These are not "spam" in the strict sense of the word, but often used misguided (unacceptable) sources. Nationmaster.com/encyclopedia is an old copy of Wikipedia, and Statemaster.com is a copy or mirror of nationmaster.com. Every few weeks, a sweep is done to remove these links, but it would be much easier to stop them from being added. There are e.g. for the moment 63 links to the statemaster.com encyclopedia[1], which are essentially (outdated) selfreferences to an advert-included version of Wikipedia. If there is a more efficient or procedurally more correct way of keeping these links out, feel free to guide me in the right direction! If this blacklisting is accepted, make sure to only blacklist the /encyclopedia part of these sites, the remainder of nationmaster is generally accepted as a source for info on countries. Fram (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I'm not really familiar with either the blacklist or the (abuse) filter, and this one seems to fall somewhere between the two. Links to the above sites are not added to spam them, to promote traffic, but because people honsetly believe they have found an interesting reliable source. On the other hand, they are not acceptable sources but mirrors with ads. Disallowing them will improve our articles, educate some editors, and relieve some strain from other editors (who are now regularly removing these links). How we best exclude these links is less important. Since they are external links, the spam filter seemed the most appropriate process. Fram (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answers.com contains info from many sources, including Wikipedia. I would prefer if every Answers.com link was replaced by a link to its source, but it's not really a pure Wikipedia mirror. Fram (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:D I love how "I will do this in a few days" was indeed done... nearly five months later. Reminds me of all the things I should have done here a long time ago and which lay abandoned ;-) Thanks, Stifle! Fram (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fashionologie.com is a blog. User Ewestlake (and an IP which is linked by comments at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist) have added numerous links to this blog, some of them to pages with multiple links to blacklisted domain modelinia.com, e.g. [fashionologie.com/search/modelinia?page=1]. Ewestlake refers to modelinia.com as "we" and there is little doubt as to the identity of the user, per previous abuse. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answers.com does pull information from sources other than Wikipedia, so it can often be a valid source. It's important to avoid self-sourcing from it, but blacklisting is a bit harsh. Zetawoof(ζ)20:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. answers.com does include Wikipedia articles and information abstracted from them, but it's a cut above most of the "websponge" sites that just have a bunch of database dumps on them. Links here do bear watching, however. — Gavia immer (talk)20:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
84 recorded additions, mainly this site (may not be involved?)
And then some others (next has 73, then 25 and lower) .. including long standing accounts (and I removed Cluebot from above list as well, but that does not say a thing). Generally, this looks very spammy and should stop. I see the last IP is discussing. I suggest to cleanup before blacklisting, there are a lot of links there, and though pages can be saved while it is blacklisted, vandalism revert will be hampered by this. --Dirk BeetstraTC11:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this is not a site with pure user-generated content. Users may submit content but it is reviewed and fact-checked before being published; and it prefers interviews with artists for information, which is easy to check. From its origin and purpose, reliability would be important to it. The nature of the site and what it covers is that many links might be appropriate, and there is no way to distinguish without article by article review. The above accounts added a lot of links, but it's only roughly 700 out of 3077, and that might simply reflect several editors with an interest in music, who are aware of the site. After all, Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Resources lists it! If an editor is adding a lot of links that seem inappropriate, the editor can be warned to discuss in article Talk first, or even short-blocked if the editor is not responsive. Blacklisting is, by guidelines, the last resort. --Abd (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, the three IPs with > 600 edits between them are SPA's. Moreover, 81.109.97.242 (talk·contribs) stopped editing on 21:08, 13 July 2009, where 86.26.123.204 (talk·contribs) started on 18:50, 14 July 2009; 86.26.123.204 stopped editing on 8 September 2009, where 86.26.123.197 (talk·contribs) started on 18:33, 9 September 2009 and edited until now. Though that does not prove that that is one single editor, I would find it very, very strange that three independent editors with the same provider stop and start exactly at the same time as one other stops, etc. etc. I would conclude that it is some 'semi static' IP. There are warnings on the talkpages of the first two, to which there was no response. Both Pvae and ndugu are usernames which are named (or edit themselves) on Songfacts, but without a checkuser we don't know whether they are the same, and seen the pattern, they appear to be different editors. Still, also those two have a strong air of a SPA around them.
