Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2013

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

Proposed Additions

[edit]

wikinewstime.com

[edit]

wikinewstime.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

If I remember correctly there were quite a few more IP addresses spamming this site, but these were the only three I could find. - SudoGhost 17:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Included a more recent account. - SudoGhost 12:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wikipediocracy.com

[edit]

wikipediocracy.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

WO has regrettably decided to out a Wikipedia user on its pages (the link is available from its main page, and several sub-pages that link to what's on the front page) and several en-Wikipedia users have gone on a crusade to mention this site as much as possible to push drama and in some cases to further the outing. I hope WO will do the responsible thing and remove the post, but until such time as the outing information is no longer so readily available, such links should be blocked.

SirFozzie (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without waiting for discussion here, ArbCom member User:AGK has already added it to the blacklist. Just days ago there was a discussion about blacklisting the site at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal where it was not supported by the community. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I think that it needs to be discussed, but what the hell do we do with this thread now? SirFozzie (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you defining as "the community", by the way? SilverserenC 07:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, first this is clearly not "SPAM". Second, there was a community discussion on this, the community said no. Third, even if you put up a request here, do you really think it looks good for User:AGK to jump in right away and fulfill the request, no questions asked, contra community consensus, and with him in particular being involved in this drama up to his ears? A cynical person might say AGK and you are colluding to retroactively manufacture a justification for yet another stupid block.Volunteer Marek 21:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without expressing a comment on the merit of this (and no, the spamblacklist is not used only for spam Marek, the name derives from the extension), this should be first cleared from the various pages it's posted upon so that people that attempt to edit them (I'm thinking especially of user talk pages) will not run into the blacklist and be confused. Snowolf How can I help? 21:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, revert the precipitate action taken by AGK. Second re-open the discussion on the Village Pump if there is any credible evidence that the consensus has changed. Otherwise, just accept that the majority do not accept that there ever was an outing, and move on. Bielle (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware that the adding of this site to the blacklist had already been discussed. I've reverted my edit. (Needless to say, Marek's suggestion is utterly inaccurate.) AGK [•] 22:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then can you unblock MZMcBride since he didn't violate any policies by linking to the site? Volunteer Marek 22:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As the site is being used for outing and harassment, it should definitely be added to the blacklist. No doubt we will now get protests from Wikipediocracy members like Marek but the ball is in their court: if they stop the outing and ban the outers, they can come off the blacklist. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prioryman, please remove your lie and slander where you suggest that I've ever outed anyone. You've been following the whole thing. You know what's up. Stop lying. Also I'm not a "member" (never swore the secret oath, never burned the saint, don't know the handshake).Volunteer Marek 23:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest that and for the record, as far as I know you've never outed anyone. But as you're well aware, others have, such as the banned User:Vigilant. You're a frequent Wikipediocracy poster and you always pop up to defend it so yes, that makes you a member. I've noticed that you people tend to go around in a pack so no doubt we'll be seeing The Devil's Advocate and others of the same ilk shortly. As I said, though, the solution is simple. Clean out the stables: stop incidents of outing, get rid of existing outing posts and ban the outers. Prioryman (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipediocracy members like Marek but the ball is in their court: if they stop the outing and ban the outers very clearly insinuates that somehow I am/was responsible. It's a sleazy insinuation. And if I defend Wikipediocracy on here it's because most of the other criticism coming from you and others are just as sleazy as this one.
And "you people"? Honestly? Volunteer Marek 23:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a degree of collective responsibility, though in your case it's good that you've spoken out against outing. Obviously the primary responsibility lies with the people actually running the site as they are clearly willing to tolerate and facilitate outing. Until that changes Wikipediocracy should stay in the blacklist. Prioryman (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing, wait, no, just striking, the slander against me. I really appreciate it. Very copacetic of you. I hope that in the future when you slander someone again, you will remove it as facilely.Volunteer Marek 00:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The ridiculous BADSITES concept never goes away. See my essay. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There may well be legitimate case for a link to site in discussions about what corrective measures need to be taken. In appropriate links are better handled by reverts than a complete ban of the site.