blacklisted by Beetstra a day or so ago. However, there are a lot - a lot - of URLs that redirect to brownplanet. They all seem to have been added by the same IP, 76.168.240.25.
I had actually gone through and checked most of the IP's edits, and the vast majority of the URLs a) all redirect to brownplanet, and b) all originate from the same IP (according to WHOIS). I'd almost finished blacklisting them when my computer crashed (grrr) so I'll have to settle for posting this note for now. If anyone wants to take on the task of blacklisting these URLs before I get back to it, that would be great. I've indef-blocked the IP, as they're the only one using it. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 10:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Multiple editors have been spamming these related links, sometimes as "M a n h o o d 1 0 1 . c o m" of a totally non-notable men's rights website. Most of the accounts have been blocked for spamming, but replacements are recreated every few days to continue the edits, as well as making some disputed assertions on the Fort Hood shootings page.
Thanks.-- Slp1 ( talk) 18:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring to add link to the Content delivery network article. Attempts have been continuous for more than a year - and escalated to 3RR violations in September ( [7]). I had originally reported this here in September, but removed it when the spammer finally posted to a talk page. Recently, the linkspamming has resumed, with no further attempt to discuss (the most recent IP has even resorted to vandalism to user pages of those who revert the spam [8]). --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
paperspoint.net: 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
Paperspoint.net appears to hold pirate copies of exam papers, mark schemes etc (e.g. [http: //www.paperspoint.net/o_level/chem_5070.html CHEMISTERY 5070] [sic] has Cambridge University copyright material), so fails the Linking to copyrighted works test.
The link is being added to exam articles, so far by four Worldcall Telecom dynamic IP addresses in Pakistan and a newly registered account (Zrt1992). In each case I've warned with spam1 or spam2. Examples: GCE Ordinary Level ( diff 1, diff 2, diff 3), International General Certificate of Secondary Education ( diff) and GCE Advanced Level ( diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). - Pointillist ( talk) 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC), updated 18:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Repeated addition of link over past three months. Has continued despite warnings from multiple users and a block for repeatedly adding the link. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 22:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this but could someone check out this site? It was used in the Guy Fawkes Night article but Norton Safe Search flags it up as a malaware site. I've removed the link from the article but I'm concerned someone may put it back in. Richerman ( talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Links to mbtvp.com and nikecoo.com have been appearing on articles relating to footwear. Users have been replacing existing references and links with the business website.
- Reconsider ! 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Use of frames for spamdexing. See WikiProject Spam report I'm sick of cleaning this up. MER-C 09:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Some more frame redirect sites. MER-C 03:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
A gaming fansite which has members of it spamming the Empire Earth article for over a year now. Also has illegal pirated copies of the game which it instructs its visitors to download. Piracy page at http://save-ee.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1572 Discussion of them spamming the article at http://save-ee.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&p=9893
Needs to be added.-- Thearmed1 ( talk) 15:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
cinegemini.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
IP hopping block evading spammer(s). See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 11:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Removals. |
This site (CAIS-SPAS) was apparently added a couple of years ago due to somewhat dubious reasons. It is an important and credible reference site for Iranian archeological sites as well as related publications.-- Mehrshad123 ( talk) 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Here: Here: associatedcontent.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 Why is this site blocked? Argues spam. Please remove this site of the blacklist. Associated content is a site recognized. Thanks! ( Mago266 ( talk) 04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
HU12, thanks for attention, but I need very much this source.( Mago266 ( talk) 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
Art rock article, but no longer need because they are not considering the article. If I need, then I ask here. Thank's ( Mago266 ( talk) 02:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
For some reason this site is listed here and blocked as spam. I can see no reason why this site is blocked as it has a large archive of useful information on the Fiero... from maintenance information on stock engines to build-up threads for engine swaps and body modifications. The userbase is extremely knowledgeable and, for the most part, quite friendly. If you would, please remove this site from the blacklist so that others interested in learning more about this car can do so.
Thanks. 76.114.90.132 ( talk) 06:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)skuzzboomer
This site is in the spam list for some reason. Actually doesn't know why this is in there.
I'm admin and I haven't engage with Wikipedia before.
I suggest this site to be included in the section of Google wave. because this site giving Google Wave Invites to people: colombopro[.]com/12/01/google-wave-invites/.