That a project is naming it, does not mean that it can not be spammed in an uncontrollable way. It might be a reason to be a bit slower with blacklisting.
The last IP seems to discuss, which suggests that we may get somewhere. I agree with you that blacklisting should be a last resort, and that it may be a bit early, but the spamming should really stop now, and previous additions should be carefully examined. --Dirk BeetstraTC16:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look like WP:REFSPAM to me. Googling "songfacts ashford kent" (where the 86.26 IPs geolocate to) suggests that it is a contributor to the site who is using it as a source here, rather than a conserted effort to spam the project with links. That said, the website is not a reliable source (it is effectively a wiki) and therefore we shouldn't use it as a reference. I've posted at Wikiproject Songs as it would be useful to get some input from them before any decisions are made on whether to remove the links. Smartse (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Smartse. >600 edits by one SPA editor, and two other editors who have a huge/complete preference for this site is stretching AGF quite a bit. It may not be owners of the site adding this, but contributors to the site also have a conflict of interest. I think I will stay with my previous conclusion: previous additions should be carefully examined (which probably means: rigorously cleaned) and when this persists, blacklisting should be considered. --Dirk BeetstraTC14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Declined per Beetstra with liberty to re-enter request should the matter deteriorate. XLinkBot may be an alternative in the interim. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thepetitionsite.com
We are blocking '\bpetition(?:online|s)?\b' (which takes out pretty much all petition sites), but apparently there are still many, many to:
Currently 133 uses of the site, although only under 50 of those appear to be in the main article space. Some of the uses show both in an article and the related talk page, so may need to review to see if some of those had consensus to keep for some reason. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link appears to still be in use on a handful of articles. If it is a reliable source in some cases, then an XLinkBot request may be more appropriate to prevent abuse. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is ongoing and persistent, and has resulted in blocks and page protection, neither of which has been effective at preventing the user from returning. SPA accounts engaging in spamming, link hijacking [2], POV pushing, and claimed COI issue [3](has denied ownership in subsequent post) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are two domains added by the user, seemingly a SPA, to commercial sites: toreadnext looks like a book database except it just pulls comments from Amazon and adds an amazon referrer link - so even less appropriate or useful than Amazon links which are not supposed to be used. Indiaez is a pirate video hosting site. I removed toreadnext once from WP:Book sources once but it was re-added.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds17:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not done This doesn't appear to be getting actively abused at this time, the user involved has only made two edits in 2010, the only edit this month being nearly a week ago. At this level of activity, a request could be submitted to XLinkBot, although with only one user involved with adding the links, a block may be the simpler solution should they continue as a SPA. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to have been added at all recently (most recent is May 2009). Not convinced this is altogether necessary. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We will review the Wikipedia SPAM policy before contributing to wikipedia project in future. Please remove commonfloor.com from the Black List.
122.172.1.53 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Priya[reply]
The site was never added to the blacklist. I'll let this slide for now. However, next time there will be no excuses. MER-C13:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is due to negligence of unexperienced staff,please remove the ultimatelinings and qwikliner name from blacklisted/spam posting list.this mistake will never happen in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.247.213 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 5 June 2010
These sites was never added to the blacklist. I'll let this slide on your assurances. However, if I see these sites being spammed again, expect them to be blacklisted with prejudice as there are no more excuses. MER-C13:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MER-C and I had lengthy discussions with the editor in question (perm link 1, perm link 2). I don't think it is, at the moment, necessary to blacklist this as I trust that the inappropriate use of this link has now stopped (I am still convinced that we do not have any use for this or similar links). I expect that the editor comes with a statement here (and also in the thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam), and would suggest to close after that as 'not done' (with the understanding, that if inappropriate use does continue/restart after this, that there will be no excuse anymore). --Dirk BeetstraTC07:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I confiss that I made many mistakes regarding linking in wikipedia, but all was due to missunderstanding not intending to spam, & thanks to Beetstra & MER-C, that cleared some points in the disscussion made I don't want to be a spammer in your openion, that ended fine in a way satisfied me & cleared up some incomprehensible points for me
I wish to close this thread as 'not done', there is no need to block the domain as I will never post it in wikipedia any more. :)
Fair enough. If spamming resumes, it's likely to be blacklisted without further discussion. For now, Not done per above discussions with the user. Ale_Jrbtalk07:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the IP's talk page and it is a wonderful insight into an unhinged mind. I gave him a final warning for COI/spam a while back yet he persists in adding the same link to other articles. What is interesting (disturbing?) is how the user has turned the talk page into more of a user page and a place for a series of ramblings about wikis and websites. However, none of this gets away from the COI spamming of low-value web content which would be stopped dead by blacklisting. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am upset that this was put to this Spam-backlist. I tried to help Wikipedia french by putting in information from the website. I used the website as a reference. I thought this was okay, for the fact that I had previously discussed in the talk page and nobody disagreed with me. I try to help Wikipedia a lot and am very upset about it not being liked. Please remove this site from the blacklist and help me improve it so it meets criteria. This discussion will be carried over to: Talk:French Language. 207.166.197.123 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can probably be addressed by blocking the IP if the spamming persists. We can blacklist if other IPs or accounts attempt adding the link. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only one IP, no evidence of significant commercial/promotional spamming that can't be managed with blocks & agree with Jamie. Not doneAle_Jrbtalk15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's a reliable source or not is not for the blacklist to decide. However, as the user in question has done little except re-add the link, and it has been added by other users with little or no other edits, I think the promotional reason for adding is greater than any content dispute. Thus, DoneAle_Jrbtalk15:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anon IPs from India keep spamming this into today's featured article and other articles. In some cases they're even wiping out legitimate external links in the process. I have been removing the links but they keep readding them all over the place. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same range of Anon IPs who were spamming the khatana.net domain are now spamming a new domain. Probably a mirror of the above to circumvent expected blacklisting of the main domain. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please unblock this site:
http:\\www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com.
This site contains extensive info about Nasheed singer Muhammad Owais Raza Qadri.This site is his official site too.Blocking the site means alot of valuable info missing from Wikipedia.Please unblock it as soon as possible cause i want to add an article about his albums and 95% info is coming from his site so please unblock it.
Alhajowaisqadri.com is Official website of Muhammad Owais Raza Qadri,according to Guidelines,official websites are the most preferable sources of info.
The content on the site are free and the site a 'Non-profit site.
I have about 18 references for the article.Out of 17 are from deferent pages from The website.So it'll take alot of time to unblock all 18 links on the site.
It seems that,Acc. To you,biggest reason for blocking reason Is That This troll spammed wikipedia with that link.So what's the wrong with the link?WHY DON'T YOU BLOCK THAT VANDALISER???.Please Block him instead of blocking the website.
1) I did not dispute that it was not. And that guideline does not say that the official site of the subject is the preferred source of info.
2) So what, the content was spammed, whether it is commercial or not is totally irrelevant, someone found it necessary to inappropriately promote that site, and that is why it was blocked.
3) 'I have about 18 references for the article', IF you reference information about Muhammad Owais Raza Qadri with 18 references to his own site, then I suggest that you read the reliable sources guideline. We need independent sources from the subject.
4) No, there were already three editors spamming it. And we would have to block some 60.000 IP addresses. The editor was sufficiently warned, editors were blocked for it. To no avail.
If you put those 18 links up in one request (as you have them all ready, apparently), then there is no problem. That could go quick. Yelling to me is not going to help. --Dirk BeetstraTC15:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 User doesn't mean 60000 users to be blocked.I think it's the laziness.
->
By the way,i've requested for whitelisting the pages here.
Unblacklist it? I can't even pronounce it! :-) Well, if it's the singer's official site, there should at least be an exception to allow a link to it on his bio page, as is normal practice. But is it the official site? There's another site with a shorter (and slightly less tongue-twisterish) domain name already linked on the page. If it's a singer's official site, how is it "nonprofit"... it's there to promote his career, isn't it? But if it's really nonprofit, it should have used a .org domain instead of .com (a pet peeve of mine). *Dan T.* (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site wickedtickles.co.uk is an online retail outlet. The intent is to establish a stub for the company. No links to products will be added only, official company site main page.Please remove from Spam listing Digirat (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am not trying to promote to sell, just promote to gain more interest in the car.
I don't understand what you mean in your last post as I tried to add in to the links section of Citroen Visa, but it still says that it is on the black list.
Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodlejumper (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's right, but there is more than one blacklist. Unlike this blacklist, the global blacklist affects all Wikimedia wikis, all of Wikia and other wikis that choose to use it to stop spam.
You need to revise your understanding of the concept "online encyclopedia" before you get permabanned. MER-C06:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my 'I changed my mind' post: you have, in good faith, been told that your link was not welcome (what part of the concept of 'promoting a website' did you not understand, it has only very little to do with being commercial?), and you were asked to discuss. You insisted, resulting in your link being blacklisted. In stead of then starting to discuss, you do two attempts to insert redirect services to include your link. I am sorry, that is stretching WP:AGF a bit too far. I thank you for bringing to our attention the existence of redirect services, and I did choose to blacklist all three on meta now. You can try and get your link removed there, but I think that it is better that you first discuss your link here with editors who are both knowledgeable in the subject, and who are regulars here, may I suggest a Wikipedia:WikiProject for you? Thanks. --Dirk BeetstraTC07:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dirk and MER-C,
Firstly, my understanding of an online encyclopedia is a place for people to go to, to find out helpful information about a certian topic. In this case - by linking my forum, if a person needed anymore further information, they could ask it on the forum. Thus, they would have benefited from Wikipedia and the forum would have benefited another member.
I only tried the re-directing link due to my mis-understanding of one of the messages in which I thought it was all clear. I tried to use the normal link and that didn't work so attempted a shorter link to see if that worked.
So, where does this go now? I fully feel that I understand what an online encyclopedia is and I am certainly not trying to make any money or gain profit by placing the link of that page.
Hi, I was wondering if this site can be unblocked. The site is a fairly well respected celebrity and entertainment news site with a full staff of editors. The site also has regular exclusives, interviews with celebrities, and breaking news. For example, I would like to add that Kristoffer Polaha is also known as K-Po which was from an exclusive interview by the site. Please let me know if it's possible to unblock the subdomain. Thank you for your time!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gromitthedog (talk • contribs)
It was added with:
\bjustjared\.buzznet\.com\b # Kanonkas # Gossip site/copyvio issues/speculation/not a reliable source used wrongly
\bjustjaredjr\.buzznet\.com\b # Kanonkas # Gossip site/copyvio issues/speculation/not a reliable source used wrongly
in February 2009. I am particularly unhappy with the point that is made there: 'copyvio issues', and the other 3 points do not help either. Unless they significantly changed, I would suggest Defer to Whitelist for a specific link (addressing these concerns). --Dirk BeetstraTC13:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Graduate level website for Campbell University School of Pharmacy and the only reason I'd like to have it unblocked is so that the wikipedia page could have the most up-to-date information.
Not blacklisted here (and actually, the rule is wider, and may make sense, still), but since you already requested this on the whitelist, I did whitelist this link. Not done. --Dirk BeetstraTC14:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