--Salix (talk): 08:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The spam blacklist is not there to enforce policy, or guideline. It is a last resort in stopping the promotional (in the widest sense of the word) abuse of a site. First, I am by far not convinced that linking to this site equals outing, secondly, other methods to stop the abuse are far from exhausted, not even whether the community fully agrees that this is abuse (worthy of stopping). I do agree that there is further little value in linking to the site, but that alone is not necessarily enough to make it worthy of blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am not defending outing of any kind, but pointing out that such a use for this list is contrary to the intent of the list - and were we to add any site for any non-conforming rationale, we could add a multitude of sites for other non-conforming rationales - including news organisations which are disfavoured by editors by simple consensus here, groups which are "wrong" on issues - again by simple consensus here, etc. Collect (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Nothing has occurred to warrant such an action, and this renewed "BADSITES" frenzy really needs to stop. Everyking (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Add to the list per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That decision was bad when they made it, and only got worse afterward after it was constantly cited (as you're doing now) as if it were policy, even though it's bedrock principle that ArbCom does not make policy. This led to a later case that produced much more nuanced results, but naturally the hardliners prefer to continue to cite the earlier one. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lulz, 2006 Arbcom? That'd be like the Supreme Court citing precedent in the Salem Witch Trials. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasonings provided by Dtobias, Beetstra and Everyking. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The site is primarily for criticism, not harassment or outing. That a very few of its postings may have incidentally had the effect of causing a possible outing is not a reason for a general blacklisting. I say "possible" because the actual existence & nature of the outing remains disputed (I have no personal views on that--I see the dispute--I have not analyzed it myself--but it's clear that there is no agreement on whether it has occurred, its nature, its intent, and its significance. This list is designed to block promotional sites. There are many other reasons to not link, "As the site is being used for outing and harassment," is absurd as a reason---many perfectly good news and comment sites have been used for bad purposes--it's one of the problems of the internet. We do not run the internet. It is hard enough to do our proper job, which is to keep the content of our own site free from these things. and then there is the question of COI. When someone proposes to suppress information critical of themselves, or even hinder access to it, regardless of the reason given, oneself, the tendency of any fair minded person will be to assume the true reason is to suppress criticism. We all make that assumption with regard to every request by other people or organizations to suppress information. We're not intrinsically more moral than the rest of the world, and therefore no more likely to be free from this than outsiders. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, that you think they accidentally outed is giving them too much credit. Their front page is dedicated to the outing, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that much of their work is dedicated to outing. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A meritless abuse of the spam blacklist goes without saying. But really, this is at the heart a nuisance complaint, it not not something with anything resembling a valid concern, or a way to improve/protect the Wikipedia. Imagine we're in some magical alternate (and idiotic) universe where this motion did pass, what was really accomplished? Say we're discussing something at AN/I and someone decides to point out that what we're talking about was also the subject of a Wikipediocracy entry that week. Linking directly is now verboten, so the person says "hey, why don't you go to the Wikipediocracy and read blog of April 1 2009, it will shed some light on what we're talking about here." Is that actionable? What if the message is more vague, such as "go google Wikipediocracy and you'll see..." ? What you're straying into here is thoughtcrime*. You cannot bar criticism of the Wikipedia from the Wikipedia; all you can do is parlor tricks like this, to put extra hoops and hurdles in people's way. (*If our younger readers are befuddled by that ancient reference, then think of it like the time when Dolores Umbridge banned the Hogwarts students from reading the Quibbler.) Tarc (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying "We shouldn't have laws that prevent convicted felons from getting their hands on guns. After all, if they really want to get their hands on a gun, they can easily find a way to do so. All such a law would do is put extra hoops and hurdles in that felon's way, and make it a little harder for him to get a gun." Extra hoops and hurdles are better than no hoops and hurdles, in my opinion. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 22:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blind hated of the website is clouding your judgement, I'm afraid. Here, try this. Look at what Fozzie did in the nomination, stating "the link is available from its main page, and several sub-pages that link to what's on the front page". If there really is outing at the target site, how is his phrasing any different from posting the URL? Hell, did SirFozzie violate outing by posting the URL as part of the blacklist request template, or as the header of this discussion section?? Why hasn't he been blocked yet, Scotty? Tarc (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My hatred of the site is not blind. Rather, my hatred of the site is informed by the fact that I have been personally been harassed on that forum multiple times, including the posting of private details about me, my life, and my employer. Including veiled threats to contact my employer in an attempt to get me fired. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, this discussion is not about the outright banning of any mentions of the existence of Wikipediocracy, or the mentioning of threads on Wikipediocracy, or even the copying and pasting of content from Wikipediocracy onto Wikipedia (assuming the content doesn't violate any WP policies). These are all red herrings. All this discussion is about is whether linking to the site on-wiki should be allowed. My opinion is that it should not be allowed, at least temporarily, until it can be demonstrated that the moderators of the site will take action to disallow the privacy violations that the site has become known for. I'm all for discourse and criticism, but when it devolves into retaliatory harassment and outing, that's where I draw the line. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 00:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All this discussion is about is whether linking to the site on-wiki should be allowed. - oh dear. This discussion is in fact about whether to add a specific domain to the spam blacklist. A ban on linking would be wrong, but it would at least have the merit of being a social measure for a social problem, rather than a technical measure for a social problem. But such a proposal has not been made, and this is not the place to make it. Rd232 talk 00:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm definitely confused. Adding the domain to the spam blacklist is a de facto ban on linking to that domain. It prevents anyone from saving a page that includes a link to that domain. If someone tried to get around that ban by posting a redirect url or a shortened url, they would be blocked for intentionally circumventing the ban on linking to that domain. Whether the ban is a technical measure or a social measure is unimportant, the end result is the same except that the technical measure is easier to enforce. It would be ludicrous to start a proposal to ban linking to the domain without involving the blacklist. The first comment on such a proposal would invariably be, "Why don't you just start a proposal to add the domain to the blacklist?" ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's back-to-front. First get agreement to ban something, then consider whether technical measures that may support the ban, like spam blacklist or abuse filter are worth the cost (eg the cost of not allowing any exceptions that might be needed, screwing up auto-archiving, etc). Rd232 talk 10:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't even remotely address the point, Scotty; are you unable to or unwilling to? Here it is again, simple and unavoidable; what does blacklisting a URL accomplish, when editors would be allowed to talk about it or otherwise make reference to where/how to get there? It's like telling people "don't tell anyone I live at 320 Sycamore", but "he lives in the rundown house on the corner" is a-ok. Tarc (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we'd already been over this. It simply makes it more difficult to direct people to privacy violations on an external site. If blacklisting the URL doesn't really do much of anything, as you purport, then why are you so vehemently against it? ‑Scottywong| yak _ 14:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, for finally admitting that this proposal is about simply being a nuisance/hindrance rather than actually doing something beneficial for the Wikipedia. Your candor is refreshing, though your parting question is the type of base fallacy that any college freshman would snicker at. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By being a nuisance/hindrance to people who want to link to privacy violations on external sites, it does improve Wikipedia. We need editors to stick around, and they're not going to if their privacy is routinely violated. Blacklisting Wikipediocracy is, of course, not a perfect solution to the problem, but it's better than doing nothing at all. It would send a message to those who manage the forum, that they need to pro-actively remove their worst content if they want to be able to link on-wiki to the best of their content. The fact that so many WO regulars are vehemently against blacklisting the site proves that blacklisting is a significant hindrance. If circumventing the blacklist was indeed trivial, then no one would care if it was blacklisted. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"but it's better than doing nothing at all"... Yes, in perfect admin-speak, doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing. I get that, I think we all do, and it is a significant flaw in you and some of your compatriots. As for "The fact that so many WO regulars are vehemently against blacklisting the site proves that blacklisting is a significant hindrance", I'm not sure what else to say, as it is rather embarrassing to think that an adult believe that to be a sound argument. In your mind, is there no other basis on which one could possibly oppose a bad proposal? As I've noted elsewhere, this is a shade of a Bush-era "if you have nothing to hide, why oppose warrantless wiretaps?" Tarc (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy having a spirited debate as much as the next guy, but if you feel the need to constantly insult me and insinuate that I am a child or a college freshmen or whatever, then I'm not going to waste much more of my time discussing this with you. Your constant insults smack of a desperate need to compensate for the well-known fact that Wikipediocracy hosts some problematic content, and that blacklisting the site is the best solution that Wikipedia currently has to combat that problem, despite it not being a perfect solution (and if there is a better solution, then I'm all ears). It's not the "wrong" thing to do (in my opinion), it's simply not a perfect solution because there is no perfect solution. Sometimes things aren't black and white. Just because we don't have a perfect solution doesn't mean we shouldn't try an incremental solution. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 18:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm You keep proposing an action which will have zero appreciable effect, keep deploying the same fallacious argument about "if you don't care then stop defending it so much", and keep ignoring the very simple notion that if someone does post a link to something that is legitimately policy-violating, all you have to do is...ding ding ding...block the user and oversight the link. You tried to unilaterally blacklist it anyways despite a clear lack of community consensus and got a smackdown at AN/I because of that. These are not qualities that one generally looks for in an administrator. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scottywong, there is a solution to this "problem". It the judicious application of what it says in WP:HARASSMENT, a policy written to deal with exactly this situation. If editors post links to offsite content that is deemed to be harassing they may end up blocked. What appears to be the issue here is that you do not wish for there to be any response other than indef blocking anyone who posts a link to any part ofthe site, because you "hate" it. If you can't have that, you don't want anyone to be able to link to it. Does that about sum it up? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never said that I want anyone who posts a link to any page on that site to be indef blocked. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I want to prevent people from linking to problematic content on the site, and I want to prevent otherwise productive editors from being blocked for inadvertently linking to a problematic page, and I want to provide an incentive to the folks that run Wikipediocracy to police their site better and disallow harassing content. The blacklist accomplishes all three. The current policies only accomplish the first one. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I came to that conclusion by reading between the lines of what you were saying. And in this response you engage in the same type of justifications that lead me to that conclusion. Current policy always for a range of options to suit the situation. You say you don't want "otherwise productive editors" blocked but they need not be if the linkage is, as you say, inadvertent. Removing the link with a note would suffice in such a case. You say you want to provide "an incentive" for the owners of Wikipediocracy to "police their site better and disallow harassing content", but that sounds very much like Silver seren's farcical suggestion that we apply Wikipedia policies to content written on external sites. I would like to influence how Google does certain things - can I add it to the blacklist to give them "an incentive" to do what I want? I'm pretty sure that both Google and Wikipediocracy have their own ideas of what types of content are appropriate and they are not based on what either of us want to see there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, but you're just proving my point that Tarc seems to think is sophomoric. If you asked a random Google user if they would care if google.com was blacklisted on wikipedia, they wouldn't care. It wouldn't affect them. Therefore, it would be an ineffective measure if the goal is to motivate Google to change their behavior. On the other hand, if you asked a random Wikipediocracy user if they would care if wikipediocracy.com was blacklisted, they would likely care. Since WO exists primarily to discuss the topic of Wikipedia, blacklisting would have significant effect. By and large, the only people who would even care to read anything on WO are Wikipedia editors. Cut off that audience, and you cut off much of the readership of the site. Therefore, blacklisting WO is an effective motivator, while blacklisting Google is not. This is the reason why every time there is a proposal to blacklist WO, all of the WO users come out in droves to oppose it. After all, if blacklisting wouldn't have a significant effect, then few of the WO users would waste their time opposing the proposal. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 21:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that some people are opposed to capital punishment. They likely fear that the state will kill them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. And um...I wonder which person is Umbridge here.  ;-) TCO (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh FFS. How is this not dead yet? Oppose unworkable and foolish idea (as anyone familiar with my involvement in overturning the blacklisting on Commons last year might guess; see commons:Commons:Requests_for_comment/offsite_discussions). It's a blunt technical measure which is easily circumvented, and it's also wrong in principle (see Commons discussion). Rd232 talk 23:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to table this request as there appear to be a majority of Wikipedia users with either "side's" COI, including myself, and this is doomed to be a hopeless wrangle. If you strike all of the WPO members, whether militant or not, plus all the people who detest the site and many of its luminaries, you would have left a couple supports and a couple opposes. Someone close this as "inconclusive and damned from the start," please. →StaniStani  23:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I doubt the proposal would have any practical impact on the actual issues of concern and would function only as a symbolic measure. Any improper linkage to WO should already be covered by existing outing and related policies. WO may be a bit of a curate's egg, but it contains legitimate critique of WP and notable editors which it should be unproblematic to link to. Also, as noted by User:Stanistani, the commentary and discussion here has been authored, largely, by either those who are participants on WO or those who have had negative comments made about them on WO (although those two groups are not mutually exclusive) and reflects partisan interest. To infer community consensus from such commentary and position-taking would be to denature that process. For full disclosure, I'm registered on the WO forum, but I've yet to post there and none of these issues impinge upon me directly. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Another dose of drama-drenched BADSITES mania. One or two objectionable posts and the dogs bare their fangs... Carrite (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