Site is even not containing any ads or materials that are inappropriate. I'm proposing you to remove the site from blacklist and enlist it in the section of Google Wave, because many people be able to get Google Wave Invites. Thank You.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wickumsiha (
talk •
contribs) 13:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems strange that we would have this site on the blacklist when we have an article about it. I've used it as a source in a few articles, so this must be a fairly recent addition. I noticed this when I was editing Boo Boo Stewart to re-include a source that was in an older revision [15], only to get a note from the filter. In any case, unless there's been misusage of the links somehow, I'd like to request a removal. Glass Cobra 20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I have seen the block page a few times. It bothers me how poorly explained it is, and how it is not linked to a suitable explanation for the block. Editors can and do use webcitation and other backup services to avoid these restrictions, if it were properly explained we might be less inclined to route around this damage.
We could get into a whole other discussion about the quality and credibility of news sources, there are definitely some good articles on Examiner.com and blocking it doesn't seem like the right solution to improving article quality or encouraging editors to go to the real source.
Personally I try to avoid linking to sites that have content that is likely to disappear behind a paywall or have a noarchive/norobots policy since they are a severe detriment to easy WP:Verifiability and a cause of excessive link rot.
Despite those flaws in the blocklist there is a much bigger flaw, examiner.com.au a Tasmanian newspaper and a site not affiliated with the Examiner.com network has been blocked and is flagged by the blocklist. This block needs to be lifted as soon as possible and frankly the whole block on Examiner.com should be lifted if it cannot be done properly. -- Horkana ( talk) 23:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
So I had a look at the error message and now that I'm not just being annoyed and blocked from making the edit I wanted to make I can see the error message is not so bad for what it is.
Unfortunately the error message is far too generic, it explains only that a site might be banned without giving any reason why
citation needed. I'm supposed to take your word for it? In all other things I'm supposed to be skeptical and expect references and the people who have blocked this site have failed to provide an adequate relevant explanation in context. If this was an article it would be rejected so fast it would have skid marks.
I do sincerely appreciate
Dirk Beetstra taking the time to explain why the site was banned but it is not something he should have to do, and it is not something I should have to come here and ask about to find out about either. When a site is blocked the reason for it being blocked and necessary context should be linked/referenced and directly included in the relevant context of the error message. Page deletions include a message to the deletion discussion and blacklisting should be just as transparent.
This will hopefully be my last comment on the issue, I much prefer to be adding and editing. --
Horkana (
talk) 19:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why this is on the blacklist, but I am writing an article about it, so I am requesting it be removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninlyoko ( talk • contribs)
This is the official website for a Royal Air Force section that is higly relevant to the article Wellingborough School CCF. Please whitelist the link. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0o-JayParmar-o0 ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a useful page on this site which describes the types of Instant hot water dispenser available (the article originally described only one type); the page has useful factual information although it also displays advertisements. The specific http is kitchen-gadgets.suite101.com/article.cfm/home_electric_instant_hot_water_dispensers. I would suggest that this site, or at least this page, be unblocked, or alternatively that a page with equivalent content be found. I couldn't find either "gadgets" or "suite101" on the local or global spam blacklists, but that may be because I'm not familiar with spam filtering on Wikipedia. I have put a reference to the page (without leading "http://") in the article for now. Pol098 ( talk) 07:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be a legit hotel group, and owns a five star hotel, Grange City Hotel which would normally have a link to the hotel website, e.g. to www.grangehotels.com/hotels-london/grange-city-hotel/grange-city-hotel.aspx?int=1
I don't know why it's on the blacklist. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This website provides merchants with information regarding merchant cash advances. It discusses the entire lending process, and what merchants should be looking for when taking out a merchant cash advance. Many merchants don't know about this relatively new form of funding and this site provides them with answers to many questions they may have. Why is this site on the black list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merchantcashadvances ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm the webmaster of the Internet Review of Books, which has been blacklisted for spamming. Apparently some of our team attempted to post too many references to our website on various other Wikipedia articles. Although I was not part of the ensuing email exchange, I understand from our editor that he promised a Wikipedia administrator that he would stop the offending practice. He did so.
Please allow me to explain ourselves, so that at least you know our offense was unintentional. We are a book-review website that publishes approximately 20 or so reviews each month. If permissible by the rules of Wikipedia, we would from time to time look for Wiki articles about the authors of books featured on our site, and add a link to our review of the person's book. Our intent has never been to blanket Wikipedia with references to the Internet Review of Books; indeed, those references would only be to the pages of authors whose work has been reviewed by our reviewers.