allindonesiatravel.com

[edit]

This is a travel site that is being repeatedly added by IP editors whose sole purpose is adding this site to articles.

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpsome (talk • contribs) 19:37, 14 April 2013‎

siasat.info

[edit]

Adsense google_ad_client = pub-2769714569853346 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report)
Google Analytics ID: UA-35440128 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

Spammers

MER-C 11:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

college-optional-careers.com

[edit]

Google Analytics ID: UA-32580392 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

Spammers
See also

MER-C 12:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

shortstoriesshort.com

[edit]
Spammers

MER-C 12:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Web Workz Interactive spam on Wikipedia

[edit]
Spammers
See also

MER-C 13:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

artfulcharlatan.com

[edit]
Spammer

A single IP has been adding the same blog promotion to White van speaker scam for a month, despite being briefly blocked. Protecting the article over one spammer seems a bit much, and an IP shouldn't be blocked, so perhaps blacklisting is the best solution. --McGeddon (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

botcrawl.com

[edit]

Multiple IP editors adding links and sources pointing to this site to security-related articles in an attempt to make it look legitimate. However due to their failed attempt to have an article made for it and how its used, it feels like they're just trying to spam it. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

procleanerslondon.com cleaninglondon.co

[edit]

There has been a spate of posts recently involving these two sites, primarily by Bulgarian IPs but also a couple of UK IPs.

[1]
[2],[3],[4],[5]
[6]
[7],[8],[9],[10]
[11],[12]
[13]

Jojalozzo 22:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

azgor.com

[edit]

See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 12:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that list doesn't grow, here's a suggested regex to catch 'em all:
�(?:azgor|short-biography|[-a-z]*bangla-?news-?paper)\.c[co]�
~Amatulić (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bestnotes.info

[edit]
Spammers
See also

MER-C 07:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added by WilliamH. MER-C 10:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Removals

[edit]

pv-magazine.com

[edit]

I can not say that I have any strong feelings one way or another, but I can say that many times when I am looking for a reference for something about photovoltaics, pv-magazine.com comes up as the first reference I find. I now know I need to go look for another source, but it is not blacklisted because of any fault with the site itself, just with the aggressive spamming by an employee, which they have agreed to stop. Apteva (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hindupad.com

[edit]

Hindupad.com is an internationally acclaimed website which updates content with news on Hinduism, festivals, vratas, pujas and more. About.com which is a New York Times Company has awarded Hindupad with Readers Choice Award 2011 for Best Hindu Blog Section in Hinduism category. We have also been regularly featured in the local media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MjrPraveen (talk • contribs) 11:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"We have also been regularly featured in the local media"
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-representatives' requests, nor those who where involved in spamming them . Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your blacklisted links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

aVoiceForMen.com

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

This was nominated and added in December 2011 due to what seems like some kind of DDoS campaign involving some Australians. Something to do with BLP, related. That is over a year since past and I don't think there is any serious risk of that continuing if it is removed.

These IPs were replacing valid existing articles with links to AVFM pages, which was obviously wrong, but I don't think it warrants blocking the site entirely. Some pages there were labelled "attack pages" but even were that true, it would not invalidate all the content on that site.