We are in our third year of continuous operation and are slowly building a faithful readership. Meanwhile, our reputation is important to us, so news of a blacklist is painful. Would you please either remove us from the blacklist or explain the steps we must take for you to remove us?
Kind regards, Organmountains ( talk) 03:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Bob Sanchez
http://www.nariphaltan.org/nari/index.php
" for use in that article only. Done. Be sure to use the link exactly as presented, variations of that format will not work.--
Hu12 (
talk) 05:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)I feel this listing is inappropriate. Is it because it is a commerical website? Because it contains an high amount of valid information about cities, I came across it when expanding the Kathmandu article. Even if not accepted as a reference believe it is a very good resource to link to related pages as an external link. For instance google Kathmandu education and it has a lot of info about all aspects of cities. Please remove from the blacklist. Hell, I fail to understand how if fallingrain.com can be accepted and not this site!!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I really don't know what point you are trying to make about telling me to reach OTHERLINKS (as if I havne't read it before). Fallingrain is known by many of us, Darwinek, myself and many pthers to contain false information about population and altitude yet is used in thousands of articles, particularly developing world to reference articles. That is more damaging to the encyclopedia. The fact that you allow lesser informed individuals to think it reliable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm posting this here because I'm not sure whether unlisting this subject is appropriate. There's been an article about Redtube ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a few weeks, but I notice the site itself is blacklisted. As the article contains independent references which verify a certain degree of notability, I'm wondering whether it might be useful to be able to include a link to the site itself. Having said that, I have heard of problems involving this stie in the past, one being that clicking on some of the links can result in the user receiving unwanted pop up windows requesting bill payments, which are locked for a certain amount of time. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy ( talk) 15:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the website of a self-publishing company with ties to the open-source software community which I believe was added to the blacklist in error. At the time when associatedcontent.com was requested to the blacklist, a number of other sites were piggybacked onto the block request. However, there was no convincing argument that Lulu was a problem. While the other sites were described as paying editors for link hits, and that there was a flood of hundreds of users and articles involved, Lulu sells books and not web articles, and the justification was about one user adding one link to one particular page(!) [18] I came across this when working on our page about Lulu Enterprises a while back, and would like to fix a nontrivial amount of broken references to its policies and procedures. As this is an less likely target of abuse, and it appeared to be added in haste, I feel that it is appropriate to remove this publisher's website from the blacklist. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems. |
This section is for archiving Discussions. |
The following discussion 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.
It was proposed for removal above and then withdrawn, but I'd like to reopen it. I agree that it's not a particularly reliable source. If someone used it to back up a dubious fact or to establish notability, I'd challenge them on it. But sources of questionable reliability are not blanket banned using technical means; there's no community consensus for that (that I'm aware of). Our reliable source guidelines say that articles should primarily rely on reliable sources, but as with all our guidelines, it's subject to discretion and exception. I believe that using the spam blacklist in this way exceeds the scope of what it's supposed to be for, and that this case is gray enough that it shouldn't be listed. As well, I don't believe that examiner.com has any unique conflicts of interest in terms of the author's compensation... I can't imagine many web sites where a goal isn't to drive traffic. Anyway in summary, I agree that it's "blog like"... I agree that it should be used with caution, but I disagree that it should be blanket banned using the blunt instrument of the spamlist. Gigs ( talk) 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Before we take this to a wider audience, I'd like to at least get some more or less neutral questions agreed upon. To me, the main questions are:
In taking this to the community, I would want to remind people that we do have XLinkBot as well for doing reversible reverting of possibly ill-advised links that can be undone by established editors, so that people are aware that we do have tools other than the blacklist for this sort of thing. Gigs ( talk) 14:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I actually would like to turn this discussion around. We have until now only few cases of link-types which go onto this blacklist without discussion, and sometimes even without abuse, or even without any additions to Wikipedia (redirect sites like tinyurl.com are one, sites which are installing malicious software another, referral links are sometimes also blacklisted very fast without widescale abuse). I'd like to hear some community input on what to do with these 'free web hosts which offer money to the creator of documents on a pay-per-view basis' (like associatedcontent, ehow, examiner). IMHO, such sites should not be linked to, except after careful examination of specific documents and whitelisting of such documents on a need-to-link-to basis, and that such sites can actually be blacklisted to avoid abuse. Thoughts? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist for further discussion. Gigs ( talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's my attempt at a neutral summary:
User:Gigs/blacklistRfC. It's not live yet so don't start commenting there, but I'd appreciate editing of the "Arguments" section, especially if anyone thinks I have mischaracterized a position.
Gigs (
talk) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
A few comments on this whole topic. Blacklisting is evidence-based and isnt used Pre-emptively (With exception to malware/exploits). Removal requests are treated on a case by case basis where outcomes are based on community established policies and guidelines, which carry community-wide consensus. These core principles are agreed by all here, except for Gigs who is alone in opposing these priciples.
Additionaly, the discussion of Pre-emption started by Beetstra appears clearly intended to get thoughts and ideas on a hypothetical, and does not seem to be a proposal, nor does it attempt to trump current practice. So them, Why a Rfc? The RfC wholey miscaracterizes the purpose, intent and actual practice of blacklisting and appears to be an attempt by its creator to usurp discussion, further a viewpoint, and to imply that the MediaWiki:blacklist is somehow being improprly used.-- Hu12 ( talk) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Gigs, one of the feelings I tried to get into the RfC yesterday evening was a reflection of what is actually behind blacklisting.
For these sites like examiner.com, there are billions of pages possible, all of them possible spam targets, what, even likely ones. Associatedcontent.com made it a long, long time without being fully blacklisted. And you don't want to know how much work has been behind it to keep up with spammers coming up with new stuff. There are a couple of whitelisting requests (for specific documents) a month, and some get declined as useless anyway. Yes, a couple. Those documents are really not worth the effort that would be behind cleaning up behind the spammers.
Is it bad that the whole site is blacklisted, from a sourcing point of view, YES. It hampers referencing the good stuff, it hampers in editing, it implies bad faith on those editors who contribute to these sites without having as primary target 'making money'. You say, there are here 3 or 4 people that have commented and who are mostly also active in blacklist administration (maybe a bad faith assumption, but there are only a few who understand what the problem actually is). Thát is the problem, and if the RfC does get more active in actually keeping up with the spam, then it is fine. But a likely outcome is the conclusion that many will say 'those sites should not be blanket blacklisted', the spam hence increases, but those who then have it made possible will not be the ones to help cleaning it up. Your remark '"All here" is a pretty biased audience' is not going to alleviate the already existing frustration (actually, it is in part the basis of this rant). Systematically fighting spam comes down to a handful of editors and admins, we all engage in fighting vandalism (even brand-new editors fight vandalism). Let me try again: Spam != vandalism. Vandals don't earn money from what they do. Spammers earn money from what they do, for some it is their job, companies run on spamming, what, even not-for-profit organisations hire SEOs to make sure they get linked in as many as possible places, because more links = more people know you = more people donating money to your good cause. Spam is not just the Sildenafil mails you get in your inbox. Spam is a more persistent problem than vandalism. Only few vandals go through the systematic effort of creating socks, finding ways to circumvent anti-vandalism bots or edit filters. A lot of spammers however do. It's their job. And sites like ehow, associatedcontent and examiner put that same power into the hands of the man in the street.
I am sorry, I don't think that the RfC will in any form be able to convey the significance and the size of the problem, I can however see other outcomes. And I don't think that is the feeling that I, nor you, can get into the RfC. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm .. no, that is not what I mean. It's more that I would like more people to actually get involved in the topic. And I have already seen the much nastier and more personal contexts of it (both from spammers and from experienced editors, both on spam topics and on other topics). It is not my first reaction, this is my second or third rant of this type regarding the more liberal use of sites which impose massive problems. I am sorry that I react this way, but you (and others) place the same common remarks which are made over and over (my apologies to you, Gigs, for the words, it is a reaction to the triggering of just the frustrations by (again, I am sorry) someone who is ignorant about spam efforts and spam problems, again the same remarks/arguments as we hear so often), which exactly describe the problem, but which are not a solution.
Of course I see utility in community consensus, and I am trying in the RfC, but I don't think that the RfC can express the problem, without going into extensive detail (and even then). I'll have a bit more of a go. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Note; Moved the draft out of the MediaWiki namespace to User:Gigs/blacklistRfC. This provides an appropriate development ground with corresponding talkpage, unlike interface pages. Feel free to continue discussions there. -- Hu12 ( talk) 07:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)