This site contains essays from notable people such as Erin Pizzey (the URL ending is com/author/erin-pizzey/) meaning it would be a valuable resource for linking to the 5 articles she has published on the site so far, as a means of detailing her Wikipedia article in relation to current events. Ranze (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The archives contain several similar requests:
Given all that, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to de-list. The blacklisting has been too recent, and there have been too many subsequent requests from editors with a COI that suggest abuse will continue if it is de-listed, which overrides the minimal value of being able to link to a few pages on that site. So,  Not done, although alternative views from other admins are, of course, welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A year and 4 months doesn't seem very recent to me. How long until it's not recent? Also should it really matter? It's the validity of blocking a site that should be discussed, not how long ago a block was. If people were mass-spamming links to CNN, would we block CNN, or block the users? Blocking the site because of people spamming it isn't sensible here, whoever did that is long gone and banned. Ranze (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this,  Not done. All these discussions from, often, COI editors suggest that there is still a push going on to have it included where-ever possible. For the documents which can be used as a reliable source on specific articles,  Defer to Whitelist, where they could be whitelisted after discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's really a lot of trouble, and has a damaging silencing effect since most people trying to add relevant articles will not know about how to go through that process, I don't even have the slightest clue. Unless there's a serious problem with the site overall (which would be?) I don't see the justification in continuing to block it. Ranze (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "serious problem with the site overall" should be adequately clear from the prior discussion links above. The fact that editors with a conflict of interest have fairly recent records of desiring to spam Wikipedia is ample reason to continue blocking the site. The site's quality or usefulness to Wikipedia are not relevant considerations for the blacklist. Only past behavior matters. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Amatulic. The potential for harm is more important than the notional "silencing" of opinions from one website. We are still free to cite newspapers that have commented on the website, which also ensures that the opinion has registered with the public. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ranze, "has a damaging silencing effect since most people trying to add relevant articles .." .. until now, these additions 'to relevant articles' were mostly spammy, and thát is what is (was) the damaging effect. When some edit is blocked by the blacklist, the instructions are clear, either come here (and we will send you through to the whitelist if necessary) or they can go to the whitelist immediately. Wikipedia is NOT for promoting or pushing a point. If a link get rejected, people should know that they first need to get consensus on talkpages of relevant articles, or with a WikiProject for specific links, and then get further, not continue pushing a link (with the follow up of repeated delisting requests - this is one which has now been discussed in so many places that this is not going to be delisted without the backup of a significant number of established editors, and for a significant time (year?) requests to delist will be summarily no Declined). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

gayot.com

[edit]

I am creating this request on behalf of a representative of the company that contacted us via OTRS (for those with access it's ticket:2013041810015133). I looked at the blacklist log and I don't see a specific reason for the inclusion of this domain, so I have no idea why it was placed there to begin with. The gist of the request from them is that a new person has taken over their 'social media operations' and they sincerely apologize if previous employees' behavior caused the blacklisting. Not being familiar with the ins and outs of the anti-spam efforts in Wikipedia, I indicated that since there is no specific reason in the log, I would create the request for them as an uninvolved editor, given the fact that under the rules they cannot do it themselves. I will also note that there is already a large amount of links to this domain (specifically in articles about restaurants), and that the linked material seems legitimate at first glance at least. But again, no idea why it was blacklisted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Defer to Whitelist. The reason given in the log is quite specific: "heavy spamming of site by multiple SPAs; use as 'reference' as rationale for link spam". The specific discussions about this site are:
Gayot.com is not getting the message that No means No. As you can see, this is not the first request. And as this representative likely already knows from prior similar requests to de-list, we don't remove a site from the blacklist at the request of a company representative or anyone else with a conflict of interest. We would consider requests from a trusted, high-volume editor who deems gayot.com worthy of referencing in Wikipedia articles. However, it would seem that the whitelist is sufficient. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will let them know. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cypress.com

[edit]

Cypress is an IC chip manufacturer that shouldn't be blacklisted! No corporation with a stock symbol should ever be put on the blacklist, seriously! see http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:CY No one can edit the PSoC article until this issue is resolved. You should be banning editors instead of official corporate websites! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. Anyone can edit PSoC. Nothing prevents you from proposing individual pages for whitelisting.  Defer to Whitelist.
This domain will never be removed from the blacklist. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Jun 1#Cypress Technologies still spamming Wikipedia to understand why. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editing includes adding or fixing references, so the answer is no they can't. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure they can. There is no requirement that references be online. If you need an online reference, use the whitelist, that's what it's for. But be judicious; too many requests to whitelist WP:PRIMARYSOURCE references will likely get denied. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked it was 2013 instead of 2010. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Last time I checked, the company was still around, with no word whatsoever about changing their marketing strategy. It isn't going to get de-listed. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Mail blacklist

[edit]

This is a email provider service, it shouldn't be blacklisted, I think. --Rezonansowy (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Of what possible use is a tor email provider service to Wikipedia? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This URL could improve Tor Mail article. Removing from the list, in my opinion, is a good idea. --Rezonansowy (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You say "this is a email provider service".. So, it would be an appropriate external link on the Wikipedia page about that specific service provider. On Tor Mail is is an indirect external link, which is to be avoided. If the mail provider is noteworthy enough for mentioning on the page (but not for an own article), then 'The Tor mail service <name of service> is the <whatever reason makes it notable>[1]' will do, there is no need for the external link (inline) in that statement, nor in the reference (primary source does not make a fact notable). If the plan is to make a list of Tor mail services, then that list should not be there, per WP:NOTYELLOW and WP:SPAMHOLE. If there are other reasons (e.g. the article on the specific mail service is notable enough ..), then  Defer to Whitelist for this specific link. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bookielist.com

[edit]

bookielist.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

The following website bookielist.com is part of international sports media company SPORTMEDIA24- leader in sports betting information resources on the internet. In fact all content [[14]] is copied from our website so we REQUIRE to be listed as external source and unblock our domain. Thank you --Clogss01 (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Samuel[reply]

 Not done. We don't remove anything from the blacklist at the request of a site owner or anyone else with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high volume editor deems bookielist.com worthy or referencing, we would consider the request. If there is a copyright violation on Wikipedia regarding your site, the fix is to remove the violation, not remove a blacklist entry. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: who copied all information from this site to en.wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

puresytycd.com

[edit]

This is one of the last really good sources for information about the TV show So You Think You Can Dance. All of the other sites have died. This source is necessary to make a great SYTYCD wikipedia page.

voobly.com

[edit]

Hello, I have noticed that other similar sites/software have pages on wikipedia and I think it would be good to include an article about Voobly also. It is widely used and even Microsoft Gaming Zone referred their players to use this software for cd rom matchmaking when they retired their service. The software is similar to other software on wikipedia such as Garena, Gameranger and Tunngle, but also offers different features such as an Elo Rating System. The spamming of the site was done by a former mod of the site, who has since been long removed. Thank You. VPIN3 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Age of Empires I & II Matchmaking Retired on MSN Games[2]
  • Voobly 2.1.60.24[3]
  • Voobly 2.1[4]
  • Voobly caters for many different CD-ROM games[5]
  • Age of Empires II Online dengan Voobly[6]
  • Voobly Software Awards[7]

Feel free to write an article about Voobly if it has achieved notability per WP:CORP, and  Defer to Whitelist to request white-listing of a single page on voobly.com for use in that article. I suggest their "about" page at www.voobly.com/pages/view/about for whitelisting. You need not have the link available when you post the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

saveourseeker.com

[edit]

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

This appears to have been blacklisted, although I can't seem to find it in the blacklist logs. I'm not sure why it's blacklisted, although it is a very active fan campaign, and as such they've probably tried to post the link around here on various arguably relevant pages. I'd like to remove this from the blacklist because despite the appearance of the website it really is the most active fan site for the TV show Legend of the Seeker, and has been endorsed by the show's main actors, and even by the author of the books the show was based on. I think it should appear in the external links section of the Legend of the Seeker page. Thanks. --WikiTome Talk 04:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not blacklisted here, but on meta, so delisting is not going to happen here, though most of the spamming did happen on en.wikipedia (see meta's COIBot XWiki report for the addition discussion). You could try whitelisting locally ( Defer to Whitelist) or request delisting there ( Defer to Global blacklist).
Anyways, this is a fan-site, which are generally discouraged as external links, and we are not a linkfarm or the yellow pages anyway - we do not link to everything that is of interest, or that is somehow related to a subject. I am not convinced that this is a proper addition to the page (and the homepage of Terry Goodkind (http://www.terrygoodkind.com) that is there is certainly indirect (and hence fails WP:EL), Terry Goodkind is linked in the text, and that is where the official homepage of Terry Goodkind is supposed to be .. again, we are not a linkfarm).
Note, the official homepage of the subject, http://www.legendoftheseeker.com, is a redirect to a pretty defunct website, http://www.dadt.com/lots/index.html, where every link in itself redirects to http://www.dadt.com/lots/dvd/index.html, a page solely for the selling of DVD's, without ANY information. But at least that is the official homepage of the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I realize linkfarming is not appropriate, but I was planning to write a section for the article about the fan response, which has been pretty large, and includes all sorts of activities including donating DVDs of the show to hospital libraries and other institutions, and most recently, a big crowdfunding campaign. In light of your note that fan content is generally discouraged, should I save myself the time?
As for your last paragraph, I'm not quite sure what the "legendoftheseeker.com" has to do with anything I've mentioned, but since I'd be very surprised if that were actually the official homepage of anything, I've removed it from the page. --WikiTome Talk 14:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can generally write about the fanbase without having to link to it directly. If there are specific pages which need to be used as a reference on the site of the fans, then those should be specifically whitelisted.
I came to the official site (the one that was listed) to see if they mention the official fansite (which then makes the inclusion of the fansite in the external link list not necessary), but the site itself looked strange - hence I mentioned it here for someone else to have a second look at it. If the fansite is not linked from the official site, one has first to question whether it is the official fansite, but then I could see circumstances why it could be in the external link list (though it would be a rare exception - e.g. generally, an official site of a subject lists their official facebook (if they have), then there is never need to list it again in the external links. If it is not on the official site, but it is the official facebook and it is of prime importance, then a facebook could be mentioned next to the official site). I hope this explains, and thanks for having a look and for your understanding. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point out that Terry Goodkind himself acknowledges and supports the Save Our Seeker campaign. It gets a mention on his FAQ page at http://www.terrygoodkind.com/resources-faq.shtml (the page isn't searchable, but scroll about 4/5 to the bottom and see the section in the left column about how Terry Goodkind feels about the Legend of the Seeker TV series). In that sense one can consider it an "official" fan site. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

smashinginterviews.com

[edit]

Not quite sure why this one is being blocked, It is a well-respected and notable magazine, including interviews with high-profile people. Any help would be appreciated here. Boboman360 (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The logfile says that ourprattville.com and smashinginterviews.com were blocked in December 2010. Both sites have the same publisher and a history of self-promotion, including IPs adding links. Being well-respected and notable are irrelevant to the blacklist, only behavior matters. It's also blacklisted on 5 other language Wikipedias as well as the English Wikipedia.
 Defer to Whitelist to request white-listing of specific pages on that site. Note that I have declined your request for whitelisting already because you didn't state which link you want whitelisted, and also note there is another whitelisting request for the same site that was already declined earlier. Please review those two entries on the whitelist talk page before proposing another request. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Parker's personally, and I can say with total assurance that they have never spammed anyone, nor has the veracity of their work, including their bestselling book, ever been called into question. I will be informing them of this situation where they can deal with this matter appropriately. In closing, this must be some mistake. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.179.198 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 31 May 2013‎

We generally don't entertain removal requests from site owners or anyone else with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high-volume editor deems the site worthy of using as a reference, we would consider a de-listing request from such an editor. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

manning.com

[edit]

Manning Publications is a publisher of technical books and it would be useful to be able to link to their books when referencing them. Curiously enough I could find no reason why it was blacklisted in the first place. All other publishers I linked to were allowed.

Hu12 (talk · contribs) listed manning.com on 29 June 2012 (diff), due to this item on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Apparently we've had a problem with this publisher abusing multiple accounts to spam Wikipedia.
 Defer to Whitelist to request white-listing of a specific page on manning.com for use as a reference, if indeed such a link is appropriate for such use. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that linking to a page where a book is offered for sale is not legit? What is the purpose of the URL part of a book citation then? (I’ll just remove all those URLs from my contribution in this case.) Roland.kuhn (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roland, we are not a service to show people where they can buy an item. And why on manning.com, and not on any other page where you can buy the item. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, linking to any "buy it here" page is not legit. The purpose of the url parameter of the {{cite book}} template is to link to a relevant online copy of a page or excerpt from the book, to support the citation. Typically for book citations, a Google Books link is included to aid verification. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. The intention was to prove that the books actually exist, but I guess the ISBN should be enough for that purpose. 90.229.179.63 (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems

[edit]
  1. ^ ref to independent source making this fact noteworthy
  2. ^ http://zone.msn.com/en/general/article/aoferetiring
  3. ^ http://games.softpedia.com/get/Tools/Voobly.shtml
  4. ^ http://voobly.software.informer.com/2.1/
  5. ^ http://www.rtsguru.com/game/11/uc/3539/Voobly.html
  6. ^ http://djakartanews.blogspot.com/2011/09/age-of-empires-ii-online-dengan-voobly.html
  7. ^ http://voobly.software.informer.com/awards/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2013&oldid=1109434240"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy