Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,246: Line 1,246:


=Completed Proposed removals=
=Completed Proposed removals=
==nytimes.com==
{{LinkSummary|nytimes.com}}
Don't understand why this was blacklisted.[[User:PRehse|Peter Rehse]] ([[User talk:PRehse|talk]]) 09:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
:Not blacklisted at the moment. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 09:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

==examiner.com==
* {{LinkSummary|examiner.com}}
'''How can the site be useful'''
This website is a legitimate source for local news.

'''Why it should not be blacklisted'''
I'm unsure as to why it was blacklisted at all.. The site has lots of coverage of local news and sports that is useful for fleshing out articles. For example, I was trying to source information on some minor league baseball teams and the best sources I could find were from local beat writers that post to this website.

:{{Declined}}. This is a perennial request, examiner.com is not a reliable source and there is long-term abuse. Please request whitelisting of any specific links which are agreed, at [[WP:RSN]], to meet our sourcing guidelines. --<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 20:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
::I'd like to see evidence of this "long term abuse". It seems fool-hardy to block an entire website because of a few bad apples. There is a lot of good content there. [[User:Spanneraol|Spanneraol]] ([[User talk:Spanneraol|talk]]) 20:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
::: You can look through the past discusisons: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=examiner.com&prefix=MediaWiki+talk%3ASpam-blacklist&fulltext=Search+all+Spam-blacklist+archives&fulltext=Search]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
:::If you have no interest in reading that: examiner.com pays its authors per pageview, and so there is a ''massive'' spam incentive (and it indeed was spammed relentlessly, which is why it's now blacklisted), not helped by the fact that it deliberately tries to confuse itself with newspapers that call themselves "examiner". In addition, there's no editorial oversight, so no reason to link to it at all as a source. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

:::{{rto|Spanneraol}} I find [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/01#Request_to_whitelist_news_column|this]] discussion always quite informative to show how examiner.com was used, and how it will be used when editors are allowed to use it at will. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 03:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

== yachtpals.com ==
* {{LinkSummary|yachtpals.com}}

'''How can the site be useful'''
Seems a legit secondary source for sailing info including stuff not covered elsewhere about 20th century sailing history.

'''Why it should not be blacklisted'''
Has been requested to be removed before, as genuinely a normal site ... no idea why perception in the past seems to have been toward the opinion that they were self-delisting (would they really even know/care?) ... [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2012/06#Yachtpals previous request]]. [[User:Pratyeka|prat]] ([[User talk:Pratyeka|talk]]) 22:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
: Does not seem to pass [[WP:RS]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
:: '''Support''' Reliability is not a criteria for being put on the blacklist. It seems this criteria has abused several times, such as with Bible history (dot) com and with Knowyourmeme. This is the type of source that is not recommended, but not necessarily without use. [[WP:RS]] is only an absolute must in cases of [[WP:BLP]] . --[[User:Typenolies|Typenolies]] ([[User talk:Typenolies|talk]]) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

:::{{rto|Pratyeka}} Yachtpals was spammed by several IPs in a small range. Following blacklisting, an IP in the same range requested delisting. That is obvious example of someone with a vested interest trying to push their links (or a group of people doing that, or an SEO company). Then in one whitelist request, an alternative was found easily, and here it is suggested that it is not a [[WP:RS]] anyway. With a history of spamming, and no history of significant use (no granted whitelist requests, hardly any whitelist requests anyway) I am reluctant to de-list. {{deferwhite}} for specific links that are needed. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 03:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::: Reliability would be a reason to delist after evidence of spamming. It's not reliable, therefore there's no reason to delist. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 07:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

== pv-magazine.com ==
* {{LinkSummary|pv-magazine.com}}
This website is a secondary source which includes specific information on photovoltaic projects throughout the world. It was used legitimately in a number of photovoltaic power stations articles and is generally reliable. It was [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May_2011#pv-magazine.com|discussed in May 2011]] for spamming.

'''How can the site be useful'''
It is used as a reliable source. Often this website is the only English secondary source with a specific information.

'''Why it should not be blacklisted'''
It is useful as a source for many articles. Despite that the website was spammed, it is a valuable resource for myself and others who works with energy-related articles. When discussed in 2011, it was said that "If a non-COI editor makes a later request, it could be reconsidered". Accordingly I am making that request. Additional issues are that the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive, and it was blacklisted without prior notifying relevant Wikiproject. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

:The original thread regarding the spamming is [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Mar_1#User:Paulzubrinich]]
:"Despite that the website was spammed .... the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive". I respectfully disagree - it prevented the spamming (there were multiple accounts (some likely with a conflict of interest: [[User:Beckystuart]] - [http://www.linkedin.com/pub/becky-stuart/6/31/608]; [[User:Paulzubrinich]]), they show an intention to spam ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=426369557]), they mislead other editors ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flextronics&diff=prev&oldid=419957681]), replace other sources with theirs, there is no reason to think that it should stop (in fact, [[User:MER-C]] noted the creation of new socks when old were blocked)), it does not ''punish'' anyone.
:Blacklisted without prior notifying relevant WikiProject - that is at best a good consideration, but is not, has never been, and should never be a compulsory part of blacklisting.
:Did you look whether the spamming actually is not still actively busy, so that we can safely say that blacklisting is not necessary anymore to prevent further spamming? Otherwise, I would consider to {{deferwhite}} for the links that are needed. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

::Taking account the time how long this site has been blacklisted there are not so much websites left. However, it is a very time-consuming to apply for each single link for whitelisting (as a rule, it takes weeks to get any reaction and too often the reaction is an advice to look for some other source.) During the latest discussion about different -technology.com sites there were several proposals how to use bots and filter to make the process of blacklisting more transparent and detecting spammers more easily; however, it seems that there is no wish to change the current system. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 18:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::It is good that we do not have any deadlines, then.
:::Beagel, [[WP:BRFA]] is right there for that task (I am not going to operate that bot, and I warn anyone who wants to take that task of familiarising themselves of what happened with Betacommand). I believe that it should not be compulsory, that is it - and you still seem to think that I am unwilling to notify wikiprojects of 'their' links being blacklisted, and that I don't (or didn't) make the analysis. I explained what and how I analysed it, and I still believe that most of these -technology.com links are not secondary sources, but simple re-reports of primary sources (in fact, the first addition of one of those sites that I encountered made by you (after the many by the spammers) was exactly that - a rewrite of the company report - in fact, I only believed it when I found the original, as they did not source where they actually got the information from).
:::I don't think that this process is less transparent than [[WP:AN/I]] or [[WP:RS/N]] .. it is just that people don't care. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 18:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
::::So, no analysis what is the impact to the work of other editors who are here to improve the Wikipedia and not for spamming. And no intention to see the situation from these editors point of view. And it is big difference, if the source is directly from the company (that is, primary source) or re-written (not re-printed) by the webmedia source (secondary source). [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::Don't start that again, 'the work of other editors who are here to improve the Wikipedia and not for spamming' - you say you have all these pages on your watchlist (together with tens of others in the Wikiproject), still none cared about the spammers.
:::::No, it is not, it is re-written without pointing to the original source - it is only reliable when you see the original source and compare. This is not a reliable secondary source. There is nothing against primary sources, and this is a prime example why prime sources should sometimes be used over secondary sources. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 19:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said I have all these pages in my watchlist. My watchlist icludes only about 3,000 pages including files, templates, projects etc. However, your accusation that "none cared about the spammers" is baseless. I can't speak on behalf of anybody else; however, if there has been spamming also like vandalism etc I have always dealt with this. For some reasons, there has been no such a large-scale spamming at these pages on my watch list as you seems to imply. Therefore, my experience have been that blacklisting of certain websites have been created more harm and extra work than any spammer I have dealt with. And this is not said only by me but has been said here by several other editors. So, maybe instead of denying the problem it would be better if we could together find a way to make the system less painful for the ordinary editors without being less effective for fighting spammers. I personally suggested some potential solutions (I don't say that they are ready solutions or that there is no better solutions) but instead the of dialogue and discussing it you just rejected any cahnge to the current system. Although, if the link is added not by spammer but ordinary editor with a long edit history without histroy of spamming, vandalizing, paid editing etc, it would be logical if the link will be whitelisted more or less automatically. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Sorry, I did not mean it in that way, not as a personal complaint to you. These spammers were too smart for that, Beagel. Still, between the 7-or-so last accounts (some likely socks seen their timing!) there are about 250 link additions. Count that for all the sites there are a couple of hundreds of links (500? 700?), and the fact that this is known to be busy for 7 years (did I still miss accounts, I think I blacklisted after 4, found more later, and I did see a number of accounts with in total 4 or 5 edits where they add 3 or 4 links, is it a spammer or not? I also have a 'gap' where the spammers don't seem to have been active, that is too curious to be true) quite some of the links that are there were originally spammed (the one on [[Navy]] is spammed (and IMHO, inappropriate)). Even if you had ALL articles in one of the spammed subject areas on your watchlist (which no-one has, I do not have all 14.000 chemicals on my watchlist), you might have seen just a couple of edits over months - as I said, they are smart, they know we are looking (we caught them spamming earlier).
::::::::I may have underestimated how often this link was used by regulars (the analysis if it should have been is elsewhere), but as I said - I see an (obviously incomplete) set of editors spamming, with hundreds of edits between them, and several hundreds of links there, and I found it easier to find spammers than regulars adding the site (it took me quite some time before I ran into the first case where you added the link, and as for the four you requested whitelisting for, I found that one replaceable as well (don't remember where, I left it)). Maybe the cleanup of at least the spammed links should have been more rigorous before blacklisting (and I still believe that quite some of the rest should go as well, there are better sources). Announcing it to the WikiProjects (which would probably be 30 or 40 in this case .. each for a 15-20 links on average) might have been an option, though I a) doubt much participation in cleaning (personal experience), and b) if you notify them on a regular basis of pending blacklisting that participation will even become lower - in the end I don't think it will have much of an effect, and c) the spamming would still go on and that would also need to be cleaned. The bot does a similar thing, it notifies people of 'questionable' links on pages on their watchlist. You say that you have 3000 pages on your watchlist, so a rough guess, that there would be 25 pages with now blacklisted links (tagged in one go, so all visible). Most of those 25 pages are likely watched by another 10 people, so you would on average have to evaluate 2 of them. I, as spam-fighter, would however first have to clean-out all the spammed links, and then evaluate (which is difficult for me, I am not a specialist in all these subjects) whether the others are replaceable, should go or should be whitelisted (in the meantime, I have to revert the ongoing spam).
::::::::I am not rejecting any change - I am all for more participation. But having compulsory notifications to Wikiprojects is not a solution (but just for the ''compulsory'' part of it - [[WP:PHARM]] is going to kill me after the 3rd notification of a Taladafil spammer, do I REALLY have to notify them? - and some links are plain spam and should undoubtedly be blacklisted but do not 'belong' to one, or any WikiProject. As I said elsewhere, I know what happened with Betacommand, the idea is good but the practical application is running into problems which will make people yell at the bot operator that operates that bot). For me, the solution is to get more people aware of the page and get more people commenting, and helping. And I have asked for that on several occasions ...
::::::::In most cases, requests for whitelisting for links added by regulars and requested by regulars go fairly automatic - though, and I have said that here before, ''besides'' that it was spammed, I have serious questions about the reliability (reliability is not the right word, it turns out that it is reliable, it is more that they are not independent determinations of the facts than really reliability - they are secondary, they appear therefore independent, but that is a wrong impression) and suitability of these links (and not only of the ones that were spammed). Examiner.com links are not automatically whitelisted if a regular requests it - we ask everybody to go the extra mile and show there is no better source for the same info. I think that that should happen here as well (but now it is not blacklisted no-one will care about the links that are there: they are fine because they are not blacklisted - and (likely after a bit of time) the spammers can carry on). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::re@ ''In most cases, requests for whitelisting for links added by regulars and requested by regulars go fairly automatic''. Based on my recent experience by asking whitelisting some links, which were not spamming and were not added by spammers, which you rejected, I would say that this statement does not reflect the reality adequately. There may be or may be not better sources, but it should not be the bases of rejection (as this is also not the bases of blacklisting). I do not reject the idea that in certain cases blacklisting and whitelisting of websites should be done based on their reliability but there should be very clearly defined written policy on this — otherwise it would be just a subjectivity of acting admin or in the worst cases, even censorship which goes againts the core principles of Wikipedia.
:::::::::re@''compulsory notifications''. I see the point and agree that proposing it as "compulsory" may create problems. I think that for Wikiprojects it would probably work better as opt-in, so they will have a choice if they would like to recieve these notifications or not. As my other proposals, I still think that it would be necessary analysing impact of the certain website/publisher blacklisting to the articles by using bot and/or specific Wikitool. It should be not only listing affected articles, but also list of editors who have added that certain website link into articles by number of that kind of edits. I also support what was said by another editor that in certain cases it would be more efficient to use filters instead of blacklisting. But, of course, these (and probably also some other) proposals need wider and better organized discussion. I have to admit that my proposal last time at Village Pump was not well-described and the discussion was not appropriately structured, which does not help to keep that discussion focused. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 11:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Regarding the whitelisting - whitelisting is done for links that are really needed. Do we have to whitelist an unreliable source where better sources exist (and in some cases were even already in use)? These sources should not be used, they should be replaced with reliable sources, even if those reliable sources are primary.
::::::::::Opt-in is also difficult, it is not dependent on the nature of the wikiproject, it is dependent on the nature of the site. Of course wikiproject pharmacology does not want to be notified if we blacklist another taladifil site, they do want to be notified if some publisher that they use is spamming Wikipedia and runs the risk to have their links blacklisted. Still, if you think that a bot c/should be written for this, that is something that we have bot-requests for.
::::::::::Maybe here notifications were necessary, but I still insist that I could find spammers easier than regulars using this site, and I still believe that a lot of these pages that are there should be replaced with the proper primary source as this secondary source is of less value (and because it is plainly re-writing the same info as the primary source - sometimes less correct) than the primary source. I am convinced that most of the news-items reported by these sites will not survive a [[WP:RS/N]]-discussion when the original is presented. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 12:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Also note that I did not decline/reject in those three discussions, I merely suggested alternatives that are not blacklisted and discussed the request. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 13:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::re@''Opt-in is also difficult, it is not dependent on the nature of the wikiproject, it is dependent on the nature of the site. Of course wikiproject pharmacology does not want to be notified if we blacklist another taladifil site, they do want to be notified if some publisher that they use is spamming Wikipedia and runs the risk to have their links blacklisted.'' I am some how confused. How the opt-in is more difficult compared to the current situation where is no notification? If you think that there are cases when notification is necessary nothwithstanding the opt-in, it could be done in addition to the bot manually. It needs only some goodwill for this.
:::::::::::re@''I still insist that I could find spammers easier than regulars using this site''. Excuse me but I can't understand what is your point. Nobody is not questioning your experiences fighting spamming but does it really more important than work of regulars using these sites for writing encyclopaedia?
:::::::::::re@''I still believe that a lot of these pages that are there should be replaced''. This is your right to believe. This does not mean you are right. I also believe that ''some'' of sites should be replaced while "some others" are useful for the project. That does not mean I am right. I agree that there is no agreement, a community based discussion is needed and as the reliability depends of the context, each link under question should be discussed separately. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 19:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, Opt-in is not more difficult than no notification, it is more difficult than blanket-always-notification. Opt-in on ''which'' links. I think that the situation I describe is going to be the same for all wikiprojects, so all WikiProjects would not opt-in and have to rely on the goodwill of the editors (which is there anyway, you are now just saying because in this one case you were not notified that it is never done - I realise that with the -technology.com sites I underestimated the size of the situation.
::::::::::::No, not more important per sé - the point is, spammers make money spamming their links, they insist, they go on (examples are there of organisations who spam 3-9 years despite links being blacklisted, this is not your run-of-the-mill vandalism, they persist). Playing whack-a-mole is futile, not blacklisting a site where the spammers are shown to be still active is damaging Wikipedia more than the little hurdle of whitelisting the material that is ''really'' needed. Often, the sites are of use on a very small subset of the 4 million+ pages that we have. I am sorry, but leaving some sites not blacklisted gives a lot of work to very few editors in favour of very, very few additions which are really important by a large group of editors. If I go through 20 situations where the link is used on Wikipedia (that was for the -technology.com websites) go back sifting through the history, and I find that none of those 20 were actually added by regulars but all by spammers then the conclusion rises quickly that regulars do not use the site very often and spammers do. Because that is what happened with the -technology.com websites, Beagel. I believe you that you say that you used that link regularly, but over the last three months 30-40 additions were by 6 to 8 spammers, and 3-4 by 1 to 2 regulars. If there are already 6-7 sock/meat puppets (or a whole sweat-shop), blocking the editors is futile, and page-protection is futile and gives a lot of aggravation to regulars as well - where is the line between continuing to play whack-a-mole with spammers and a bit of inconvenience to request whitelist the few links that are really needed?
::::::::::::I agree that the reliability depends on the context and use (there are cases where porn sites ''do'' need to be linked, despite that 99+% is plain abuse of the link). But if a site is actively and definitely spammed, or the site is not one of general use, then the mitigation plan is to blacklist the whole domain, and allow individual links to be whitelisted on their own merits. If those links are shown to be useful and not replaceable by other (better) sources, then whitelisting is a formality (even for a site of questionable reliability). Your suggestion 'each link under question should be discussed separately' - that is exactly where the whitelist comes in, where every single link can be separately whitelisted. If a site can be ''shown'' to be of general use (most/all of the discussions result in whitelisting), and the spam threat seems to have stopped, then de-listing could be considered. And those are the arguments that should be answered in this thread, not accusations of unwillingness to notify WikiProjects (how do you know that was not done in this case anyway?), nor unfounded remarks that it was a long time anyway (there are tools to show that sites are still spammed or that the threat has stopped completely).
::::::::::::Note that also the argument that this is often the only English source is not valid - [[WP:V]] does not require the sources to be in English, and you suggest that there are non-English sources. Moreover, if this source is an English translation of another language, you just assume that the translation is correct. Also, [[WP:V]] does not require a source to be online, nor does it require a source to be actually linked. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 04:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::re@''I realise that with the -technology.com sites I underestimated the size of the situation''. Yes, you did. And does "I underestimated the size of the situation" means that the blacklisting is based on one man estimation? However, this is exactly the reason why an impact analysis and usage of bot or special tool for this is needed. E.g. after proposal to blacklist the site (or group of sites by the same owner) the bot would list all the articles using this site as a reference, creates a list of users who have added this site with number of additions; and a number of individual Wikiproject banners on the affected articles. First, it gives an overview what the impact is. In the case of -technology.com sites the total number of articles is thousands, and number of editors adding this is hundreds. Second, it assist to detect spammers. Third, if a particular Wikiproject has hundreds of affected articles, one will know that for community-based consensus the notification of that particular WP is necessary. Knowing this beforehand probably would (and should) change the process of blacklisting.
:::::::::::::re@''If I go through 20 situations where the link is used on Wikipedia (that was for the -technology.com websites) go back sifting through the history, and I find that none of those 20 were actually added by regulars but all by spammers then the conclusion rises quickly that regulars do not use the site very often and spammers do''. Taking decision by 20 articles if thousands of articles are affected is not very representative. Again, using impact analysis as suggested at the previous paragraph would avoid that kind of underestimations. On the other hand, refusing to see the need for this will result with repeating similar situation again and again.
:::::::::::::re@''If those links are shown to be useful and not replaceable by other (better) sources, then whitelisting is a formality (even for a site of questionable reliability).'' If the whitelisting request is made by regular editor, not a spammer, and it is useful for the article, the fact if the the link is replaceable or not should not to be relevant because '''blaclisting is preventive, not punitive'''. From the preventive point of view, it does not make a difference, if the useful link added by regular editor is replaceable or not.
:::::::::::::re@''Note that also the argument that this is often the only English source is not valid - [[WP:V]] does not require the sources to be in English, and you suggest that there are non-English sources.'' I did not make this argument. Again, as I said in my previous paragraph, from the preventive point of view this is irrelevant. If requested by a regular editor and if it is useful, it should be whitelisted notwithstanding if and in which languages alternatives exist. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 05:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::::::@underestimation: No, if you read the thread, you see that it was not a one-man investigation, and if you read the related threads you see that more. And the number is hundreds, not thousands (maybe a thousand). I also saw hundreds of edits by identified spammers. Also, for the recent additions we have those statistics, and they do not make it much better, one or two uses by regulars, 20-30 by spammers.
::::::::::::::@20 situations: Again, it is hundreds, and it is a subset - I do not believe that the relative situation will be significantly different on 100 examinations. And again, I do see the need, I have done it in the past, and this situation does not occur thát often - you are around for what, 7 years and this is the ''first'' time that you see it happening, I am around for about 10 and this is also one of the first times this happens.
::::::::::::::@replaceability: I still do not see why you insist to use an unreliable source when better, reliable sources exist. In fact, I don't understand why you used that unreliable source in the first place when you added it originally.
::::::::::::::And yes, you make that exact argument in your delisting request: "'''How can the site be useful''' It is used as a reliable source. Often this website is the only English secondary source with a specific information." - that is it used as a source does not mean we need a link to it (not a [[WP:V]] requirement), and you remark that it is the 'only English secondary source' suggests that there are other language secondary sources with the same information (and being in English is not a [[WP:V]] requirement either). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 05:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@''And the number is hundreds, not thousands (maybe a thousand).'' The number of three -techology.com sites for WP Energy alone was more than 300. Taking account all other -technology.com sites for other WPs the number of "hundreds, not thousands" is an underestimation.
:::::::::::::::@''for the recent additions we have those statistics'' Could you provide the link to this statistics? However, we are not blaclisting also recent edits - if you blacklist the site, you blacklist all links referring to the that site.
:::::::::::::::@''I do not believe that the relative situation will be significantly different on 100 examinations.'' I have to apology that I did not explained my suggestion clearly. The issue is not about checking 20 sites or 100 sites. The idea is to list all editors who have added links to that particular site with a number of links added. This is different from what you do/did.
:::::::::::::::@''I don't understand why you used that unreliable source in the first place when you added it originally.'' Fact that you believe that the source is unreliable is what you believe–it does not make this source unreliable ''per se''. As I said, we have a different board for discussing reliability, it is not the purpose of this board. And taking account that there are several articles which I have brought to GA/FA level, including working specifically with the quality of sources, your allegation that I intentionally use unrealiable sources is unfounded. And again, purpose of this board is not to discuss relaibility of sources - the purpose is to fight spam. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 06:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::{{od}}I've done a bit of a count, a good 1500 maybe (all over, so not only mainspace). We get somewhere inbetween.
:::They are all in the COIBot reports linked from the discussions. No, we blacklist only new additions, not old ones. They are not affected except when removed (then re-addition would not work - which is why it is better that they get whitelisted when appropriate or removed when spammed/inappropriate).
:::What I did was check a good number of existing links, finding who added them. If of that subset only very few (if any) are by regulars, whereas the spammers that show up in that all link to many additions (the 8 identified accounts over a period of 6 years, sometimes operating at the same time, and I know that there are SPA's that I am unsure about, and likely missing accounts, have more than 400 edits on their name - about 20-25% of the total links already, not taking into account that some of the links are on talkpages which the spammers never added). I know that that means that 75-80% MAY have been added by regulars, but the sample subset did not show many ''regulars'' (as I said, there were some which did not have enough edits on their name to distinguish between being genuine new editors or spam SPAs - I have not listed nor ocunted them).
:::Maybe these sources and their alternatives should go through a [[WP:RS/N]] discussion, then. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 08:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

:{{Declined}}. No rationale to overcome the past spamming. --<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 15:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

== energy-business-review.com ==
* {{LinkSummary|energy-business-review.com}}
This website is a secondary source which includes good, detailed information on different type of energy projects throughout the world. It was used legitimately in a number of energy-related articles and is generally reliable and, notwithstanding blacklisting, it is still in use in some articles. It was [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Oct_1#Possible_spam_sites.3F|discussed in October 2009]] whith several other website for spamming. I myself have never seen it spammed on Wikipedia, just used as a reference.

'''How can the site be useful'''
It is used as a reliable source. Often this website is the only English secondary source with a specific information.

'''Why it should not be blacklisted'''
It may have been spammed with several other websites but it is most useful as a source for many articles. Despite that the website was spammed, it is a valuable resource for myself and others who works with energy-related articles. Additional issues are that the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive, and it was blacklisted without prior notifying relevant Wikiproject. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

:This site is part of the large scale CBROnline-spamming. This is mainly a site that re-reports company reports. There may be a few links left, most were removed, most are replaceable with the proper primary source (repeating the primary source does not make this a secondary source), whitelisting can handle the rest.
:"Despite that the website was spammed .... the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive". I respectfully disagree - it prevented the spamming (as has been shown, it is still ongoing with numerous related accounts lately spamming sites of the same owner), it does not ''punish'' anyone.
:Blacklisted without prior notifying relevant WikiProject - that is at best a good consideration, but is not, has never been, and should never be a compulsory part of blacklisting.
:Did you look whether the spamming actually is not still actively busy, so that we can safely say that blacklisting is not necessary anymore to prevent further spamming? Otherwise, I would consider to {{deferwhite}} for the links that are needed. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

::Taking account the time how long this site has been blacklisted there are not so much websites left. However, it is a very time-consuming to apply for each single link for whitelisting (as a rule, it takes weeks to get any reaction and too often the reaction is an advice to look for some other source.) AS for CBROnline, it is perfect example of sites too large and too important to so easily blacklist. And no, this is not only company reports. Also, if the site is blacklisted, that means you can't to add this site, so how one could say it is still spamming? During the latest discussion about different -technology.com sites there were several proposals how to use bots and filter to make the process of blacklisting more transparent and detecting spammers more easily; however, it seems that there is no wish to change the current system. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 18:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Note, there is nothing against more people actually helping at the whitelist and blacklist .. they are after all community noticeboards and crosslinked from all of them. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 18:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Regarding the question on how to see whether a site is still spammed - that is how I found the ongoing CBROnline.com-spam, because people are still trying to add and were still spamming links belonging to the company. I think that that is a compulsory analysis to be done before de-blacklisting is considered, as well as an analysis of the overall use of the link (we have 4 million pages, if we are talking thousands of pages in a subject-range, but only 10 which would be enhanced by a reference to this site, then whitelisting is a better solution). I believe still that whitelisting is a better solution for this site as well. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 18:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Just curious - where's the logfile that shows the hits on the blacklist? Is it one of the edit filters? ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 19:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Amatulic]]: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/spamblacklist&limit=500&type=spamblacklist&user= <- admin only. I went through attempts to add cbronline.com, looking at the contributions of editors who hit the blacklist on it, found an IP that had such a hit, and as contributions only spam to -technology.com sites. COIBot helps you further. Digging further .... --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::There is a ''cbronline.com'' piece which I need as a reference for the [[RadioShack]] and [[InterTAN]] articles. It's a 1988 press blurb about the shutdown of the former RadioShack stores in West Germany, URL is <nowiki>http://www.cbronline.com/news/happy_with_its_relationship_with_tandy_intertan_names_uk_operation_its_shining_star</nowiki> and the same text isn't on other sites as this was so long ago. [[User:K7L|K7L]] ([[User talk:K7L|talk]]) 18:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:{{Declined}}, individual pages can be whitelisted if they are shown to meet [[WP:RS]]. --<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 08:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

== army-guide.com ==
* {{LinkSummary|army-guide.com}}

Was blacklisted 6 years ago because somebody seemed to spam links to it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=190660933#3_years_of_Spamming_of_http:.2F.2Fspam.army-guide.com].

Seems to contain much useful info. Concretely I wanted to reference the list of contracts from www.army-guide.com/eng/product116.html to add a unit cost estimate to [[BTR-80]]. The German and French Wikipedias use it on many pages, but the uses seem relevant and not overly spammy.

Just because the site was spammed to Wikipedia 6 years ago, an eternity in Internet time, doesn't mean it will happen again today. Lets try unbanning it and see. [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 16:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

:6 years is not necessarily long - we have companies around who got their first links blacklisted 7 years ago, and who are still active to push other links ..
:If it is just one link, I would suggest to try whitelisting first. If more are coming up and pass the bar, then maybe it is time to consider whitelisting. I think that was what was suggested on Meta as well. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 16:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
::6 years is 1/4 the age of the Internet - that is a long time! I only need one link right now, but it seems like a very useful page, so I strongly suggest unblocking all of it. [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 18:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
:::That is what I said, we have companies spamming for that same 1/4 of the age of the Internet (and longer; and actually, this company spammed for half of that time, 1/8th of the age of the internet!). A previous request for whitelisting showed a rather unreliable document, and therefore I'd like to see an analysis for this one as well. As you say "I only need one link right now, but it seems like a very useful page" - you 'need one link' (that is what we have a whitelist for), and it 'seems' useful (and that will be shown if there are really multiple coming, at which time we can consider de-listing. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 18:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
::::The site has a page for each weapon system, and seem very informative. The part I especially like is the list of actual contracts, from which you can estimate the unit cost of the weapon systems. That is useful for almost all Wikipedia pages on weapon systems, of which there are a lot. The text and other data seems very useful as well, but the list of contracts in itself should be enough to make the page unambiguously useful. Hence I would like to get all of it whitelisted, and not just this one. [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 19:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::You still talk in terms of 'seems very useful'. We had a request for whitelisting for a page on this site not too long ago, where the reliability of that specific page was strongly questioned. That is why I suggest, try to see what happens with a couple of whitelisting requests on different pages, show that individual pages come through and also that they stick, and then re-request delisting. I am not against de-listing per sé (I have not outright declined this, I just suggest that maybe a couple of whitelist discussions before delisting would probably help).
:::::I do note that this looks a bit like an aggregator site - they do not do their own independent research, but they get their info from other websites, rewrite and publish it. Often, the 'other website' where they got the info from is the better source. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 03:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::Googling, the only prior discussion I can find is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dad7/babynology.hist this], which is a poor argument for keeping it blocked:
:::::::Quote: It [i.e. Army Guide] was posted frequently in external links, but this appears to have been done by one or two "enthusiastic" users with "good intentions" (providing additional sources on the topic), which perhaps triggered the initial fear that this was a spam link. If you look at the links posted, they were all relevant to the page that they were posted in. If you look at the contributions of the people who posted them, they're on a wide variety of topics, not just associated with the site in question... so it doesn't appear to be for the sake of advertising or a bot ... Finally, yes, this site was posted frequently, but it's an extensive site, so it can be realistically associated with many articles here at Wikipedia.
::::::As for army-guide being aggregate information, that is the whole point. What I wanted was an aggregate list of purchases to determine the unit cost. I just googled for that, and couldn't find it anywhere else. I actually don't know how reliable army-guide.com is, but it would seem silly for them to invent that list of purchases out of thin air.
::::::Is the Wikipedia blacklist really meant to be this kind of bureaucratic roadblock? The top comment itself says it just exists to prevent spam, not to judge the quality of the site being linked to. Surely the few overenthusiastic regular Wikipedians have learned their lesson now after 6 years? Since it doesn't seem to have been a case of the the army-guide people themselves posting the links, there is little reason to believe the spamming will re-occur. [[User:Thue|Thue]] ([[User talk:Thue|talk]]) 12:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You are linking in the beginning to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=190660933#3_years_of_Spamming_of_http:.2F.2Fspam.army-guide.com '''3 years of spamming''' of http...spam.army-guide.com] (maimed link, my bolding), which links back to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1#http:.2F.2Fspam.army-guide.com]] .. I see at least 14 accounts worth 3 years of spamming. That, for me, is enough to first want to see some discussion on specific links and their general use. Then we have [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/06#Army_Guide_Website|this]] discussion, where the one link (and as far as I can see, the only time any link) was requested for whitelisting, it was deemed unreliable. This would be the second request, which does not give much to go on as to really how much general use there is. As it is an aggregator site, as you confess, that information is available from other sites (another thing the lack of whitelisting requests is suggesting is that others use those other sites). As I said, we have companies blacklisted in 2009/2010 which are ''still'' spamming Wikipedia using other domains (or spamming while avoiding to use the domain). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 12:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note, of those 14 editors, 12 are IPs - not a 'few overenthusiastic regulars'. And we are not here to learn spammers a lesson (which is a futile action anyway), we are here to stop the abuse of Wikipedia. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 12:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

:Being an aggregator site is not a valid argument for blacklisting, so that means it can't be also an argument for refusing to remove a site from the blacklist. Bringing this argument into discussion will just defocus the issue. As for former spamming — six years is a very long time for a project like Wikipedia. If the spamming happens, the limited blacklisting time could be appropriate but for indef blacklisting more strict rules are needed. It is also concerning that there seems to be a strong bias against blacklisted sites, which one could call even censorship. As these decisions, as a rule, depends of personal preferences of the single admin, it raises question if the abusive use of mop may be an issue. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 12:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

::Beagel, the argument for blacklisting is that it was spammed for 3 years by multiple editors - that is the argument that I am careful removing it. Point is, that I would like to see whether this site is ''really'' of general use and that it merits de-listing, or that this is something that can easily be handled by whitelisting because it is only a few links anyway. The point that it may not be a reliable source does not help, but is ''not'' the reason for listing or delisting, that is purely your conclusion. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 13:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::Moreover, I am not using any administrative tools, nor did I officially decline this, I have just given a suggestion. How you can construe that as abuse of administrative tools is beyond me, and is chilling this discussion and not helping your argument in any form. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 13:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::Oh, I am going on - this is a community discussion noticeboard. The decision is not that of a single admin, that decision should be made by consensus, awaiting different editors for input. I am the first one to comment. There is no rule that others can not comment, give their opinion or analysis. 6 years is a long time, but again, I have shown you companies who are spamming Wikipedia for over 6 years, so if having been blacklisted for 6 years is long, then how do you call companies that spam Wikipedia for 6 years. Did you show, or even research, whether the 14 accounts ''really'' stopped spamming, or are you just assuming that it must have stopped since it is 6 years ago? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 13:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::Even worse, Beagel, is the point that first I have a set of sites that is being spammed that I do not blacklist directly but allow for a community discussion. All that is brought forward is yet another set of spammers of these sites. I look around, and I have trouble finding regulars using the site, all I find is more spammers. Looking at the site, I see that there are alternatives (better alternatives) for most of the links that I see added, and I, '''after 3 weeks''', decide to blacklist. Ample time for community discussion, but you tell me off because I did not inform the community. Now, we are about 1 day into this request, I give an opinion and wait for discussion, and I give a suggestion. Again, I allow for community input on this, allow for consensus to form, and also allow for some further research into the issue (did the spamming really stop?). 20 hours into the discussion, you accuse me, once again, of abuse of administrative tools because I do not use them. Beagel, there is a strong consensus against spam, it violates our core policies and guidelines. As there is a whitelist, and I suggested the use of the whitelist, there is no censorship (an argument that you used again). If I would decline whitelisting without suggesting alternatives to solve the problem, and those alternatives would not exist, then that might be construed as censorship, and remotely as an abuse of administrative tools (which also there were not used, unless the denial of the use of administrative tools is administrative abuse - which then is true for all administrators who did not edit the whitelist allowing for the site being linked).
::Note, the blacklisting of the CBROnline links was 6 years ago, and they, evidently, still at it. Blacklisting does not occur after 1 day of spamming, which means that CBROnline was already spamming for several years, which makes them spamming for significantly over 6 years. And here I am told that 6 years is a long time?
::[[WP:INVOLVED|evidently]], I am going to let another admin make the decision whether there is consensus to remove or otherwise. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 14:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

:::re@''The point that it may not be a reliable source does not help, but is ''not'' the reason for listing or delisting, that is purely your conclusion''. If this not the reason for listing or delisting, why do use this argument in delisting discussions, not only in this discussion but also in other delisting discussions? Just for the record: this was not me or user [[User:Thue|Thue]] who started discussion about reliability of this site.
:::re@''I would like to see whether this site is ''really'' of general use''. Well, if the site has been six years blacklisted, you can't ''really'' expect that it is still of general use in Wikipedia. That is exactly the problem with a long-term (indef. blacklistings).
:::re@''I am not using any administrative tools, nor did I officially decline this, I have just given a suggestion''. Listing and delisting is a prerogative of admins. And taking account the fact that this ''community discussion noticeboard'' is more or less one-man-show (e.g. all this ''I do'' and ''I allow' things), you even do not need to officially decline any delisting request because it is unlikely that any other admin will even comment the specific discussion.
:::re@''I see that there are alternatives (better alternatives) for most of the links that I see added''. But as you just said, this is not the basis for listing or delisting. This is you personal opinion which you are using to reject delisting/whitelisting request, even if made by ordinary editors who have nothing to do being SPAs or spammers.
:::re@"I suggested the use of the whitelist" What the point if you are going to use the same arguments for rejects there–as I have learnt from my recent experiences.
:::re@''I look around, and I have trouble finding regulars using the site, all I find is more spammers''. This is interesting. I did not check the history but how you call in this context [[User:Thue|Thue]] if not regular? And this has not been the case with some other sites you have blacklisted.
:::re@''there is a strong consensus against spam, it violates our core policies and guidelines''. That is true. However, finding more balance approach between blacklisting and other values of Wikipedia, is not supporting spammers. The most efficient for fighting spamming would be blaclisting whole www; however, doing this will probably also end Wikipedia as we know it. So, labelling editors who would like to see more balanced approach as supporters of spamming is quite demagogic.
:::re@''If I would decline whitelisting without suggesting alternatives to solve the problem, and those alternatives would not exist, then that might be construed as censorship, and remotely as an abuse of administrative tools''. Suggesting alternatives is fine but again, if the request is made by regular editor (not spammer), and the reference is valid and useful (notwithstanding if alternatives exist or not), there is no valid basis do not whitelist. Rejecting that kind of request is not preventive (as in this case it is not a spam) but rather punitive. And yes, not always but in extreme cases one could say that this is a misuse of admin. privileges.
:::re@''the blacklisting of the CBROnline''. This request is not about the CBROnline, so please do not defocus the discussion again. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 19:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
::::@Reliability - it is not the reason for blacklisting, but it is a factor taken into account.
::::@General use - No, of course it is not used on Wikipedia, in those 6 years also hardly anyone requested whitelisting, which does not suggest that it is a site that is wanted. There is now one request for de-listing, and we just have to de-list in the assumption that it ''is'' of general use.
::::@One man show/administrative tools - Obviously, I would block everyone who would be willing to help and I have never asked for more help on these pages.
::::@alternatives - no, it is not the ''basis'', it is a factor. I do not know why you insist to use a site that was spammed and where the specific document is shown to be less reliable than an alternative. [[WP:V]] is one of our pillars, and insisting to use an unreliable source not in line with that.
::::@Suggested whitelist - as the previous point, do you really insist to use an unreliable source where alternatives exist?
::::@Looking around - that was an argument used in context with the -technology.com sites - Thue has nothing to do with that. And as I said, it took me a long time before I found the first addition by a non-spammer, by you, which was the use of the site as an unreliable and replaceable reference. I have not, do not and never will suggest that Thue or you are spammers, those are unfounded suggestions coming from you, Beagel.
::::@'The most efficient for fighting spamming would be blacklisting whole www; - that is not what we do, and you know it.
::::@decline whitelisting - I could also say that insisting to use an unreliable source where reliable sources exist is an abuse of editing priviliges. I also fail to see why admin time (and discussion time) should be wasted on whitelisting unreliable sites where the requester does not want to go the extra mile to see
::::@CBROnline was brought up to show that 6 years of spamming is not long. The evidence that 6 years is a long time ago hangs on the argument that it is a quarter of the age of the internet. If the spammers were active for 2-3 months, 6 years ago, I might very well de-list quicker (I have delisted sites on that) - here we have 3 years of spamming, starting 9 years ago, forced to end 6 years ago. No, that is not long, and I have given examples why it is not long.
::::For de-listing ''this'' site a reasonably strong case can be made, but arguments like 'it seems useful', and '6 years is a long time' are both unreferenced and unhelpful - the points should be that it was discussed and the general consensus within a group of users is that it is useful, and show that the spamming did actually stop. Tools for both do exist. That case would only be stronger if a couple of granted whitelisting requests would be there (and the link suggested in this thread is already a good candidate). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 03:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

:::::re@''[[WP:V]] is one of our pillars, and insisting to use an unreliable source not in line with that''. The point is that reliability does not based on what decision-making admin thinks to be or to be not reliable. Reliability should be discussed at [[WP:RSN]], not [[WP:SBL]].
:::::re@''I also fail to see why admin time (and discussion time) should be wasted on whitelisting unreliable sites where the requester does not want to go the extra mile to see'' I think that we should not to waste anybody's time—not admin's or regular editors'. The current whitelisting is time-consuming and it would save everybody's time if requests by long-time regular editors who have no history of spamming or paid editing go automatically. Again Reliability should be discussed at [[WP:RSN]], not [[WP:SBL]] or [[WT:WHITELIST]].
:::::re@''I have not, do not and never will suggest that Thue or you are spammers, those are unfounded suggestions coming from you, Beagel.'' I apology for misunderstanding you. I thought that we discuss army-guide.com and not -technology.com here. However, if we discuss -technology.com site, saying that "I have trouble finding regulars using the site, all I find is more spammers" (''sic''! in the present tense) after discussions here where a number of long-time editors have said that they are using these -technology.com sites, is something which does not correspond to the true.
:::::re@''I would block everyone who would be willing to help and I have never asked for more help on these pages.'' I never said that you would or did. However, ''de facto'' the situation is that decisions are made by very limited number of admins here. Also your replies in the style "I do", "I allow", etc do not help to create a feeling that decisions are made based on wider consensus.
:::::''The most efficient for fighting spamming would be blacklisting whole www; - that is not what we do, and you know it.'' My suggestion was exaggeration, of course, ''and you know it''. But the line is somewhere between blacklisting everything and blacklisting nothing and we have different understandings where it should be. By my understanding, as of today blacklisting is used in more proportions than it is useful for creating an encyclopaedia, which is the core purpose of Wikipedia before other important tasks. I am concerned about the mentality do not take into account the impact of blacklisting to regular editors writing an encyclopaedia. [[User:Beagel|Beagel]] ([[User talk:Beagel|talk]]) 05:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::The decision whether something is reliable, or whether better sources exist should come before it was originally added. I think that if a regular is considering to use, or is using, a site where someone else questions the reliability, that then first that reliability needs to be established before we whitelist/deblacklist. And no, the whitelisting/delisting should not be automatic.
:::::That is semantics. You know that I meant that in the time that I was researching the additions of the site. It now turns out that regulars do use the site .. I still wonder about the ratio. For army-guide.com, when it was blacklisted it was solely spammed, there were no regulars using the site. And in the argument of delisting or elsewhere here, there was never the argument that regulars are on a regular basis using this site (or attempting to) - just solely a remark that it ''seems'' useful.
:::::Re@Block: And here I was the one to exaggerate. Generally discussions here stay open for some time, and there are a (albeit limited) number of admins working here. Although far from requirement or rule, very often the reporter does not execute the case. Fact is, there are only limited editors here, a known problem, but <sarcasm> it is so much cooler to work at CfD </sarcasm>. This is an area that certainly needs more admins (or even editors who investigate), what does not help is to suggest that we should not blacklist because we are only so few and our decisions do not represent a community consensus.
:::::There are some cases which are grey areas (I still believe that they are more the exception than the rule) - and note that the spammers do not take into what is useful for creating an encyclopedia, nor what is the core purpose of Wikipedia.
:::::(I do feel that these discussions stray too far from the purpose of these sections, maybe parts of these discussions should be done separately, and maybe even brought to wider discussion with a/some RfCs). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 07:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

:{{Declined}}, per above. --<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 20:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

==hotrails.co.uk==
* {{Link summary|hotrails.co.uk}}

This site is a compendium of information about the [[Blue Öyster Cult]] and related bands and artists, which appears to have been blacklisted since an unfortunate editing dispute way back in 2008. There is some info on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=196477133#hotrails.co.uk_fan_spam this revision of WikiProject Spam talk page], and then it was blacklisted as logged at [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log/start to 2009#March 2008]].

There was also a request for unblocking at [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008#hotrails.co.uk]] which was rejected on the grounds that it was the original anon editor making the request, but which does make a case for instance that it contains an interview with drummer [[Albert Bouchard]] which he described as the most in-depth he had given, and which would certainly be a reference for sections of the main article.

The site contains a great deal of information that would be useful as references, such as the most complete list anywhere of Blue Öyster Cult live performances, and numerous interviews with band members, crew and associates that are not available anywhere else.

Given that there didn't seem to be any serious issue with the site itself, just a dispute with an aggressive anonymous editor more than six years ago, I feel that it is probably safe to unblock. As an administrator I could do it myself, but having not been particularly active on Wikipedia for quite some time, I thought I'd put in a formal request. --[[User:Stormie|Stormie]] ([[User talk:Stormie|talk]]) 04:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
* {{declined}}. See [[WP:ELNO]]: your reasons for removal are solidly in line with reasons not to link. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
:: '''Support Acceptance'''[[WP:ELNO]] does not pertain to normal sources. If the admin has a specific reason why it should be considered a spammed link, he should make it clear and verbose. --[[User:Typenolies|Typenolies]] ([[User talk:Typenolies|talk]]) 22:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
:::{{rto|Typenolies}} Evidence of spam needs to exist, we do not necessarily have to (keep on) repeating it. If it is blacklisted, it is a spammed/pushed link, and that is what Stormie actually already made clear, and what you can also find following the tracking links from the template. Showing insistence to spam is actually quite a good reason to have it on the blacklist.
:::That being said, the site seems of limited use, is this not something that the whitelist ({{deferwhite}}) can handle? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that if the link is still being abused as spam that should be shown. Given the passage of time and abuse of the link limited to a single editor, it probably didn't merit blacklisting of the link (protection of the article and blocking of the user probably would have been better) in the first place. Given the limited breadth of use and abuse for the link, it would make more sense to be removed from the blacklist altogether. --[[User:Typenolies|Typenolies]] ([[User talk:Typenolies|talk]]) 18:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
::::: It can't be used for spam because it's on the blacklist! <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{rto|Typenolies}} - "if the link is still being abused as spam that should be shown" - per Guy, it is blacklisted, it can not be abused. "Given the passage of time" - we have companies spamming for 8 years - time did not and will not solve the problem, it pays ''their'' bills. "abuse of the link limited to a single editor", I see a good handful, I also see at least 2 pages, and the original discussion mentions an incentive to continue, protection or blocking was obviously not a solution or better. As I mentioned before, if there is information on specific pages on that site that are deemed giving unique information that needs to be included, get them whitelisted and use them as references. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 03:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

== GokkenTotaal.nl ==
* {{LinkSummary|gokkentotaal.nl}}
<br>'''How can the site be useful''' <br>
I want to provide the best news about the ongoing legalization of gambling in The Netherlands. A lot of people are interested in this news. I couldn't find any information about blacklisting my website.
<br>'''Why it should not be blacklisted''' <br>
Apparently, the previous owner created spam on gokkentotaal.nl, but also on Wikipedia. I am now cleaning up the mess he made, and i cleaned almost everything. I think after 5 years and also a new owner, that my website should be unblocked. I also research the content I publish.

:{{declined}}. I'm sure your intentions are good, but we do not remove sites from the blacklist at the request of the owner or anyone else associated with the site. If a trusted, high-volume contributor finds it necessary to use the site as a reference and makes a delisting request, we will consider it. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 23:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

== The Homeless Hub ==
* {{LinkSummary|homelesshub.ca}}

I would like to request that homelesshub.ca be removed from the blacklist. I have reviewed the logs and past deletion requests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_56#homeless_hub) and gather that both the creation/multiple deletions of a Homeless Hub page and requests from people affiliated with the Homeless Hub in 2010 have kept it on the blacklist. It appears that the owners of the site didn’t know what they were doing and were not following guidelines, but I don’t think the website is inherently spammy, or that Wikipedia is at risk of further misconduct from removal at this time.

I am not affiliated with this organization; rather, I noticed a broken link on a related researcher/professor's bio page and tried to update it with a suitable replacement. it looks like the page I tried to add is on this blacklisted domain (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Gaetz talk page] here). But upon reflection it seems to me that Wikipedia is missing out on a significant citation resource for an area of knowledge while this entire scholarly website is banned.

Browsing the site it is evidently a repository of original reports from a wide variety of publishers, researchers and organizations. It is clearly run by a reputable organization: The Canadian Observatory on Homelessness (previously the Canadian Homelessness Research Network - the name change is the reason for the broken link I was updating in the first place when I discovered the blacklist issue).

I am a librarian, and am always kind of blown away to find websites with this volume of freely available information relevant to a specific topic, especially when it comes to Canadian sources (it often seems like everything is American). Documents on this site can probably enrich Wikipedia articles in this area: for example, there have been new Housing First developments in Canada regarding homeless youth that could be added to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Canada) but which it cannot be effectively cited, as the report is hosted on homelesshub.ca (see www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/HFFWYouth-FullReport_0.pdf). Not all of these reports appear to be available on other websites.

Most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been anonymous; only a few have been under this account, and this is certainly the first time I've had to do something as involved as request that something be removed from the blacklist. If any other information is required I am very interested in learning how this process works! [[User:Onshisan|Onshisan]] ([[User talk:Onshisan|talk]]) 00:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

:I'll refer to [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2010#homelesshub.ca]] which gives the whole history of the abuse and spamming that occurred with this site (note that that request was performed by site the site owner). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 03:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

:{{Declined}}. Not usable as a source and extensive evidence of past spamming. --<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

== Timesofbook.com ==
* {{LinkSummary|Timesofbook.com}}

Anyone can help me to remove the website named timesofbook.com from wiki blacklist?
The thing is i purchased newly this website. after that slowly i found that this website is blacklisted in wiki spam list. i apologies that what things happened previously. This is very great website which is provide more info about books info and authors info to its customer. it have more than 200 facebook followers.<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sbiinformer|Sbiinformer]] ([[User talk:Sbiinformer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sbiinformer|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:{{rto|Sbiinformer}} when did you purchase this website? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 13:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I purchased it on mid of February, 2015. --[[User:Sbiinformer|Sbiinformer]] ([[User talk:Sbiinformer|talk]]) 10:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

:{{Declined}}. We don't remove websites at the request of the owner, sorry. --<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 20:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

==LoveBugFans.com ==
* {{LinkSummary|lovebugfans.com}}

'''How can the site be useful'''
LoveBugFans is recognized by VW of America and occasionally monitored by Disney. It's on the up and up and a tremendous resource about the history of the Herbie character and how to build a replica or see an original. The information and downloads are in a free, easy to navigate, family friendly universal format. I remember when this was going on, and the repeated reposting of the hacked links was an attempt to thwart a known scammer, who's no longer an issue... and hasn't been for several years now.
If you take a look at the site and various drop down menus, there's tons of cool free stuff, including music and a custom made Atari-like game, and a message board with free image hosting. All ad-free and member supported. It has been on line since 2001.

'''Why it should not be blacklisted'''
I found this site in the June, 2010 blacklist [[1]] along with three other Herbie related sites. One of them, lovebugcentral, was being run as sort of a scam by the owner (Bob K.) where unsuspecting people would ask him to locate a Herbie replica for an appearance, and he would then locate and convince a Herbie replica owner to show up at kids birthday party or whatever free of charge. Then afterward, he'd start calling, emailing, and hassling the people who requested an appearance for a sizable "donation." He set up his site up as a mirror of LoveBugFans after being ousted from the greater community for theft.
He was eventually called out on it and his site went defunct sometime in 2013. He was forever deleting the legitimate links on Wikipedia, changing the code to direct to his site while leaving the visible text unchanged, in an effort to direct traffic his way. He also peppered the internet with links on other VW club sites and forums and never provided links in kind. Once his scam was discovered, I know people were also removing his links. We're pretty protective of the character's integrity.

The short version is that a scammer was using an innocent character for his own gain, and kept deleting legitimate links form Wikipedia and replacing them with is own.
Thank you for looking into this.

Dirk Rockland.

:{{Declined}}. See [[WP:EL]], fansites are one of the categories we don't allow anyway. --<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

==Saff.ba==
* {{LinkSummary|saff.ba}}

It is a radical Islamist magazine, that promotes terrorist activities.

There's an article about it in English language [http://dalje.com/en-world/google-suspends-advertising-account-of-bosnian-islamist-magazine/534034 here]. However, since it is a Serbo-Croatian language magazine, most of news reports were in that language, from various places. For example, by the ''[[Večernji list]]'' from [[Croatia]] ([http://www.vecernji.hr/svijet/google-gasi-uslugu-u-bih-985035 here]). --[[User:AnulBanul|AnulBanul]] ([[User talk:AnulBanul|talk]]) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

:{{Declined}}. No reason advanced for removal. --<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

== sgs ==
* {{LinkSummary|sgs.com}}

please remove sgs.com from blacklist

12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Rainer <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.110.101.138|217.110.101.138]] ([[User talk:217.110.101.138|talk]]) 12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{Declined}}. No reason advanced for removal. --<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

==thepetitionsite.com==
* {{Link summary|thepetitionsite.com}}

Summary: websites called "petition" are blacklisted, but petition websites with other names are not, resulting in an nonsensical and inequitable application of the ban on "soapbox" promotions. Given that high-profile petition services are not presently blacklisted, we would request that "petition" domains are removed from the blacklist.

For illustration purposes, here is the relevant section of the global blacklist
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist>:

<pre>#Petition sites
\bthepetitionsite\.com\b
\bgopetition\.(?:com|co\.uk|us)\b
\bipetition\.com\b
\.ipetitions\.com
\bpetition(?:online|s24|site|spot|-?them)\.com\b
\bwebpetitions\.com\b
#end of petition sites</pre>

thepetitionsite.com was added to the blacklist in June 2010 by editor Stifle, in response to a request from Dirk Beetstra. Here is the initial request/justification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=365606869#thepetitionsite.com

I agree with these editors that banning "soapbox" promotions is just. But I disagree that a domain-wide ban is an appropriate measure, for these two reasons:

* Fairness: Not all petition sites are banned, but merely the ones whose domain names include the term. Avaaz.org, Change.org, and MoveOn.org, for example, are cited throughout Wikipedia, despite being online petition services.

:We would expect that the potential for soapbox/spam abuse exists equally across all petitions sites, not merely the ones whose domain name includes the term, and therefore request that the black- or white-listing be applied equally to all petition sites.

:Here are 28 links from wikipedia to petitions on avaaz.org:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.avaaz.org

:Here are 279 links from wikipedia to petitions on change.org:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.change.org%2Fpetitions

* Relevance: Over ThePetitionSite.com's 14-year history, it has collected hundreds of millions of petition signatures, resulting in many thousands of legislative victories and news citations. The petitions themselves are, in many cases, newsworthy.

:As an example, here is a campaign from 2014 that was covered by CNN, NYT, Guardian, Time, UK Daily Mail and Mirror, etc: [http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/danish-zoo-kills-giraffe-in-breeding-concerns-article-1.1607522 1], [http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/marius-giraffe-petition-sack-copenhagen-3130420 2], [http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/09/world/europe/denmark-zoo-giraffe/ 3], [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/world/europe/anger-erupts-over-danish-zoos-decision-to-put-down-a-giraffe.html 4], [http://wtvr.com/2014/02/09/online-petition-fails-to-save-life-of-giraffe/ 5], [http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/02/09/danish-zoo-kills-giraffe-due-inbreeding 6], [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/danish-zoo-outrage-giraffe-marius 7], [http://world.time.com/2014/02/09/marius-giraffe-copenhagen-zoo/ 8], [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555079/Danish-zoo-kills-young-giraffe-deemed-surplus-feeds-lions.html 9].

For these reasons, we would prefer a solution in which Wikipedia bans spammers rather than blacklisting legitimate websites.

COI disclosure: I am associated with the website in question. Nonetheless, the inequity of the current blacklisting solution -- namely, where sources of potential soapbox promotions are banned only if they happen to use the term 'petition' in their domain -- seems like something Wikipedia admins would want to take action on, regardless of my professional affiliations.

Thank you.<br />
[[User:Mcglynn|Mcglynn]] ([[User talk:Mcglynn|talk]]) 19:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

* {{declined}}. Thank you for alerting us to this inconsistency, but the correct fix is to blacklist the other petition sites. The problem is users adding links to petitions, either soliciting signatures, or as [[WP:OR|original research]] (e.g. for the existence and content of said petitions). That's why the blacklist entries were made in the first place. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
*:I just removed the main space links to avaaz.org. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

==screenrant.com==
* {{LinkSummary|screenrant.com}}

This site was blacklisted by [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#screenrant.com|an incorrect request]], from a user who does not seem to understand the purpose of this black list. This site is not spam, and is definitely a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 17:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

:I have to agree with this request. Addition of this site was inappropriate. The purpose of the spam blacklist is not to block unreliable sources, and that's the only reason it was added. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''<span style="color:green;">Aussie</span><span style="color:gold;">Legend</span>''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 18:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

{{Done}} Delisted. -- [[User:Gogo Dodo|Gogo Dodo]] ([[User talk:Gogo Dodo|talk]]) 07:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

== Bergspider - Protected edit request on 16 June 2015 ==
* {{LinkSummary|bergspider.net}}

{{edit protected|MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Kindly remove my website from blacklist: bergspider.net. Someone has been posting my website on Wikipedia which is very embarassing for me. Please remove the links that were posted.

My website adds value to its visitors by giving them relevant and up-to-date information on the latest technologies.

I share the same vision as is of Wikipedia to make information accessible to more and more people.

As we share the common goals so it would be kind action on your part to remove all the links that are posted and remove my website from your spam filter.

Thanking You,

[[User:GawenBerg|GawenBerg]] ([[User talk:GawenBerg|talk]]) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Best Regards,
[[User:GawenBerg|GawenBerg]] ([[User talk:GawenBerg|talk]]) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)BergSpider.net Team
<!-- End request -->
[[User:GawenBerg|GawenBerg]] ([[User talk:GawenBerg|talk]]) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

:{{declined}}. We generally don't remove entries from the blacklist by request from anyone associated with a blacklisted site. If a trusted, high-volume editor makes a case that your site is useful for linking on Wikipedia, we will consider it.
:Also, there are no links to bergspider.net on Wikipedia, so someone must have removed them already. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=*.bergspider.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 17:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
*{{ping|Amatulic}} See [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#bergspider.net]], I removed the links when reporting the domain to the blacklist.
:{{ping|GawenBerg}} So you tried to remove your domain from the blacklist yourself, but found you couldn't. Not the best way to build trust. [[User:Thomas.W|'''Thomas.W''']] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 17:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
::Gawenberg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=667242171&oldid=667241565 here] made it appear as if they made a request and not himself.
::{{rto|Gawenberg}} Someone, and to us it does not matter who, abused Wikipedia by posting those links everywhere (just like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aurul_Brad&diff=prev&oldid=666205125 you did] on one page). We protect Wikipedia by blacklisting those links so that those links can not be added anymore. If you think that the IPs are not you, then please, do take it up with them to resolve that issue, but as long as we feel the abuse is or will persist, we will protect Wikipedia by keeping that link on the blacklist. Therefore: {{declined}}. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 03:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
:::@Dirk Beetstra I understand every word you just say but man I made a mistake ..but you need to believe this i am not a spammer...please remove my website form blacklist Thanks you i believe you will understand<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Gawenberg|Gawenberg]] ([[User talk:Gawenberg|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Gawenberg|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2015&diff=667302064&oldid=667293879 here].
::{{rto|Gawenberg}} - there is no reason to remove it from the blacklist, if established editors find the site of use, they will ask for the removal (or specific whitelisting). And note that this is beyond making a mistake, the MediaWiki server gives ample warning when you edit (just below, straight above the save button you pressed when you inserted the link, it says "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the [[:m:Terms of Use|Terms of Use]] ..", and when editing as an IP you must have had captcha's and remarks about our inclusions standards for external links), which you all ignored. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 05:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @ Dirk Beetstra Please Please Kindly Remove my website form blacklist

:{{Declined}}, for reasons explained above. --<b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

== soualwjoab.com ==
; Website
* {{Link summary|soualwjoab.com}}

i have no iead why this site blocked !! <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Esmail Al Gathuth|Esmail Al Gathuth]] ([[User talk:Esmail Al Gathuth|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Esmail Al Gathuth|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:This site is meta blacklisted, See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/soualwjoab.com , {{defer|meta}} --[[User:Versageek|<span style="color:midnightblue">Versa</span>]][[User_talk:Versageek|<span style="color:darkred">geek</span>]] 20:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Versageek can you remove it from blacklist cuz i got all information from this site <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Esmail Al Gathuth|Esmail Al Gathuth]] ([[User talk:Esmail Al Gathuth|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Esmail Al Gathuth|contribs]]) 20:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: {{declined}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Link_wheel&diff=prev&oldid=553548645] says all you need to know about this user and this site. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

==sysoon.com==
{{Link summary|sysoon.com}}
The website was blacklisted a few years ago - including regex term "sysoon" ( globally blacklisted by \bsysoon\b ) becose there is more international websites worldwide sysoon.com, sysoon.uk, sysoon.be, sysoon.de, etc... Please check if blacklist is necessary anymore, becose there is many userful information to use.
'''How can the site be useful''': Funeral and cemeteries resource, more languages suport, easy and fast research
'''Why it should not be blacklisted''': My research show that new owner is not using any bad practices. In 2012 and 2015 - [http://www.webbyawards.com/winners/2012/web/general-website/weird/sysoon-dead-people-search-engine-funeral-news-and-directory/ WebbyAwards honoree], or see article [http://www.slideshare.net/sysoon/the-rise-of-the-efuneral?qid=c2c676de-513d-4291-85f2-97c18948d3dd&v=qf1&b=&from_search=3 Article: The rise of the e-funeral]<small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:88.212.54.54|88.212.54.54]] ([[User talk:88.212.54.54|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/88.212.54.54|contribs]]) 11:13, 11 July 2015‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:As you were already on meta, you probably know we can't do anything here. Specific links however can be whitelisted if de-blacklisting on meta is declined, hence: {{deferwhite}}. Here {{declined}}. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 03:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


=Troubleshooting and problems=
=Troubleshooting and problems=

Revision as of 12:23, 17 July 2015

"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Spam blacklist or Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.
    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 671848876 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    zoompondy.com

    Website

    Repeatedly being added by IP-hopper/s and throwaway accounts to articles related to Pondicherry/Puducherry, a Union Territory in India. Thomas.W talk 12:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    knowyourmeme.com

    Rarely used link, but keeps being used in BLP articles such as Techno Viking, Jameis Winston and other articles, by vandals and good faith editors. Already on XLinkBot list, but good faith edits keep slipping through. No real use as a source, as it is a user-editable site.--Otterathome (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If you disagree with me, fine, but you need to articulate why you disagree instead of just copying and pasting the same request. Otherwise, please stop flogging the dead horse. MER-C 04:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    it will never be a reliable source or any use anywhere in the project, stop trouble before it beings. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see any any substantive difference between this suggestion and ��this one in September. What has changed in the interim? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly Oppose This would constitute abuse of the purpose of the Spam-blacklist. knowyourmeme is used on a regular basis because it is a popular site, regardless of its low reliability. Reliability is supposed to be asserted on a contextual basis, blacklisting is non-contextual. By this merit rational wiki and encylcopedia dramatica would have to be blacklisted as well, but that is not the purposeful intent of the spam blacklist.--Typenolies (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi MER-C, I didn't disagree with you, but you didn't review the suitability for adding it to the blacklist, instead you commented on the motives of the user that proposed its addition.--Otterathome (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

    this for further discussion. Well over 500 links now, many from mainspace. If this is a reliable source then the request needs to be archived, but it seems dubious to me - the information looks accurate enough but there's not real evidence of the controls that confer reliability and it's clearly being added by a significant number of people. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    *.guru

    This is a TLD that I just came across. After looking in the LinkSearch page, I found that these sites (at least as they appear on Wikipedia) are almost always blogs or other self-published sites, aggregation sites, or similar-named alternatives to "official" sites.

    I've already cleaned up the first dozen or so, so they no longer appear in the LinkSearch list. So far I have not seen any that would be appropriate for using on Wikipedia, unless a .guru site happens to be the official site for an article subject. Haven't seen that yet, though. Those I've cleaned out fell into the following categories:

    • promotions to personal sites on user pages
    • refspam (sometimes already tagged as "unreliable source")
    • inline external links instead of valid wikilinks to existing articles
    • links within massive external-link directory listings

    These observations lead me to conclude that:

    • Like .co.cc which is globally blacklisted, anybody can get a *.guru domain name for a personal website, often paralleling the name of an official website in the .com TLD
    • These sites are non-authoritative sources of information
    • The domain is potentially a spam magnet

    I'm not advocating blacklisting the entire *.guru TLD (yet), but it bears keeping an eye on. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I've gone through all the main-space links and found each one of them wasn't worth keeping, so I removed them. One anon tried to edit-war on one of the articles until I found the official alternative link.
    There's a low enough incidence of these occurrences that it may be best to add *.guru to XLinkBot. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    thepiratebay.ee

    thepiratebay.ee: 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

    Another phoney clone similar to the other two.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    link hasn't been actively spammed jet therefore it doesn't really warrant an inclusion but maybe a regex allowing only the .se domain to be accepted wouldn't be a bad idea. Avono (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    filecloud.io

    filecloud.io: 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 article about an obscure television cartoon special used to link to an illegal upload of the special. I can't see any practical purpose for linking to this cloud hosting service. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.newlovetimes.com

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctg4Rahat (talk • contribs)

    MER-C 11:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    banglanews24.com apparently partly hijacked

    banglanews24.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

    • banglanews24.com/English/detailsnews.php?nssl=5876221c2bec11337e186aac8aa3100d&nttl=0203201365018

    I don't know if this was a good link at one time. How malicious it is appears to depend on the browser (with Firefox I was easily able to recover, but with Safari it was difficult). It has been on the page 2013 Shahbag protests since 2 March 2013. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    dogbreedinfo.com

    dogbreedinfo.com - is an unreliable, self published site that is used for creating the impossible breeds that are listed here, that are only dog cross breeds. We remove them all the time. Hafspajen (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    thaibiodiversity.org

    Bulk addition to a substantial number of articles, including the creation of new articles for the purpose of adding the link. Url quoted is a shortened version, deemed to be sufficient for wildcarding. Example full url is thaibiodiversity.org/Life/LifeDetail.aspx?LifeID=78878 Fiddle Faddle 10:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    beverlyhillscaviar.com

    In January of this year the following note was placed on the user talk page of an IP that had been spamming this site: "You're a single edit away from ensuring that the website you are promoting is blacklisted from Wikipedia." (User talk:104.35.138.190). They have since continued adding the link. Deli nk (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    omniglot.com

    A personal website run by a guy from his bedroom, a guy who is not a recognised expert in the field, or even an unrecognised one (see: http://www.omniglot.com/about.htm where he decribes his credentials, and also http://www.omniglot.com/aboutme.htm where he says he earns his living from the website, which is a good reason for spamming links to it), in spite of being presented as a "language encyclopaedia" in the links being added here. And there are lots of links from en-WP to omniglot.com, to be precise 1,100 of them a few minutes ago when I checked, links that IMHO violate the WP:ELNO rules about not allowing links to personal websites written by people who are not recognised experts in their field. In addition to that the links don't add anything that wouldn't be included in a featured article, or even add anything that isn't already included in an average non-FA/GA language article here on en-WP (sample pages: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/finnish.htm and http://www.omniglot.com/writing/urdu.htm ; as can be clearly seen they're nothing but short stubs plus lots of links to other web sites, even linking back to the pages they're added to on en-WP for more information...), which means they also violate the first rule listed at WP:ELNO. Thomas.W talk 21:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC) (also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Omniglot.com)[reply]

    Ah I see now, so he does earn money from it. If the person adding the links is Simon Ager, it may indeed be spam, but that hasn't been proven and I'm not sure how we would do that, or if that's allowed. This seems to be only one person adding them and to me it looks like they just didn't understand why adding the links was wrong. I have spent a good deal of time there in the past and there's some interesting stuff there, so I can see myself reacting as the IP did. Blacklisting the link seems a bit much. ekips39❦talk 06:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, FWIW, others have made contributions to the site: [1] ekips39❦talk 08:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That website is simply a collection of info on script, sound samples and alphabets and includes a bibliography, which the editor obviously ignored.[2]. I even questioned him why IMBD is a site that is used as an external link in every film article, but he keeps running away from it. 94.204.144.31 (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMDB has nothing to do with it, each site is judged on its own merits. IMDB has also been thoroughly discussed many times in several different venues, and has been accepted for certain purposes under certain circumstances. Omniglot clearly violates even the most basic of Wikipedia's external links policies, that of providing unique information that isn't already in our articles. We already have articles about virtually every script there is, articles that in most cases at least provide more information than Omniglot, we also already have articles about virtually all languages, articles that also provide more information than Omniglot. In addition to that Omniglot isn't a reliable source per Wikipedia's reliable source policies, and thus can't be used as a reference. Which means there's no valid reason for adding links to Omniglot on Wikipedia, and the links that are already here should be removed. Thomas.W talk 12:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It omniglot gives info on sounds on language as well as audio tracks. I could argue the same for IMBD as it offers nothing unique beyond info already cited by the article. But as usual I don't expect you to counter-argue it, only spur twisted claims about WP policy.--94.204.144.31 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • As I said, this is about Omniglot, not IMDB. Each site is judged on their own merits, so if that's the best you can do, and the best excuse you can find for adding links to Omniglot, you might as well stop trying to defend it. Thomas.W talk 15:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is suppose to be a discussion. You should not tell people to go away just because you disagree with them. Both of you try to be civil, please. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Thomas.W - this is about omniglot.com, not about IMDB (pointing at other sites is a 'WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-type' of argument which should not be made). We have inclusion standards for IMDB (and it is inappropriate in many places, and not 'blanket added'), we have inclusion standards for all links, and hence also go for omniglot.com. As I argued below, omniglot.com generally fails our inclusion standards (though there are exceptions). If you are discussing that omniglot.com should be included/excluded, then the arguments should be on the inclusion standards and how they apply to omniglot.com, not about whether other sites that may fail inclusion standards and whether they are included. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon Ager, the owner of the site has a MA in Linguistics from Bangor University and other extensive training in languages, per the links mentioned above. A Google Scholar and Google Books search shows a few cations to his site, not a lot and apparently no published works. I would describe it as a language fansite. However, I do not see reason to not use his site as an external link. WP:ELNO are links normally avoided, so there is room for judgement here. The site seems sincere in providing factual information. Can you show the site is spreading mis-information? Can you show a organized campaign to spam? There are hundreds of links to this site from the English Wikipedia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can accept that Omniglot may not be an appropriate external link for most language articles, though I don't see that there's been any organized campaign to spam it on Wikipedia. Do you have any evidence that there is such a campaign, and if so, have the perpetrators ignored warnings about why the links are inappropriate? If not, then adding this site to the blacklist is probably premature. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 1,100 links to it on en-WP alone, and thousands if you count all links on all language versions of WP. It's clearly not a reliable source per WP:RS and also clearly violates even the most basic criteria listed at WP:ELNO, and to be honest I can't see any reason why we should treat this enthusiast's site in a more lenient way than any other enthusiast's site (I deliberately don't use the term "hobbysite" since it's not a hobby, Simon Ager earns his living from it...).
    I also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Omniglot.com, so maybe we should keep all arguments fore and against in one place, so that noone's opinion gets overlooked? As for deliberate spamming it was the IP's aggressive and persistent spamming, even including filing a report at WP:ANI with false accusations about me edit warring, that made me take a closer look at the site, and report it here... Thomas.W talk 19:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion is here. It would be best to direct people from there to here. If there are over a thousand links, that would show consensus that it is a good site for external links given lots of people added those links. Each time someone adds a link they are saying this is a good link, it should be here. If it is only a few or one person adding these links, then it is spam. Maybe this site should be whitelisted. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the links have been aded over a long period of time, masquerading as an "encyclopaedia of languages and writing systems", there's no way to tell whether one or many editors have added the links. For all we know it could have been just one or two people using multiple IP's and throwaway accounts. Thomas.W talk 20:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see assuming that. I would like to see more discussion on the usefulness of the site. To that end I have advised other boards to join this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Reference desk (for language experts), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages and Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a random check of three articles that have omniglot.com as external links and traced back who added them. Here is what I found: [3] (stub created with the link), [4] and [5]. All by registered users who were not single purpose accounts. I selected these at random and did not cherry pick. I did take them from the first few hundred entries on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.omniglot.com I do not know if that creates bias. People have been using omniglot.com since 2003. I will check more later I have real world stuff to do. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IMHO you're focusing on the wrong things. It doesn't matter how many people have added the links, or whether it was done in good faith or not, what matters is if the numerous links to Omniglot that have been added, and are still continously being added, add anything unique to the articles they're added to or not, which they clearly don't since our language articles include far more information than Omniglot's short stubs, and, as far as I can see, anything found in the language and writing system stubs at Omniglot can also be found here. I.e. the most basic rule listed at the top of the list of links to be avoided at WP:ELNO. In addition to that Omniglot is a personal website that is not written by someone who is a recognised expert in their field, which is also listed as a no-no at WP:ELNO. Thomas.W talk 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This proposal is a non-starter on many levels.

    1. First of all, WP:EL is a guideline, not policy. The banner at the top reads, in part, that it is "...best treated with common sense and occasional exceptions may apply..." Secondly the specific subsection WP:ELNO gives even more leeway, saying the types of links listed are "normally to be avoided" (my emphasis). "Normally", not always.
    2. You misrepresented the website in your first statement ("...not even an unrecognized one...", etc). As Richard points out, the main author of the site possesses an MA in linguistics as well as other extensive training in the field. Apparently Richard was even able to find a few citations to his work.
    3. While I would never advocate using Omnniglot.com as a source, it functions as a very useful utility site, especially for alphabets/script/writing system articles. In those articles, it is not only appropriate, but oftentimes very useful as an External Link, specifically because it contains other links which we can not provide directly in our articles. For example, the entry on Khmer script gives links to character pickers, dictionaries, sound files exemplifying the language, free downloadable fonts. While, as I stated above, it shouldn't be cited as a source nor should it be spammed to every language related article, it is still valuable in some specific cases. RC/Vandalism Patrol seems to be a good enough check on its overuse. Seeking to blacklist it seems a wild overreaction, which leads me to my last point.
    4. I am always willing to WP:AGF, but the second paragraph of this edit makes this feel like a rather WP:POINTY tit-for-tat in return for being reported to ANI (which was also pointy and uncalled for).

    Omniglot is useful in some circumstances and while I'm not convinced that it violates WP:ELNO in those circumstances, even if it did, its usefulness is reason enough to qualify it as an occasional exception.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Then I suggest whitelisting those few links that are of value, but blacklisting the rest. Links to short stub articles about languages added as external links to comprehensive language articles here (see the sample links in my initial post; it's not limited to those two articles though, virtually every language article we have has Omniglot as an external link) are of no value to Wikipedia or its readers, only to Omniglot (generating traffic and money for them). Thomas.W talk 21:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose blacklisting. I see no reason why standard editor discretion can't be applied on an article-by-article basis. I can envisage cases where external links to content on Omnniglot.com could be useful per WP:ELYES#YES 3 and WP:ELMAYBE#MAYBE 4. Blacklisting should only be used in cases of obvious spamming on a large scale.- MrX 23:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at a db-dump of the additions that LiWa3 saved (1500+ in total, 325-ish on en.wikipedia) and I do not see that most of the links were added by one user, and as FPaS suggests, many regulars are adding the link. There may be spammers / COI-editors in the list, but they should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

    Therefore I would suggest to no Declined blacklisting, consider identifying which accounts are spamming or pushing these links and speak firmly with those editors (let them understand and follow our m:Terms of Use (especially for those with a conflict of interest, failure to adhere may be reason for an immediate block) and our local policies and guidelines - WP:V/WP:NOT/WP:RS/WP:EL/WP:SPAM), and to examine their edits.

    For the links that are there, I think a good cleanup is at hand - the links are certainly in places where they are superfluous and failing our inclusion standards (WP:RS/WP:V/WP:NOT/WP:EL). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Richard-of-Earth: If you click on "en" just after "Linksearch" at the top of this section you get all links to omniglot.com on en-WP (all 1,116 of them), in a long list showing both which page on en-WP they're on and which page on Omniglot they link to. Thomas.W talk 09:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thomas.W: Yes, that is what I used. I eliminated all the pages that were not articles and extracted just the page names and eliminated all the duplicates and made a list. Your welcome. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richard-of-Earth: I prefer to use the full list, showing articles with multiple links, links from other pages than articles, etc, and not a shortened list edited/filtered by someone else, so thanks, but no thanks. Thomas.W talk 13:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be added to a filter though, it is not a WP:RS and is spreading like kudzu. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    stellarinfo.com

    Posted link twice under references of Data recovery without any other changes to the main content. Pointing to a blog posts promoting its services. This would be best protection against future spam, as it seems a business was doing this.

    stellarinfo.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

    Hmmm. This is spammy but potentially slightly legitimate - someone is certainly pimping their company but it may or may not have a product that merits inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    xlibris.com

    I have been finding a large number of links to xlibris, as external links and as references, often linking directly to the sales page, e.g. [6], [7]. This is essentially a vanity press - it has no editorial oversight, yet contents of books is being represented as being issued by xlibris corporation [8] or published by xlibris division of Random House [9].

    This use is spamtastic, but likely to be in good faith. It's a long-term problem, I have pruned these links before. I think the site should be blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    sahinahi.com

    IP editor is spamming Bollywood movie review sections with refrences from this completely unreliable website sahinahi.com. Mostly this IP range 66.108........ adds SahiNahi links.There are other IP ranges also. The website employees must be behind this. Sahinahi has no notability, completely unreliable source. This is just using Wikipedia for advertisement. They claim it's equal to Rottentomatoes. 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5, adding other reliable refences along with sahinahi. Rest are same. Some spam links were removed by other users from Bollywood movie critical reception section. Cosmic  Emperor  13:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Add:

    However, this looks stale, since neither the IP nor the user has edited this year. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not true.I recently removed three sahinahi links today. He has opened another account. They may not be one guy. But how did you find that UserId?.I agree they are stale but there are two more IPs who made sahinahi promotion once. They will come back. I am tired of this. adding sahinahi along with reliable sources to hide sahinahi promotion just like this, this and this. It's a style to avoid the detection of editors by adding other reputed sources along with sahinahi.Cosmic  Emperor  15:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    @JzG: See this , only one edit. But you must know they are not retired.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:9:100:64F:C85E:E492:91F1:7B5B Cosmic  Emperor  15:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    localtaxilisting.com

    Obviously normal people will advertise local taxis on New Jersey articles. Obvious spammer, looks like a long-term one. Jr Mime (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    lukeisback.com

    Proposed blacklisting lukeisback.com per discussion at lukeisback and sexherald dot com.

    Despite past discussions and porn project guidelines, it continues to be used as a source, primarily in porn articles. It's an old gossip blog maintained by an apparent replacement gossiper. --Lightbreather (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    sexherald.com

    Proposed blacklisting sexherald.com per discussion at lukeisback and sexherald dot com.

    It's a commercial site (for FUCKINGMACHINES, maybe? others) posing as an "adult entertainment news authority." Lightbreather (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 15:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    gamergate.me

    gamergate.me: 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 is more of a BLP issue here, as it contains allegations against living persons that have no place on the English Wikipedia as a source or as a link. Someone attempted to use it as a source here and due to the sensitive nature of this article we need to take care of this post-haste.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Another attempt.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, per WP:BLP concerns and the fact that this site is worthless as a source. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources are not required to adhere to WP:BLP, Guy. Surely you know this. WP:BLP is a requirement for Wikipedia articles, not sources. There is no newspaper in the world that adheres to WP:BLP. yutt 14:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutt (talk • contribs)

    I am requesting that this site be removed from the blacklist. It is preventing the use of the source as the official statement by the movement as to their intentions. There, clearly, is an incorrect statement within the "Gamer Gate controversy" article about it's relevancy to sexism. It has to do with questioning the alleged violations of the ethical standards within journalism, more specifically gaming journalism, as stated by the Gamer Gate official site. If this blacklist is not removed, it clearly is not allowing the use of it as the official statement of the Gamer Gate movement and it seems to invoke an agenda by Wikipedia itself. - QuantumMass — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuantumMass (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Gamergate is, intentionally, leaderless and unorganized. Gamergate.me is not an official statement-making website any more than 8chan is. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides not having any official status as representing any organization, it DOES have "official" status as the home of material so far beyond the bounds of acceptable BLP that even if it WAS "official" , it would still need to be blacklisted. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for removal no Declined, reasons for adding it are still valid now. Zad68 00:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    tellychakkar.com

    It is a PR firm masking as an entertainment "news" site. the "about us" page states "Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline, thus providing clients with a 360 degree media service and marketing solution. " they are widely used [10] often to establish the "notability" of "up and coming" stars. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The two aren't related though? -C759 (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    no. sorry, too deep of a subheading. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    827 results for this one... -C759 (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding 3 more wings of the firm per the bottom of the indiantelevision page.

    Please let me know what other information might be helpful. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Strongly support this: About page says "The exclusive peppery online destination for the hottest news on TV shows and movies, tete-a-tetes with TV and Bollywood stars, spicy gossips and much more. Tellychakkar, an Indiantelevision.com initiative was launched in 2005. Since its inception Tellychakkar has enjoyed a special place in the hearts of television and Bollywood fans across the globe and has recently launched print editions as well." - it's a gossip blog. Indiantelevision.com is the reliable site, this is specifically not the reliable site. And there are literally hundreds of links. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 15:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    firstleaks.com

    Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Special:Contributions.2F109.87.221.201. While this appears to be an isolated incident and I can find no other history for this URL, that the website is designed to provide illegal downloads of newly copyrighted material means that the website will never be appropriate for use on Wikipedia. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 15:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    howold.co

    Site using scraped Wikipedia content without credit to build a "How old is celebrity X?" service; every page's "About" description is Wikipedia's lede section, every illustrating photo is lifted without credit from the infobox. An out-of-date mirror of Wikipedia lede sections is of no use to the Wikipedia project. I've cut the few cases where an article was using it as a source for a birthdate. --McGeddon (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, as it still seems to be an issue. --Guy (Help!) 16:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    adele.meraofficialsite.com

    Redirects to a blogspot.in page which claims to be the official website of Adele. There is a Download PDF there which would actually download a .com file. The link was added by the following ips.

    I mentioned this at WP:HELPDESK where someone has just uncovered the downloadable element. Not sure if this is malware, but it looks a bit suspicious. This is Paul (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined as stale. --Guy (Help!) 16:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    dotnewz.com

    dotnewz.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 Smartalex4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

    Came across one replacement of a dead link with a link to dotnewz.com by Smartalex4 and noticed that's about all the user has done. More importantly, I think, is that every page on that site appears to be copy/pasted from a reliable publication, framed as an archive. See this removed from Miami Dolphins, this link removed from Dolly (sheep), this one removed from Univision.--— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    mediamatters.org

    mediamatters.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

    mediamatters.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 (.com URLs roll straight into .org)

    Find a politically-oriented topic on Wikipedia coatracked to the point of utter uselessness, and you'll see Media Matters all over the references like a rash. (I don't think I've ever seen a Media Matters reference deployed in an NPOV manner.) Big, loud, brash, and flush with Soros cash, Media Matters for America has definitely been around awhile and is therefore notable, but virtually all content to date consists of non-RS blogging ("Blog" is the first link on their masthead banner). In ten years time, they've never matured beyond a positioned role of unabashed internet propaganda attack mill.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Media Matters for America is notable. More importantly, the Wikipedia article gives a pretty good idea of what it does.
    I think the main issue is whether an openly partisan organization, such as the Heritage Foundation, should be blacklisted. It seems obvious to me that the answer is that it should not be, if it publishes things based on solid information. If all that Media Matters did was to publish blog posts, then sure, it's not useful as a source. But, obviously, that's not all they do; in fact, it's not the majority of what they do. Moreover, nothing in WP:RS says that Wikipedia editors should treat blog posts are reliable simply because other parts are a website reliable. (The New York Times publishes opinion pieces that shouldn't be cited, because they fail WP:RS; the solution to editors citing these - to the extent they do - is to educate editors.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The question in the end is: "has this been abused on Wikipedia" - are there multiple editors who add this & is this added to multiple articles in a way that is spammy, or to push an agenda? If I can see only editors who add this in good faith as a reference, then it disqualifies for blacklisting. Note that WP:RS/WP:V does not disqualify a source, it disqualifies how a source is used. Even a twitter post can be a reliable (primary) source for something. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. This is a matter for WP:RSN, not the blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 16:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    newsjack.in

    URL shortener/falsifier. The main site (newsjack.in) allows user to seemingly create a link to a cnn or fox story through a URL shortener but in reality they edit the title and content of the article. No reason this should ever be used on Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Deferred to meta blacklist as a link shortener. 16:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

    thefappening.rocks

    There's really no reason to have this on the site, as HJ Mitchell and I were having a discussion off-wiki and I was alerted to the presence of persons trying to add this to multiple articles. Because of that, I am placing the link here to see what others think, as I would be supportive of blacklisting this site from the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The domain I came across most recently was fileston.com (see this edit admins only). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding the additional domain. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    and plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist as having no conceivable utility here. --Guy (Help!) 16:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    *.publicadda.com

    IP from India. I've seen the URL added to other articles by other IPs, but I can't find those now. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This was plus Added by User:Beetstra. MER-C 12:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    installationcalculator.com

    installationcalculator.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

    Multiple IPs and accounts adding this link to multiple pages (mostly recently to Laminate flooring, Renovation, Kitchen work triangle, Fence). The IP 107.77.66.65 was already blocked for spamming. The account Jaskilgore should probably be indef blocked as promotion-only account. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done for now, as this is apparently stale with no current links, but we should blacklist promptly if it resumes. --Guy (Help!) 11:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    healthncare.info

    Have removed the ones we contained already and warned user in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    MER-C 11:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 18:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    atulsongaday.me

    In addition to copy-violations (including song lyrics), the user makes intention to spam clear with a hyperlink to the .me domain and then the path to the WordPress subdomain as clear text in the description.[11] and no other supporting references.

    The user Akash Guhathakurta (talk · contribs) does not seem to respond to AfD on her/his talk page and per discussion at WikiProject_Songs#Indian_Song_Notability this user appears to be a sockpuppet for a deleted account Baghdad Ki Raaten.

    I suspect this person will persist until there is a domain (and subdomain) block so the user can no longer link back to the blog. Whoops, forgot to sign 009o9 (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing in the last 21 days. no Declined. MER-C 10:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    micromarketmonitor.com

    Not a reliable source of good EL. Being spammed around, please blacklist. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    marketsandmarkets.com

    Combining: crossover of spamming IPs. Guy (Help!) 17:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a reliable source of good EL. Being spammed around, please blacklist. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This has long been  Stale MER-C 12:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see I declined this a long time ago, since thén there were no warnings issued .. seems those warnings were not heeded, as this IP was just active yesterday .. and many, what appear to be, SPAs over the last months come out of the COIBot report, as what may be many related domains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The domains have two different proprietors and the IP belongs to a stockbroker. I don't see anything malicious here. Either way, the activity isn't enough to justify blacklisting. MER-C 12:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For this domain (the above domain seems unrelated) - this IP is not the only editor with a focus
    and
    The only regular using this site this year is User:Andy Dingley, who is reinserting a removal of this link, where the removal by User:Bonadea was marked as WP:REFSPAM (diff). The original addition of these references was by:
    And if I go further back, I see the SPAs
    (while still not running into regulars who use this site anywhere).
    That is in my opinion quite a bit of activity in less than a year. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and this deleted article, created by another SPA:
    The only remaining links in mainspace appear all to be added by one of the abovementioned accounts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 17:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    screenrant.com

    This site uses sources that have been deemed unreliable at Talk:The Flash (2014 TV series). While I disagree, if the consensus feels that screenrant.com is referencing unreliable sources then that, in itself, makes screenrant.com an unreliable source that should be added to the blacklist. Pjstar35 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 22:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, why is a reputed and well respected news/analysis site that is already used a lot on Wikipedia and deemed to be a reliable source by (what I thought was all but is apparently only most) editors now being blocked? We don't just block every website that references other sources that we have deemed unreliable, if that was the case then most of the main trades like Variety and Deadline would have to be blacklisted as well, which would be ridiculous. I don't know if this is the correct place for this, but I would like to request some sort of review of this decision / discussion about it, because it really doesn't make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Screenrant is not a blacklist site. Pjstar35 does not seem to have an understanding of WP:RS and using them based on what they report. Screenrant is an acceptable site for inclusion, providing respected news and analysis. However, the example Pjstar provided features information gained from an unreliable fansite source, Flash TV news. This is the same principal if a reliable sites such as IGN or Comic Book Resources reported on news from Comic Book Movie, an unreliable source. It just indicates that the reliable source can't be used to cite information in the article, because the info traces back to an unreliable source. JzG please delist this immediately. Also notifying TriiipleThreat to this to weigh in, per their work dealing with editors in similar situations, attempting to add info from reliable sources that originate from unreliable sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wether or not screenrant.com is a WP:RS, is besides the point. We do not add every unreliable source to the blacklist. The blacklist is reserved for websites that spam Wikipedia, for which I see no evidence. It should also be noted that even reliable sources, on occasion may erroneously reference unreliable sources. As long as these occasions are infrequent, then the site can still be considered reliable. It just means that editors should always thoroughly vet each reference that they intend on using. There are no blank checks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with 3Threat. The blacklist is intended to prevent abuse, not to prevent well-meaning, but ignorant, editors from adding a site that doesn't always make the WP:RS cut. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    minus Removed from black list per consensus. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    movihall.com

    Domain has been spammed by at least these two users to multiple articles ([12], [13], [14]). Most edits by these users are for the movihall.com domain although they are also spamming sportstopnews.com. Ravensfire (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 16:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    sixsigma-institute.org

    Domains have repeatedly been added to List of Six Sigma certification organizations, Professional certification, and any other places they can be crammed in. Sites are for a group of apparently related, anonymous certification mills with no indication of reliability or significance. User:TristramShandy13 and User:Jenny Evans 34 were both blocked for spamming these domains, but a range of IPs have consistently tried to sneak them in anyway, such as just today.[15] Edits like this one are kind of funny, but indicate that the problem is becoming disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP that added the most recent link also blanked this blacklist request, which is informative, I guess. Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added MER-C 11:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    divento.com

    Persistent ref-spamming by three closely similar accounts. Example here. The company is a ticket agency. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing in the last month. no Declined. If they resume, please let me know and I will block them. MER-C 12:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    pornclub24.com

    This IP user keeps adding the same spam link even after being blocked. The link is a site to watch free porn. --TL22 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    rtnda.org

    rtnda.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

    Formerly legit domain apparently hijacked by domain squatters / spammers. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist as the problem still exists even after all this time. --Guy (Help!) 19:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    perry4law.co.uk

    Links go to an Indian law firm's blog. In addition to the links contained in the link summary, the following articles have had edits reverted because they contained perry4law: [16], [17], [18] and [19]. All articles were edited by different IP addresses.

    I was alerted today on my talk page of another editor who reverted because of spam. A couple articles contained a wikilink to Praveen Dalal's user page. Praveen Dalal is the managing partner at perry4law. A link to the law firm's website as well as email addresses are on the user page. Bgwhite (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is going to need some cleanup before it goes on the blacklist. MER-C 11:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist following cleanup. --Guy (Help!) 15:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    balloons.wikia.com

    Wikia link that keeps being spammed on Balloon. Has been protected twice, and is still currently protected, but spam is likely going to be resumed after protection expires. --TL22 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Request withdrawn - Seems to have died down since the second protection. --TL22 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Viewzone.com copyvio issues

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

    I was about to remove this from an article as it's pure fringe/conspiracy, when I noticed that [www.viewzone.com/ken.visit.html] contained copyvio material from a newspaper. A couple of almost random clicks took me to [www.viewzone.com/wasabi/xxx.html], video using copyvio material from a tv show. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dougweller: Are you sure that it is not the other way around - their frontpage does suggest that they take copyright infringement serious. For the few I quickly checked, I see (sourced) copies from this site, not the other way around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: The first link is to a page with a copy of a newspaper article "Kennewick Man's bones provide window to past" by Anna King, Herald staff writer - in this case the Herald is the Tri-City Herald, July 25, 2006. (see [20]. And as I said, the video in the 2nd link contains material from a tv program, specifically copyvio from Fox News. Didn't take me hard to find, and I put no credence in anything Viewzone says. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dougweller: I tried to find another page on their site (my first test), www.viewzone.com/granitepots.html, and I could not find where they copied from, just that their site was copied, hence my question. Maybe it is a mixture which makes it more difficult to outright blacklist the whole site. Blacklisting would generally only be done (lacking abuse) when the large majority of the site was filled with copyright violations (and I agree that finding 2 is not a good sign). --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist; worthless source, questionable copyright status. --Guy (Help!) 17:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    purevites.com

    purevites.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 HaydenJarman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

    Attempts to spam by User:HaydenJarman. Added some decent refs first which makes it appear this is likely one of there many sock accounts. Currently blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined as stale for now, valid concerns but no links remain as far as I can tell. Feel free to ping me if they return. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    crosswaysimages.ca

    Posted link twice under external links in different articles. Site is solely promotional, no foreseeable need for it in an encyclopedia. This would be best protection against future spam, as it seems a business was doing this. 99.238.114.76 (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)

    I've already undone the changes and posted a warn on the IP's TP.

    Adding a second domain spammed. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 20:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This report was blanked by the mentioned IP. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    roboticheartsurgeon.com

    Keeps getting added to articles about robotic surgery. ugh. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    fenvir.com & fucoidanforce.com

    I've blocked this static IP for one year and have undone a number of sneaky ref to ref spam replacements. Reporting this to check if cross-wiki abuse exists.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing found. no Declined. MER-C 12:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ehow.co.uk

    It's not really "spammed" currently, but like its eHow.com counterpart (already blacklisted) this site is not suitable as reference or external link. The UK version shares all the flaws of the .com site, namely no real editorial oversight and the large-scale inclusion of low-quality articles. Luckily the site is rarely used (just cleaning it up), but it should be blacklisted nonetheless to avoid further usage. GermanJoe (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, per Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/ehow.com: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    teespring.com

    Random IPs have been adding this link to random articles and talk pages during the last 24 hours. Pages affected include List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes and its talk page, Google Translate, Talk:Google, Talk:Anime, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, and Talk:Naruto.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFarix (talk • contribs)

    I'm inclined to blacklist this -- it's the T-shirt sellers spamming their t-shirts, not the company spamming the site. MER-C 12:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The site has no obvious utility as a source, its only use is spamming. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Petition sites

    We have, for a long time, blacklisted petition sites due to a combination of problems: petitioners spamming Wikipedia, editors naively citing "there was a petition" to active petitions, and active solicitation to individual petitions via Talk and other pages. The worst issue, of course, is where a petition is added - even if in good faith - to an article, in a way that serves to imply that Wikipedia endorses it.

    As noted below, two widely used petition sites have domains not including the word petition, and thus escape blacklisting. I have been reviewing some of the mainspace links for change.org and a lot were deeply problematic - not just the usual primary source issue, but "See Also" links soliciting signatures on multiple articles referencing a topic. I think we need to blacklist these sites as well. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have also argued blacklisting the active petitions on these sites before and will reiterate the same concerns as with all petitions: they only serve as a primary reference for their reason and existence and their result (when closed) - which is only notable when they are anyway also mentioned in independent sources. Their 'success' is only relative, dependent on how much they were published (which includes spammed) and to their relative importance. That being said, other petition sites that are all blanket-blacklisted have shown their problems ('vote to keep XX open [here]'-type of remarks, a direct violation of WP:SOAPBOX) though it seems that most of the additions are in good faith (referencing the fact that the petition was hold about something related to the subject of the page). I still agree that this makes sense, petition sites are hardly ever really useful as a reference (there are better references for the facts if they are notable enough to be included), and those cases can be handled by selective whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is no doubt that many are added in good faith. I don't know whether blacklisting or an edit filter is better, but we certainly need to stop people doing it, good faith or not, because the only obvious uses violate either WP:RS or WP:SOAPBOX, as you note. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We definitely should prevent links to these two sites; the negatives of links to them seem to me to vastly outweigh any benefits. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: - it would be helpful to see some recent diffs where these sites were used for soapboxing (I know that they are being used (often/sometimes in good faith) to reference the existence of a petition - I mean diffs with language along the lines of 'VOTE FOR OUR PETITION HERE to save the poor blahdiblah from removal from the wooperdiwoop'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added per above, Beetstra, I get your point but it is a long job finding out what was added when. There are numerous instances where it has been done, including in mainspace, recent-ness is the issue. I will do more digging but in the mean time we need to control an ongoing problem (and, incidentally, answer a minor injustice, per below). --Guy (Help!) 17:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    bocsci.com

    Spammer is continuing to spam even after coming off a block. Also reported IP at AIV. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 16:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.discountrue.com

    Per ANI thread - all are worthless to the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 15:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Revescom.Com

    revescom.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 revescom .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

    Regular morphing IP adding a handful of spams at a time, often to irrelevant articles about web development.

    Note that if looking for string matches, they tend to add it as "Revescom .Com" with the embedded space. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blacklisted, and already found to be a post-blacklist nuisance (this site is a good example of the true nature of spam - they will not stop). See Special:AbuseFilter/665. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's blacklisted, something isn't working. I would suspect that this is why they're adding it with the embedded space, and thus the blacklist regex needs an update. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. That explains why the spammer has been posting "Revescom. Com" rather than "revescom.com". Can someone with more knowledge of regexes than me adjust the blacklisting to cover versions with spaces? Of course, the spammer may then try to find another way round it, but the more difficult we make it for them to do so the less effective will be their spamming, and also the more likely it will be that they will eventually give up altogether. Is it as simple as adding the line "\brevescom\. com\b" to the blacklist? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the spam blacklist won't pick up strings that don't have http:// (or some protocol) in front of them, which is why an edit filter was created. --Versageek 20:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See Special:Abusefilter/665 ... they found another range to abuse. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    dienerproperties.com

    real estate agency spamming their website around WP, and IP hopping. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    bergspider.net

    and others.

    IPs geolocating to Romania (85.*) and Pakistan (39.*) adding both refspam and external links pointing to a new non-RS bloglike website (hosted by godaddy.com) that rehashes news from other sites in order to generate traffic to them, to articles of all kinds, from cars and football clubs to mobile phones and computer operating systems. I have removed all links so far (running {{Link summary|bergspider.net}} from an own spam-tracking page I have here...) but one or two IPs pop up each day now, adding new links, making me believe they intend to increase their spamming on en-WP, to get a higher rating on Google.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.W (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 June 2015‎ he is lying i am not a spammer My website contain all these categorizes if you dont believe me check my website ...and i am just trying to give people more and more latest information ... Please remove my webiste form blacklist ..i dont want my website in blacklist

    Persistent enough .. inserted again and again and again. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dirk Beetstra Clear my website im not spamming — Preceding unsigned comment added by GawenBerg (talk • contribs) 15:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    blogspot.in

    There's a regular spam problem [21] [22] [23] where throwaway Indian IPs add links to an Australian furniture selling site. The .com.au site looks like a simple candidate for blacklisting, if it isn't already.

    Recently though they seem to have switched to an Indian blogspot redirect to the main site. Wordpress too: [24]. This warrants a blacklist as well. It set me thinking though, isn't blogspot already blacklisted? If so, then shouldn't the blogspot.in local variant be treated similarly? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Andy Dingley: Blogspot's are revertlisted on XLinkBot, specific ones can be blacklisted (as would go for specific wordpresses). I de-templated the main blogspot, and added the wordpress, and will subsequently blacklist the whole lot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Haven't seen this one as much, but it's the same route of these Indian spammers plugging an Australian site Special:Contributions/124.253.83.150 Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Abiquiú, New Mexico

    Old case, active back in 2008 (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Seatreker), now back with again (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seatreker; who said that if something is blacklisted for more than # years it is sufficient to assume it stopped ...). Time to blacklist this and keep an eye on it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    panicattackaway.com

    User is here just to add spamlinks to website he says is own. Was blocked for it and came right back and did it again. They appear likely to keep doing so after they are blocked again - we can expect IP editing, socking, etc. Jytdog (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    removalistinadelaide.com.au

    Sockpuppeter keeps adding links to this professional movers site to random pages. Have reverted them all for now, but they have used 1 2, 3 different socks for this purpose already, so blocking and protection will not work. I also cannot see how this site would ever need to be linked to Cannolis (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    carbumperrepairscardiff.co.uk / carbumperrepairsnewport.co.uk

    plus Added, SPI refiled. MER-C 11:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    http.com

    In that case, Template:Defermeta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    searates.com

    Persistent introduction of spam links on a variety of articles even tangentially related to shipping by sea, by multiple IPs after warning. [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] [40][41][42][43][44] General Ization Talk 15:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to correct section for additions.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 11:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    newslines.org

    Per this report. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I support that Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, supported here and at AN. --Guy (Help!) 16:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    edcoatescollection.com

    Link is located on the SURBL list. Take note: SURBL Blacklist lookup and WOT Scorepage. Anarchyte 10:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    claimadjusters.wordpress.com

    claimadjusters.wordpress.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 Spamming by multiple single-use accounts: [[45]], [[46]], [[47]],

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    professionalvideo.tv

    professionalvideo.tv: 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

    plus Added MER-C 02:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    teluguone.com

    teluguone.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

    • Multiple throw-away accounts adding refspam to the site ([51], [52], [53]), replacing legitimate links with links to teluguone.com, a "Film Data Base Site" with gossip about Indian movies and celebrities, short stories and biographies with no author name and no information about where they get their gossip from (sample pages that are currently linked from en-WP: (www.teluguone.com/tmdb/gossip/Angela-Johnson-Besides-Mahesh-Babu-en-12544c7.html #1), (www.teluguone.com/tmdb/news/Vishal-Vetadu-Ventadu-Release-Date-en-20502c1.html #2), (www.teluguone.com/tmdb/news/Victory-Venkatesh-met-Mahesh-Babu-en-6572c1.html #3), (www.teluguone.com/tmdb/news/Terrific-Response-For-Julayi-Promo-Song-en-15854c1.html #4), (www.teluguone.com/tmdb/news/Raviteja-Daruvu-Postponed-en-13944c1.html #5)). There are currently ~180 links to the site on en-Wiki, so it has obviously been going on for quite some time. Thomas.W talk 12:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to unlink teluguone above to revert the removal of this section. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone wonders why they're blacklisted this is another example of what they've been doing: hijacking legitimate references by replacing just the original URL in the reference with their own URL, but leaving the rest of the reference in place, in the belief that it would be more difficult to spot. Thomas.W talk 06:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, Venu46486 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) felt the need to blank this section and was engaged in the above behaviour. MER-C 07:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    nytimes.com

    nytimes.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 Don't understand why this was blacklisted.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not blacklisted at the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com

    How can the site be useful This website is a legitimate source for local news.

    Why it should not be blacklisted I'm unsure as to why it was blacklisted at all.. The site has lots of coverage of local news and sports that is useful for fleshing out articles. For example, I was trying to source information on some minor league baseball teams and the best sources I could find were from local beat writers that post to this website.

    no Declined. This is a perennial request, examiner.com is not a reliable source and there is long-term abuse. Please request whitelisting of any specific links which are agreed, at WP:RSN, to meet our sourcing guidelines. --Guy (Help!) 20:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see evidence of this "long term abuse". It seems fool-hardy to block an entire website because of a few bad apples. There is a lot of good content there. Spanneraol (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can look through the past discusisons: [54]. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have no interest in reading that: examiner.com pays its authors per pageview, and so there is a massive spam incentive (and it indeed was spammed relentlessly, which is why it's now blacklisted), not helped by the fact that it deliberately tries to confuse itself with newspapers that call themselves "examiner". In addition, there's no editorial oversight, so no reason to link to it at all as a source. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spanneraol: I find this discussion always quite informative to show how examiner.com was used, and how it will be used when editors are allowed to use it at will. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    yachtpals.com

    How can the site be useful Seems a legit secondary source for sailing info including stuff not covered elsewhere about 20th century sailing history.

    Why it should not be blacklisted Has been requested to be removed before, as genuinely a normal site ... no idea why perception in the past seems to have been toward the opinion that they were self-delisting (would they really even know/care?) ... MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2012/06#Yachtpals previous request. prat (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Does not seem to pass WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Reliability is not a criteria for being put on the blacklist. It seems this criteria has abused several times, such as with Bible history (dot) com and with Knowyourmeme. This is the type of source that is not recommended, but not necessarily without use. WP:RS is only an absolute must in cases of WP:BLP . --Typenolies (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pratyeka: Yachtpals was spammed by several IPs in a small range. Following blacklisting, an IP in the same range requested delisting. That is obvious example of someone with a vested interest trying to push their links (or a group of people doing that, or an SEO company). Then in one whitelist request, an alternative was found easily, and here it is suggested that it is not a WP:RS anyway. With a history of spamming, and no history of significant use (no granted whitelist requests, hardly any whitelist requests anyway) I am reluctant to de-list.  Defer to Whitelist for specific links that are needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability would be a reason to delist after evidence of spamming. It's not reliable, therefore there's no reason to delist. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    shaded-relief.com

    How can the site be useful Terrain map for https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php currently in use at {{GeoTemplate}}

    Why it should not be blacklisted Any attempt to edit {{GeoTemplate}} (for instance, to correct OpenStreetMap's licence from CC-BY-SA to ODbL) fails as shaded-relief.com and pro-gorod.ru are blacklisted links, despite being in use on the GeoHack page. K7L (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @A. B.: You added this to the blacklist in 2012 as part of a large group associated with a Fox spamming incident, but the log entry cases linked don't show this domain. Please shed some light. Do you have an objection to removing it from the blacklist? Alternatively we could whitelist the GeoTemplate URL. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @A. B.: ping! ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    pv-magazine.com

    This website is a secondary source which includes specific information on photovoltaic projects throughout the world. It was used legitimately in a number of photovoltaic power stations articles and is generally reliable. It was discussed in May 2011 for spamming.

    How can the site be useful It is used as a reliable source. Often this website is the only English secondary source with a specific information.

    Why it should not be blacklisted It is useful as a source for many articles. Despite that the website was spammed, it is a valuable resource for myself and others who works with energy-related articles. When discussed in 2011, it was said that "If a non-COI editor makes a later request, it could be reconsidered". Accordingly I am making that request. Additional issues are that the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive, and it was blacklisted without prior notifying relevant Wikiproject. Beagel (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The original thread regarding the spamming is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Mar_1#User:Paulzubrinich
    "Despite that the website was spammed .... the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive". I respectfully disagree - it prevented the spamming (there were multiple accounts (some likely with a conflict of interest: User:Beckystuart - [55]; User:Paulzubrinich), they show an intention to spam ([56]), they mislead other editors ([57]), replace other sources with theirs, there is no reason to think that it should stop (in fact, User:MER-C noted the creation of new socks when old were blocked)), it does not punish anyone.
    Blacklisted without prior notifying relevant WikiProject - that is at best a good consideration, but is not, has never been, and should never be a compulsory part of blacklisting.
    Did you look whether the spamming actually is not still actively busy, so that we can safely say that blacklisting is not necessary anymore to prevent further spamming? Otherwise, I would consider to  Defer to Whitelist for the links that are needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking account the time how long this site has been blacklisted there are not so much websites left. However, it is a very time-consuming to apply for each single link for whitelisting (as a rule, it takes weeks to get any reaction and too often the reaction is an advice to look for some other source.) During the latest discussion about different -technology.com sites there were several proposals how to use bots and filter to make the process of blacklisting more transparent and detecting spammers more easily; however, it seems that there is no wish to change the current system. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is good that we do not have any deadlines, then.
    Beagel, WP:BRFA is right there for that task (I am not going to operate that bot, and I warn anyone who wants to take that task of familiarising themselves of what happened with Betacommand). I believe that it should not be compulsory, that is it - and you still seem to think that I am unwilling to notify wikiprojects of 'their' links being blacklisted, and that I don't (or didn't) make the analysis. I explained what and how I analysed it, and I still believe that most of these -technology.com links are not secondary sources, but simple re-reports of primary sources (in fact, the first addition of one of those sites that I encountered made by you (after the many by the spammers) was exactly that - a rewrite of the company report - in fact, I only believed it when I found the original, as they did not source where they actually got the information from).
    I don't think that this process is less transparent than WP:AN/I or WP:RS/N .. it is just that people don't care. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no analysis what is the impact to the work of other editors who are here to improve the Wikipedia and not for spamming. And no intention to see the situation from these editors point of view. And it is big difference, if the source is directly from the company (that is, primary source) or re-written (not re-printed) by the webmedia source (secondary source). Beagel (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't start that again, 'the work of other editors who are here to improve the Wikipedia and not for spamming' - you say you have all these pages on your watchlist (together with tens of others in the Wikiproject), still none cared about the spammers.
    No, it is not, it is re-written without pointing to the original source - it is only reliable when you see the original source and compare. This is not a reliable secondary source. There is nothing against primary sources, and this is a prime example why prime sources should sometimes be used over secondary sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said I have all these pages in my watchlist. My watchlist icludes only about 3,000 pages including files, templates, projects etc. However, your accusation that "none cared about the spammers" is baseless. I can't speak on behalf of anybody else; however, if there has been spamming also like vandalism etc I have always dealt with this. For some reasons, there has been no such a large-scale spamming at these pages on my watch list as you seems to imply. Therefore, my experience have been that blacklisting of certain websites have been created more harm and extra work than any spammer I have dealt with. And this is not said only by me but has been said here by several other editors. So, maybe instead of denying the problem it would be better if we could together find a way to make the system less painful for the ordinary editors without being less effective for fighting spammers. I personally suggested some potential solutions (I don't say that they are ready solutions or that there is no better solutions) but instead the of dialogue and discussing it you just rejected any cahnge to the current system. Although, if the link is added not by spammer but ordinary editor with a long edit history without histroy of spamming, vandalizing, paid editing etc, it would be logical if the link will be whitelisted more or less automatically. Beagel (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I did not mean it in that way, not as a personal complaint to you. These spammers were too smart for that, Beagel. Still, between the 7-or-so last accounts (some likely socks seen their timing!) there are about 250 link additions. Count that for all the sites there are a couple of hundreds of links (500? 700?), and the fact that this is known to be busy for 7 years (did I still miss accounts, I think I blacklisted after 4, found more later, and I did see a number of accounts with in total 4 or 5 edits where they add 3 or 4 links, is it a spammer or not? I also have a 'gap' where the spammers don't seem to have been active, that is too curious to be true) quite some of the links that are there were originally spammed (the one on Navy is spammed (and IMHO, inappropriate)). Even if you had ALL articles in one of the spammed subject areas on your watchlist (which no-one has, I do not have all 14.000 chemicals on my watchlist), you might have seen just a couple of edits over months - as I said, they are smart, they know we are looking (we caught them spamming earlier).
    I may have underestimated how often this link was used by regulars (the analysis if it should have been is elsewhere), but as I said - I see an (obviously incomplete) set of editors spamming, with hundreds of edits between them, and several hundreds of links there, and I found it easier to find spammers than regulars adding the site (it took me quite some time before I ran into the first case where you added the link, and as for the four you requested whitelisting for, I found that one replaceable as well (don't remember where, I left it)). Maybe the cleanup of at least the spammed links should have been more rigorous before blacklisting (and I still believe that quite some of the rest should go as well, there are better sources). Announcing it to the WikiProjects (which would probably be 30 or 40 in this case .. each for a 15-20 links on average) might have been an option, though I a) doubt much participation in cleaning (personal experience), and b) if you notify them on a regular basis of pending blacklisting that participation will even become lower - in the end I don't think it will have much of an effect, and c) the spamming would still go on and that would also need to be cleaned. The bot does a similar thing, it notifies people of 'questionable' links on pages on their watchlist. You say that you have 3000 pages on your watchlist, so a rough guess, that there would be 25 pages with now blacklisted links (tagged in one go, so all visible). Most of those 25 pages are likely watched by another 10 people, so you would on average have to evaluate 2 of them. I, as spam-fighter, would however first have to clean-out all the spammed links, and then evaluate (which is difficult for me, I am not a specialist in all these subjects) whether the others are replaceable, should go or should be whitelisted (in the meantime, I have to revert the ongoing spam).
    I am not rejecting any change - I am all for more participation. But having compulsory notifications to Wikiprojects is not a solution (but just for the compulsory part of it - WP:PHARM is going to kill me after the 3rd notification of a Taladafil spammer, do I REALLY have to notify them? - and some links are plain spam and should undoubtedly be blacklisted but do not 'belong' to one, or any WikiProject. As I said elsewhere, I know what happened with Betacommand, the idea is good but the practical application is running into problems which will make people yell at the bot operator that operates that bot). For me, the solution is to get more people aware of the page and get more people commenting, and helping. And I have asked for that on several occasions ...
    In most cases, requests for whitelisting for links added by regulars and requested by regulars go fairly automatic - though, and I have said that here before, besides that it was spammed, I have serious questions about the reliability (reliability is not the right word, it turns out that it is reliable, it is more that they are not independent determinations of the facts than really reliability - they are secondary, they appear therefore independent, but that is a wrong impression) and suitability of these links (and not only of the ones that were spammed). Examiner.com links are not automatically whitelisted if a regular requests it - we ask everybody to go the extra mile and show there is no better source for the same info. I think that that should happen here as well (but now it is not blacklisted no-one will care about the links that are there: they are fine because they are not blacklisted - and (likely after a bit of time) the spammers can carry on). --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    re@ In most cases, requests for whitelisting for links added by regulars and requested by regulars go fairly automatic. Based on my recent experience by asking whitelisting some links, which were not spamming and were not added by spammers, which you rejected, I would say that this statement does not reflect the reality adequately. There may be or may be not better sources, but it should not be the bases of rejection (as this is also not the bases of blacklisting). I do not reject the idea that in certain cases blacklisting and whitelisting of websites should be done based on their reliability but there should be very clearly defined written policy on this — otherwise it would be just a subjectivity of acting admin or in the worst cases, even censorship which goes againts the core principles of Wikipedia.
    re@compulsory notifications. I see the point and agree that proposing it as "compulsory" may create problems. I think that for Wikiprojects it would probably work better as opt-in, so they will have a choice if they would like to recieve these notifications or not. As my other proposals, I still think that it would be necessary analysing impact of the certain website/publisher blacklisting to the articles by using bot and/or specific Wikitool. It should be not only listing affected articles, but also list of editors who have added that certain website link into articles by number of that kind of edits. I also support what was said by another editor that in certain cases it would be more efficient to use filters instead of blacklisting. But, of course, these (and probably also some other) proposals need wider and better organized discussion. I have to admit that my proposal last time at Village Pump was not well-described and the discussion was not appropriately structured, which does not help to keep that discussion focused. Beagel (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the whitelisting - whitelisting is done for links that are really needed. Do we have to whitelist an unreliable source where better sources exist (and in some cases were even already in use)? These sources should not be used, they should be replaced with reliable sources, even if those reliable sources are primary.
    Opt-in is also difficult, it is not dependent on the nature of the wikiproject, it is dependent on the nature of the site. Of course wikiproject pharmacology does not want to be notified if we blacklist another taladifil site, they do want to be notified if some publisher that they use is spamming Wikipedia and runs the risk to have their links blacklisted. Still, if you think that a bot c/should be written for this, that is something that we have bot-requests for.
    Maybe here notifications were necessary, but I still insist that I could find spammers easier than regulars using this site, and I still believe that a lot of these pages that are there should be replaced with the proper primary source as this secondary source is of less value (and because it is plainly re-writing the same info as the primary source - sometimes less correct) than the primary source. I am convinced that most of the news-items reported by these sites will not survive a WP:RS/N-discussion when the original is presented. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that I did not decline/reject in those three discussions, I merely suggested alternatives that are not blacklisted and discussed the request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    re@Opt-in is also difficult, it is not dependent on the nature of the wikiproject, it is dependent on the nature of the site. Of course wikiproject pharmacology does not want to be notified if we blacklist another taladifil site, they do want to be notified if some publisher that they use is spamming Wikipedia and runs the risk to have their links blacklisted. I am some how confused. How the opt-in is more difficult compared to the current situation where is no notification? If you think that there are cases when notification is necessary nothwithstanding the opt-in, it could be done in addition to the bot manually. It needs only some goodwill for this.
    re@I still insist that I could find spammers easier than regulars using this site. Excuse me but I can't understand what is your point. Nobody is not questioning your experiences fighting spamming but does it really more important than work of regulars using these sites for writing encyclopaedia?
    re@I still believe that a lot of these pages that are there should be replaced. This is your right to believe. This does not mean you are right. I also believe that some of sites should be replaced while "some others" are useful for the project. That does not mean I am right. I agree that there is no agreement, a community based discussion is needed and as the reliability depends of the context, each link under question should be discussed separately. Beagel (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Opt-in is not more difficult than no notification, it is more difficult than blanket-always-notification. Opt-in on which links. I think that the situation I describe is going to be the same for all wikiprojects, so all WikiProjects would not opt-in and have to rely on the goodwill of the editors (which is there anyway, you are now just saying because in this one case you were not notified that it is never done - I realise that with the -technology.com sites I underestimated the size of the situation.
    No, not more important per sé - the point is, spammers make money spamming their links, they insist, they go on (examples are there of organisations who spam 3-9 years despite links being blacklisted, this is not your run-of-the-mill vandalism, they persist). Playing whack-a-mole is futile, not blacklisting a site where the spammers are shown to be still active is damaging Wikipedia more than the little hurdle of whitelisting the material that is really needed. Often, the sites are of use on a very small subset of the 4 million+ pages that we have. I am sorry, but leaving some sites not blacklisted gives a lot of work to very few editors in favour of very, very few additions which are really important by a large group of editors. If I go through 20 situations where the link is used on Wikipedia (that was for the -technology.com websites) go back sifting through the history, and I find that none of those 20 were actually added by regulars but all by spammers then the conclusion rises quickly that regulars do not use the site very often and spammers do. Because that is what happened with the -technology.com websites, Beagel. I believe you that you say that you used that link regularly, but over the last three months 30-40 additions were by 6 to 8 spammers, and 3-4 by 1 to 2 regulars. If there are already 6-7 sock/meat puppets (or a whole sweat-shop), blocking the editors is futile, and page-protection is futile and gives a lot of aggravation to regulars as well - where is the line between continuing to play whack-a-mole with spammers and a bit of inconvenience to request whitelist the few links that are really needed?
    I agree that the reliability depends on the context and use (there are cases where porn sites do need to be linked, despite that 99+% is plain abuse of the link). But if a site is actively and definitely spammed, or the site is not one of general use, then the mitigation plan is to blacklist the whole domain, and allow individual links to be whitelisted on their own merits. If those links are shown to be useful and not replaceable by other (better) sources, then whitelisting is a formality (even for a site of questionable reliability). Your suggestion 'each link under question should be discussed separately' - that is exactly where the whitelist comes in, where every single link can be separately whitelisted. If a site can be shown to be of general use (most/all of the discussions result in whitelisting), and the spam threat seems to have stopped, then de-listing could be considered. And those are the arguments that should be answered in this thread, not accusations of unwillingness to notify WikiProjects (how do you know that was not done in this case anyway?), nor unfounded remarks that it was a long time anyway (there are tools to show that sites are still spammed or that the threat has stopped completely).
    Note that also the argument that this is often the only English source is not valid - WP:V does not require the sources to be in English, and you suggest that there are non-English sources. Moreover, if this source is an English translation of another language, you just assume that the translation is correct. Also, WP:V does not require a source to be online, nor does it require a source to be actually linked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    re@I realise that with the -technology.com sites I underestimated the size of the situation. Yes, you did. And does "I underestimated the size of the situation" means that the blacklisting is based on one man estimation? However, this is exactly the reason why an impact analysis and usage of bot or special tool for this is needed. E.g. after proposal to blacklist the site (or group of sites by the same owner) the bot would list all the articles using this site as a reference, creates a list of users who have added this site with number of additions; and a number of individual Wikiproject banners on the affected articles. First, it gives an overview what the impact is. In the case of -technology.com sites the total number of articles is thousands, and number of editors adding this is hundreds. Second, it assist to detect spammers. Third, if a particular Wikiproject has hundreds of affected articles, one will know that for community-based consensus the notification of that particular WP is necessary. Knowing this beforehand probably would (and should) change the process of blacklisting.
    re@If I go through 20 situations where the link is used on Wikipedia (that was for the -technology.com websites) go back sifting through the history, and I find that none of those 20 were actually added by regulars but all by spammers then the conclusion rises quickly that regulars do not use the site very often and spammers do. Taking decision by 20 articles if thousands of articles are affected is not very representative. Again, using impact analysis as suggested at the previous paragraph would avoid that kind of underestimations. On the other hand, refusing to see the need for this will result with repeating similar situation again and again.
    re@If those links are shown to be useful and not replaceable by other (better) sources, then whitelisting is a formality (even for a site of questionable reliability). If the whitelisting request is made by regular editor, not a spammer, and it is useful for the article, the fact if the the link is replaceable or not should not to be relevant because blaclisting is preventive, not punitive. From the preventive point of view, it does not make a difference, if the useful link added by regular editor is replaceable or not.
    re@Note that also the argument that this is often the only English source is not valid - WP:V does not require the sources to be in English, and you suggest that there are non-English sources. I did not make this argument. Again, as I said in my previous paragraph, from the preventive point of view this is irrelevant. If requested by a regular editor and if it is useful, it should be whitelisted notwithstanding if and in which languages alternatives exist. Beagel (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @underestimation: No, if you read the thread, you see that it was not a one-man investigation, and if you read the related threads you see that more. And the number is hundreds, not thousands (maybe a thousand). I also saw hundreds of edits by identified spammers. Also, for the recent additions we have those statistics, and they do not make it much better, one or two uses by regulars, 20-30 by spammers.
    @20 situations: Again, it is hundreds, and it is a subset - I do not believe that the relative situation will be significantly different on 100 examinations. And again, I do see the need, I have done it in the past, and this situation does not occur thát often - you are around for what, 7 years and this is the first time that you see it happening, I am around for about 10 and this is also one of the first times this happens.
    @replaceability: I still do not see why you insist to use an unreliable source when better, reliable sources exist. In fact, I don't understand why you used that unreliable source in the first place when you added it originally.
    And yes, you make that exact argument in your delisting request: "How can the site be useful It is used as a reliable source. Often this website is the only English secondary source with a specific information." - that is it used as a source does not mean we need a link to it (not a WP:V requirement), and you remark that it is the 'only English secondary source' suggests that there are other language secondary sources with the same information (and being in English is not a WP:V requirement either). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @And the number is hundreds, not thousands (maybe a thousand). The number of three -techology.com sites for WP Energy alone was more than 300. Taking account all other -technology.com sites for other WPs the number of "hundreds, not thousands" is an underestimation.
    @for the recent additions we have those statistics Could you provide the link to this statistics? However, we are not blaclisting also recent edits - if you blacklist the site, you blacklist all links referring to the that site.
    @I do not believe that the relative situation will be significantly different on 100 examinations. I have to apology that I did not explained my suggestion clearly. The issue is not about checking 20 sites or 100 sites. The idea is to list all editors who have added links to that particular site with a number of links added. This is different from what you do/did.
    @I don't understand why you used that unreliable source in the first place when you added it originally. Fact that you believe that the source is unreliable is what you believe–it does not make this source unreliable per se. As I said, we have a different board for discussing reliability, it is not the purpose of this board. And taking account that there are several articles which I have brought to GA/FA level, including working specifically with the quality of sources, your allegation that I intentionally use unrealiable sources is unfounded. And again, purpose of this board is not to discuss relaibility of sources - the purpose is to fight spam. Beagel (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a bit of a count, a good 1500 maybe (all over, so not only mainspace). We get somewhere inbetween.
    They are all in the COIBot reports linked from the discussions. No, we blacklist only new additions, not old ones. They are not affected except when removed (then re-addition would not work - which is why it is better that they get whitelisted when appropriate or removed when spammed/inappropriate).
    What I did was check a good number of existing links, finding who added them. If of that subset only very few (if any) are by regulars, whereas the spammers that show up in that all link to many additions (the 8 identified accounts over a period of 6 years, sometimes operating at the same time, and I know that there are SPA's that I am unsure about, and likely missing accounts, have more than 400 edits on their name - about 20-25% of the total links already, not taking into account that some of the links are on talkpages which the spammers never added). I know that that means that 75-80% MAY have been added by regulars, but the sample subset did not show many regulars (as I said, there were some which did not have enough edits on their name to distinguish between being genuine new editors or spam SPAs - I have not listed nor ocunted them).
    Maybe these sources and their alternatives should go through a WP:RS/N discussion, then. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. No rationale to overcome the past spamming. --Guy (Help!) 15:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    energy-business-review.com

    This website is a secondary source which includes good, detailed information on different type of energy projects throughout the world. It was used legitimately in a number of energy-related articles and is generally reliable and, notwithstanding blacklisting, it is still in use in some articles. It was discussed in October 2009 whith several other website for spamming. I myself have never seen it spammed on Wikipedia, just used as a reference.

    How can the site be useful It is used as a reliable source. Often this website is the only English secondary source with a specific information.

    Why it should not be blacklisted It may have been spammed with several other websites but it is most useful as a source for many articles. Despite that the website was spammed, it is a valuable resource for myself and others who works with energy-related articles. Additional issues are that the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive, and it was blacklisted without prior notifying relevant Wikiproject. Beagel (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This site is part of the large scale CBROnline-spamming. This is mainly a site that re-reports company reports. There may be a few links left, most were removed, most are replaceable with the proper primary source (repeating the primary source does not make this a secondary source), whitelisting can handle the rest.
    "Despite that the website was spammed .... the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive". I respectfully disagree - it prevented the spamming (as has been shown, it is still ongoing with numerous related accounts lately spamming sites of the same owner), it does not punish anyone.
    Blacklisted without prior notifying relevant WikiProject - that is at best a good consideration, but is not, has never been, and should never be a compulsory part of blacklisting.
    Did you look whether the spamming actually is not still actively busy, so that we can safely say that blacklisting is not necessary anymore to prevent further spamming? Otherwise, I would consider to  Defer to Whitelist for the links that are needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking account the time how long this site has been blacklisted there are not so much websites left. However, it is a very time-consuming to apply for each single link for whitelisting (as a rule, it takes weeks to get any reaction and too often the reaction is an advice to look for some other source.) AS for CBROnline, it is perfect example of sites too large and too important to so easily blacklist. And no, this is not only company reports. Also, if the site is blacklisted, that means you can't to add this site, so how one could say it is still spamming? During the latest discussion about different -technology.com sites there were several proposals how to use bots and filter to make the process of blacklisting more transparent and detecting spammers more easily; however, it seems that there is no wish to change the current system. Beagel (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, there is nothing against more people actually helping at the whitelist and blacklist .. they are after all community noticeboards and crosslinked from all of them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the question on how to see whether a site is still spammed - that is how I found the ongoing CBROnline.com-spam, because people are still trying to add and were still spamming links belonging to the company. I think that that is a compulsory analysis to be done before de-blacklisting is considered, as well as an analysis of the overall use of the link (we have 4 million pages, if we are talking thousands of pages in a subject-range, but only 10 which would be enhanced by a reference to this site, then whitelisting is a better solution). I believe still that whitelisting is a better solution for this site as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious - where's the logfile that shows the hits on the blacklist? Is it one of the edit filters? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Amatulic: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/spamblacklist&limit=500&type=spamblacklist&user= <- admin only. I went through attempts to add cbronline.com, looking at the contributions of editors who hit the blacklist on it, found an IP that had such a hit, and as contributions only spam to -technology.com sites. COIBot helps you further. Digging further .... --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a cbronline.com piece which I need as a reference for the RadioShack and InterTAN articles. It's a 1988 press blurb about the shutdown of the former RadioShack stores in West Germany, URL is http://www.cbronline.com/news/happy_with_its_relationship_with_tandy_intertan_names_uk_operation_its_shining_star and the same text isn't on other sites as this was so long ago. K7L (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined, individual pages can be whitelisted if they are shown to meet WP:RS. --Guy (Help!) 08:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    army-guide.com

    Was blacklisted 6 years ago because somebody seemed to spam links to it [58].

    Seems to contain much useful info. Concretely I wanted to reference the list of contracts from www.army-guide.com/eng/product116.html to add a unit cost estimate to BTR-80. The German and French Wikipedias use it on many pages, but the uses seem relevant and not overly spammy.

    Just because the site was spammed to Wikipedia 6 years ago, an eternity in Internet time, doesn't mean it will happen again today. Lets try unbanning it and see. Thue (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    6 years is not necessarily long - we have companies around who got their first links blacklisted 7 years ago, and who are still active to push other links ..
    If it is just one link, I would suggest to try whitelisting first. If more are coming up and pass the bar, then maybe it is time to consider whitelisting. I think that was what was suggested on Meta as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    6 years is 1/4 the age of the Internet - that is a long time! I only need one link right now, but it seems like a very useful page, so I strongly suggest unblocking all of it. Thue (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I said, we have companies spamming for that same 1/4 of the age of the Internet (and longer; and actually, this company spammed for half of that time, 1/8th of the age of the internet!). A previous request for whitelisting showed a rather unreliable document, and therefore I'd like to see an analysis for this one as well. As you say "I only need one link right now, but it seems like a very useful page" - you 'need one link' (that is what we have a whitelist for), and it 'seems' useful (and that will be shown if there are really multiple coming, at which time we can consider de-listing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The site has a page for each weapon system, and seem very informative. The part I especially like is the list of actual contracts, from which you can estimate the unit cost of the weapon systems. That is useful for almost all Wikipedia pages on weapon systems, of which there are a lot. The text and other data seems very useful as well, but the list of contracts in itself should be enough to make the page unambiguously useful. Hence I would like to get all of it whitelisted, and not just this one. Thue (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You still talk in terms of 'seems very useful'. We had a request for whitelisting for a page on this site not too long ago, where the reliability of that specific page was strongly questioned. That is why I suggest, try to see what happens with a couple of whitelisting requests on different pages, show that individual pages come through and also that they stick, and then re-request delisting. I am not against de-listing per sé (I have not outright declined this, I just suggest that maybe a couple of whitelist discussions before delisting would probably help).
    I do note that this looks a bit like an aggregator site - they do not do their own independent research, but they get their info from other websites, rewrite and publish it. Often, the 'other website' where they got the info from is the better source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Googling, the only prior discussion I can find is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dad7/babynology.hist this], which is a poor argument for keeping it blocked:
    Quote: It [i.e. Army Guide] was posted frequently in external links, but this appears to have been done by one or two "enthusiastic" users with "good intentions" (providing additional sources on the topic), which perhaps triggered the initial fear that this was a spam link. If you look at the links posted, they were all relevant to the page that they were posted in. If you look at the contributions of the people who posted them, they're on a wide variety of topics, not just associated with the site in question... so it doesn't appear to be for the sake of advertising or a bot ... Finally, yes, this site was posted frequently, but it's an extensive site, so it can be realistically associated with many articles here at Wikipedia.
    As for army-guide being aggregate information, that is the whole point. What I wanted was an aggregate list of purchases to determine the unit cost. I just googled for that, and couldn't find it anywhere else. I actually don't know how reliable army-guide.com is, but it would seem silly for them to invent that list of purchases out of thin air.
    Is the Wikipedia blacklist really meant to be this kind of bureaucratic roadblock? The top comment itself says it just exists to prevent spam, not to judge the quality of the site being linked to. Surely the few overenthusiastic regular Wikipedians have learned their lesson now after 6 years? Since it doesn't seem to have been a case of the the army-guide people themselves posting the links, there is little reason to believe the spamming will re-occur. Thue (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You are linking in the beginning to 3 years of spamming of http...spam.army-guide.com (maimed link, my bolding), which links back to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1#http:.2F.2Fspam.army-guide.com .. I see at least 14 accounts worth 3 years of spamming. That, for me, is enough to first want to see some discussion on specific links and their general use. Then we have this discussion, where the one link (and as far as I can see, the only time any link) was requested for whitelisting, it was deemed unreliable. This would be the second request, which does not give much to go on as to really how much general use there is. As it is an aggregator site, as you confess, that information is available from other sites (another thing the lack of whitelisting requests is suggesting is that others use those other sites). As I said, we have companies blacklisted in 2009/2010 which are still spamming Wikipedia using other domains (or spamming while avoiding to use the domain). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, of those 14 editors, 12 are IPs - not a 'few overenthusiastic regulars'. And we are not here to learn spammers a lesson (which is a futile action anyway), we are here to stop the abuse of Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Being an aggregator site is not a valid argument for blacklisting, so that means it can't be also an argument for refusing to remove a site from the blacklist. Bringing this argument into discussion will just defocus the issue. As for former spamming — six years is a very long time for a project like Wikipedia. If the spamming happens, the limited blacklisting time could be appropriate but for indef blacklisting more strict rules are needed. It is also concerning that there seems to be a strong bias against blacklisted sites, which one could call even censorship. As these decisions, as a rule, depends of personal preferences of the single admin, it raises question if the abusive use of mop may be an issue. Beagel (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Beagel, the argument for blacklisting is that it was spammed for 3 years by multiple editors - that is the argument that I am careful removing it. Point is, that I would like to see whether this site is really of general use and that it merits de-listing, or that this is something that can easily be handled by whitelisting because it is only a few links anyway. The point that it may not be a reliable source does not help, but is not the reason for listing or delisting, that is purely your conclusion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, I am not using any administrative tools, nor did I officially decline this, I have just given a suggestion. How you can construe that as abuse of administrative tools is beyond me, and is chilling this discussion and not helping your argument in any form. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I am going on - this is a community discussion noticeboard. The decision is not that of a single admin, that decision should be made by consensus, awaiting different editors for input. I am the first one to comment. There is no rule that others can not comment, give their opinion or analysis. 6 years is a long time, but again, I have shown you companies who are spamming Wikipedia for over 6 years, so if having been blacklisted for 6 years is long, then how do you call companies that spam Wikipedia for 6 years. Did you show, or even research, whether the 14 accounts really stopped spamming, or are you just assuming that it must have stopped since it is 6 years ago? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even worse, Beagel, is the point that first I have a set of sites that is being spammed that I do not blacklist directly but allow for a community discussion. All that is brought forward is yet another set of spammers of these sites. I look around, and I have trouble finding regulars using the site, all I find is more spammers. Looking at the site, I see that there are alternatives (better alternatives) for most of the links that I see added, and I, after 3 weeks, decide to blacklist. Ample time for community discussion, but you tell me off because I did not inform the community. Now, we are about 1 day into this request, I give an opinion and wait for discussion, and I give a suggestion. Again, I allow for community input on this, allow for consensus to form, and also allow for some further research into the issue (did the spamming really stop?). 20 hours into the discussion, you accuse me, once again, of abuse of administrative tools because I do not use them. Beagel, there is a strong consensus against spam, it violates our core policies and guidelines. As there is a whitelist, and I suggested the use of the whitelist, there is no censorship (an argument that you used again). If I would decline whitelisting without suggesting alternatives to solve the problem, and those alternatives would not exist, then that might be construed as censorship, and remotely as an abuse of administrative tools (which also there were not used, unless the denial of the use of administrative tools is administrative abuse - which then is true for all administrators who did not edit the whitelist allowing for the site being linked).
    Note, the blacklisting of the CBROnline links was 6 years ago, and they, evidently, still at it. Blacklisting does not occur after 1 day of spamming, which means that CBROnline was already spamming for several years, which makes them spamming for significantly over 6 years. And here I am told that 6 years is a long time?
    evidently, I am going to let another admin make the decision whether there is consensus to remove or otherwise. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    re@The point that it may not be a reliable source does not help, but is not the reason for listing or delisting, that is purely your conclusion. If this not the reason for listing or delisting, why do use this argument in delisting discussions, not only in this discussion but also in other delisting discussions? Just for the record: this was not me or user Thue who started discussion about reliability of this site.
    re@I would like to see whether this site is really of general use. Well, if the site has been six years blacklisted, you can't really expect that it is still of general use in Wikipedia. That is exactly the problem with a long-term (indef. blacklistings).
    re@I am not using any administrative tools, nor did I officially decline this, I have just given a suggestion. Listing and delisting is a prerogative of admins. And taking account the fact that this community discussion noticeboard is more or less one-man-show (e.g. all this I do and I allow' things), you even do not need to officially decline any delisting request because it is unlikely that any other admin will even comment the specific discussion.
    re@I see that there are alternatives (better alternatives) for most of the links that I see added. But as you just said, this is not the basis for listing or delisting. This is you personal opinion which you are using to reject delisting/whitelisting request, even if made by ordinary editors who have nothing to do being SPAs or spammers.
    re@"I suggested the use of the whitelist" What the point if you are going to use the same arguments for rejects there–as I have learnt from my recent experiences.
    re@I look around, and I have trouble finding regulars using the site, all I find is more spammers. This is interesting. I did not check the history but how you call in this context Thue if not regular? And this has not been the case with some other sites you have blacklisted.
    re@there is a strong consensus against spam, it violates our core policies and guidelines. That is true. However, finding more balance approach between blacklisting and other values of Wikipedia, is not supporting spammers. The most efficient for fighting spamming would be blaclisting whole www; however, doing this will probably also end Wikipedia as we know it. So, labelling editors who would like to see more balanced approach as supporters of spamming is quite demagogic.
    re@If I would decline whitelisting without suggesting alternatives to solve the problem, and those alternatives would not exist, then that might be construed as censorship, and remotely as an abuse of administrative tools. Suggesting alternatives is fine but again, if the request is made by regular editor (not spammer), and the reference is valid and useful (notwithstanding if alternatives exist or not), there is no valid basis do not whitelist. Rejecting that kind of request is not preventive (as in this case it is not a spam) but rather punitive. And yes, not always but in extreme cases one could say that this is a misuse of admin. privileges.
    re@the blacklisting of the CBROnline. This request is not about the CBROnline, so please do not defocus the discussion again. Beagel (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reliability - it is not the reason for blacklisting, but it is a factor taken into account.
    @General use - No, of course it is not used on Wikipedia, in those 6 years also hardly anyone requested whitelisting, which does not suggest that it is a site that is wanted. There is now one request for de-listing, and we just have to de-list in the assumption that it is of general use.
    @One man show/administrative tools - Obviously, I would block everyone who would be willing to help and I have never asked for more help on these pages.
    @alternatives - no, it is not the basis, it is a factor. I do not know why you insist to use a site that was spammed and where the specific document is shown to be less reliable than an alternative. WP:V is one of our pillars, and insisting to use an unreliable source not in line with that.
    @Suggested whitelist - as the previous point, do you really insist to use an unreliable source where alternatives exist?
    @Looking around - that was an argument used in context with the -technology.com sites - Thue has nothing to do with that. And as I said, it took me a long time before I found the first addition by a non-spammer, by you, which was the use of the site as an unreliable and replaceable reference. I have not, do not and never will suggest that Thue or you are spammers, those are unfounded suggestions coming from you, Beagel.
    @'The most efficient for fighting spamming would be blacklisting whole www; - that is not what we do, and you know it.
    @decline whitelisting - I could also say that insisting to use an unreliable source where reliable sources exist is an abuse of editing priviliges. I also fail to see why admin time (and discussion time) should be wasted on whitelisting unreliable sites where the requester does not want to go the extra mile to see
    @CBROnline was brought up to show that 6 years of spamming is not long. The evidence that 6 years is a long time ago hangs on the argument that it is a quarter of the age of the internet. If the spammers were active for 2-3 months, 6 years ago, I might very well de-list quicker (I have delisted sites on that) - here we have 3 years of spamming, starting 9 years ago, forced to end 6 years ago. No, that is not long, and I have given examples why it is not long.
    For de-listing this site a reasonably strong case can be made, but arguments like 'it seems useful', and '6 years is a long time' are both unreferenced and unhelpful - the points should be that it was discussed and the general consensus within a group of users is that it is useful, and show that the spamming did actually stop. Tools for both do exist. That case would only be stronger if a couple of granted whitelisting requests would be there (and the link suggested in this thread is already a good candidate). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    re@WP:V is one of our pillars, and insisting to use an unreliable source not in line with that. The point is that reliability does not based on what decision-making admin thinks to be or to be not reliable. Reliability should be discussed at WP:RSN, not WP:SBL.
    re@I also fail to see why admin time (and discussion time) should be wasted on whitelisting unreliable sites where the requester does not want to go the extra mile to see I think that we should not to waste anybody's time—not admin's or regular editors'. The current whitelisting is time-consuming and it would save everybody's time if requests by long-time regular editors who have no history of spamming or paid editing go automatically. Again Reliability should be discussed at WP:RSN, not WP:SBL or WT:WHITELIST.
    re@I have not, do not and never will suggest that Thue or you are spammers, those are unfounded suggestions coming from you, Beagel. I apology for misunderstanding you. I thought that we discuss army-guide.com and not -technology.com here. However, if we discuss -technology.com site, saying that "I have trouble finding regulars using the site, all I find is more spammers" (sic! in the present tense) after discussions here where a number of long-time editors have said that they are using these -technology.com sites, is something which does not correspond to the true.
    re@I would block everyone who would be willing to help and I have never asked for more help on these pages. I never said that you would or did. However, de facto the situation is that decisions are made by very limited number of admins here. Also your replies in the style "I do", "I allow", etc do not help to create a feeling that decisions are made based on wider consensus.
    The most efficient for fighting spamming would be blacklisting whole www; - that is not what we do, and you know it. My suggestion was exaggeration, of course, and you know it. But the line is somewhere between blacklisting everything and blacklisting nothing and we have different understandings where it should be. By my understanding, as of today blacklisting is used in more proportions than it is useful for creating an encyclopaedia, which is the core purpose of Wikipedia before other important tasks. I am concerned about the mentality do not take into account the impact of blacklisting to regular editors writing an encyclopaedia. Beagel (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The decision whether something is reliable, or whether better sources exist should come before it was originally added. I think that if a regular is considering to use, or is using, a site where someone else questions the reliability, that then first that reliability needs to be established before we whitelist/deblacklist. And no, the whitelisting/delisting should not be automatic.
    That is semantics. You know that I meant that in the time that I was researching the additions of the site. It now turns out that regulars do use the site .. I still wonder about the ratio. For army-guide.com, when it was blacklisted it was solely spammed, there were no regulars using the site. And in the argument of delisting or elsewhere here, there was never the argument that regulars are on a regular basis using this site (or attempting to) - just solely a remark that it seems useful.
    Re@Block: And here I was the one to exaggerate. Generally discussions here stay open for some time, and there are a (albeit limited) number of admins working here. Although far from requirement or rule, very often the reporter does not execute the case. Fact is, there are only limited editors here, a known problem, but <sarcasm> it is so much cooler to work at CfD </sarcasm>. This is an area that certainly needs more admins (or even editors who investigate), what does not help is to suggest that we should not blacklist because we are only so few and our decisions do not represent a community consensus.
    There are some cases which are grey areas (I still believe that they are more the exception than the rule) - and note that the spammers do not take into what is useful for creating an encyclopedia, nor what is the core purpose of Wikipedia.
    (I do feel that these discussions stray too far from the purpose of these sections, maybe parts of these discussions should be done separately, and maybe even brought to wider discussion with a/some RfCs). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined, per above. --Guy (Help!) 20:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    moneyweek.com

    Blacklisted October 2008 by User:A. B., who hasn't been on Wikipedia in the past 8 months. Reason given for blacklist: "See WikiProject Spam Report". I'm not familiar with analyzing those reports. MoneyWeek is an important financial publication in the UK, with valuable informational articles that are used to cite a variety of topics and biographical articles on Wikipedia. I'm not seeing a need for it to be blacklisted, at least not now, and as it is a major resource, it seems best that it should be removed from blacklist. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note that the main company, Agora, who owns these domains was caught spamming quite recently. I would advise whitelisting on a case-by-case basis, of the individual links where a positive case for their inclusion can be made. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you. That's irritating for serious editors though. :-/ Were they spamming with this particular domain? Anyway, it's just inconvenient when I'm in the middle of researching and writing to stop and request whitelist for a particularly useful biographical MoneyWeek article. *sigh* Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Delisting is of course also convenient for the spammers, and we know that they are still around. Note as well that the current spammers are (probably carefully) avoiding the blacklist while spamming their articles, they know they can not be linked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    hotrails.co.uk

    This site is a compendium of information about the Blue Öyster Cult and related bands and artists, which appears to have been blacklisted since an unfortunate editing dispute way back in 2008. There is some info on this revision of WikiProject Spam talk page, and then it was blacklisted as logged at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log/start to 2009#March 2008.

    There was also a request for unblocking at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008#hotrails.co.uk which was rejected on the grounds that it was the original anon editor making the request, but which does make a case for instance that it contains an interview with drummer Albert Bouchard which he described as the most in-depth he had given, and which would certainly be a reference for sections of the main article.

    The site contains a great deal of information that would be useful as references, such as the most complete list anywhere of Blue Öyster Cult live performances, and numerous interviews with band members, crew and associates that are not available anywhere else.

    Given that there didn't seem to be any serious issue with the site itself, just a dispute with an aggressive anonymous editor more than six years ago, I feel that it is probably safe to unblock. As an administrator I could do it myself, but having not been particularly active on Wikipedia for quite some time, I thought I'd put in a formal request. --Stormie (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support AcceptanceWP:ELNO does not pertain to normal sources. If the admin has a specific reason why it should be considered a spammed link, he should make it clear and verbose. --Typenolies (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Typenolies: Evidence of spam needs to exist, we do not necessarily have to (keep on) repeating it. If it is blacklisted, it is a spammed/pushed link, and that is what Stormie actually already made clear, and what you can also find following the tracking links from the template. Showing insistence to spam is actually quite a good reason to have it on the blacklist.
    That being said, the site seems of limited use, is this not something that the whitelist ( Defer to Whitelist) can handle? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that if the link is still being abused as spam that should be shown. Given the passage of time and abuse of the link limited to a single editor, it probably didn't merit blacklisting of the link (protection of the article and blocking of the user probably would have been better) in the first place. Given the limited breadth of use and abuse for the link, it would make more sense to be removed from the blacklist altogether. --Typenolies (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It can't be used for spam because it's on the blacklist! Guy (Help!) 21:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Typenolies: - "if the link is still being abused as spam that should be shown" - per Guy, it is blacklisted, it can not be abused. "Given the passage of time" - we have companies spamming for 8 years - time did not and will not solve the problem, it pays their bills. "abuse of the link limited to a single editor", I see a good handful, I also see at least 2 pages, and the original discussion mentions an incentive to continue, protection or blocking was obviously not a solution or better. As I mentioned before, if there is information on specific pages on that site that are deemed giving unique information that needs to be included, get them whitelisted and use them as references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    GokkenTotaal.nl


    How can the site be useful
    I want to provide the best news about the ongoing legalization of gambling in The Netherlands. A lot of people are interested in this news. I couldn't find any information about blacklisting my website.
    Why it should not be blacklisted
    Apparently, the previous owner created spam on gokkentotaal.nl, but also on Wikipedia. I am now cleaning up the mess he made, and i cleaned almost everything. I think after 5 years and also a new owner, that my website should be unblocked. I also research the content I publish.

    no Declined. I'm sure your intentions are good, but we do not remove sites from the blacklist at the request of the owner or anyone else associated with the site. If a trusted, high-volume contributor finds it necessary to use the site as a reference and makes a delisting request, we will consider it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Homeless Hub

    I would like to request that homelesshub.ca be removed from the blacklist. I have reviewed the logs and past deletion requests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_56#homeless_hub) and gather that both the creation/multiple deletions of a Homeless Hub page and requests from people affiliated with the Homeless Hub in 2010 have kept it on the blacklist. It appears that the owners of the site didn’t know what they were doing and were not following guidelines, but I don’t think the website is inherently spammy, or that Wikipedia is at risk of further misconduct from removal at this time.

    I am not affiliated with this organization; rather, I noticed a broken link on a related researcher/professor's bio page and tried to update it with a suitable replacement. it looks like the page I tried to add is on this blacklisted domain (see talk page here). But upon reflection it seems to me that Wikipedia is missing out on a significant citation resource for an area of knowledge while this entire scholarly website is banned.

    Browsing the site it is evidently a repository of original reports from a wide variety of publishers, researchers and organizations. It is clearly run by a reputable organization: The Canadian Observatory on Homelessness (previously the Canadian Homelessness Research Network - the name change is the reason for the broken link I was updating in the first place when I discovered the blacklist issue).

    I am a librarian, and am always kind of blown away to find websites with this volume of freely available information relevant to a specific topic, especially when it comes to Canadian sources (it often seems like everything is American). Documents on this site can probably enrich Wikipedia articles in this area: for example, there have been new Housing First developments in Canada regarding homeless youth that could be added to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Canada) but which it cannot be effectively cited, as the report is hosted on homelesshub.ca (see www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/HFFWYouth-FullReport_0.pdf). Not all of these reports appear to be available on other websites.

    Most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been anonymous; only a few have been under this account, and this is certainly the first time I've had to do something as involved as request that something be removed from the blacklist. If any other information is required I am very interested in learning how this process works! Onshisan (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll refer to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2010#homelesshub.ca which gives the whole history of the abuse and spamming that occurred with this site (note that that request was performed by site the site owner). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. Not usable as a source and extensive evidence of past spamming. --Guy (Help!) 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.kavkazcenter.com

    We have a page about this internet resource in Wikipedia. This is a useful resource. It was used for sourcing in a large number of books (see here) and certain wikipedia pages. Why can't we use linking to a source used in many scholarly books? It was included in blacklist without discussion, based on a request from an IP [59]. Note that IP provided a link to discussion on RS noticeboard that leads to nowhere. This site has indeed been discussed on RSNB, and some participants suggested that it may not be "reliable", while others argued that it can be used in certain cases with appropriate attribution. In any case, simply not being a reliable source is not a reason for blacklisting. I therefore request to whitelist the entire site. My very best wishes (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Some background:
    (some(?) of the WP:RS/N discussions are:
    People found it too often unsuitably used. It was not 'included in blacklist without discussion', there are 5 discussions on RS/N before. If specific sources are needed, they can be whitelisted, but those requests never have been granted (and hardly been performed). I'd like to see a couple of granted whitelist requests on specific links to see how those discussions go. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for quick answer! Sorry, I did not know or forget about these discussions. Yes, I can agree: this might be an "extremist source", but a very notable and perhaps useful "extremist source". Here is main question: should something be blacklisted simply for being an unreliable source? I thought the blacklisting is needed only to avoid technical problems or prevent abuse, rather than to remove undesirable sources. There was never any significant abuse, such as linkspam, related to this site to my knowledge (and there are no many links to this site right now). Therefore, I would still suggest to remove it from the blacklist. Saying that, I do not really care. I only reported this for your consideration, because I think it could be removed from the list for the good of the project as something having significant information value (as you can see from my link above, it was used in a large number of scholarly books). This is not spam. P.S. Here is what had happened. I asked this site to be removed from blacklist. You directed me to "whitelist". People from "whitelist" directed me back here, and here I am because the problem has not been resolved. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As about your suggestion, "to see a couple of granted whitelist requests on specific links to see how those discussions go", thanks, but no, thanks. I personally never used this source during last four years, I do not read it, and have no desire to use it in the future. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, User:My very best wishes. You have your request and answer here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#www.kavkazcenter.com, which I will wholesale copy here:

    We have a page about this source in Wikipedia. This is a useful source. It was used for sourcing in a large number of books (see here) and certain wikipedia pages. It was included in blacklist without discussion, based on a request from an IP [60]. Note that IP provided link to discussion on RS noticeboard that leads to nowhere. This site has indeed been discussed on RSNB, and some participants expressed concerns in its reliability, while others argued that it can be used in many cases with appropriate attribution. In any case, simply not being a reliable source is not a reason for blacklisting. I therefore request to whitelist the entire site. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

    *{{declined}}. Per the instructions, requests to whitelist an entire domain need to go on WT:BLACKLIST. Please re-file your request there or alternatively file a new request here specifying pages to whitelist. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

    You request on the whitelist is for the whole site, upon which User:Stifle says 1) "requests to whitelist an entire domain need to go on WT:BLACKLIST", and 2) "alternatively file a new request here specifying pages to whitelist" (my bolding).
    I say above "granted whitelist requests on specific links" (my bolding) - as also suggested by Stifle, but you did not request a specific link, you requested the whole site to be delisted.
    You also say, " I personally never used this source during last four years, I do not read it, and have no desire to use it in the future." - seen that there are very few cases where whitelisting was requested, that most went without response (so the editor was not that interested?), or where alternatives were presented (but not scrutinized for suitability) shows me that there are, like you, very few regulars who needed it during the last four years (regulars would know how to get this whitelisted/de-blacklisted or figure out how if they really needed it, newbies may indeed not). I find the argument that this is "perhaps useful" quite a leap of faith upon which to de-blacklist a site.
    Regarding "should something be blacklisted simply for being an unreliable source?" - if a site is often or continuously improperly used, or even here and there abused, pretending it to be a reliable source for information that it is not a reliable source for, or using it as a source for wrong information, and/or that reliable or proper alternatives exist, then that is a form of continuous abuse that may warrant blacklisting. If regularly editors need to be reverted or edits need to be cleaned up, up to a level that this site is not (or at least hardly) used for proper reasons on Wikipedia, then that is a strain on editors who have to run behind every single addition of this site to see if it is properly used.
    I agree that this is a grey area (as are proper sources that get really spammed by someone with a vested interest in the site), and I am not sure if I would have made the call to blacklist this (and in fact, I did not decline de-listing here). I do agree that this site can be a proper source if properly used (but that is practically true for every single website on the planet!). Before making that call I suggest that we know that this site really has a proper use on Wikipedia before we have our volunteers running again after every addition having to clean them up (and I'll add that if proper evidence is presented here that this site is suitable way beyond a "perhaps useful" we should also consider de-blacklisting and perhaps invoke other methods of mitigating the mis-use).
    Therefore my suggestion to have several granted whitelist requests for specific links before we take it off (but I could, and can still be convinced otherwise, as may other admins looking at this). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not ask anyone to invest their time. I only asked to follow logic and procedures:
    1. This is "Spam-blacklist". Does it look like a spam website? Did anyone use it to spam WP? No, I do not think so. Do you?
    2. We have well established procedures to work with sources. If someone believes that a source was unreliable, they go to RSNB, and that is precisely what some people did. Did this result in WP:Consensus that the source was unreliable? No, it did not. None of these discussions was officially closed as consensus, and for a good reason: there was no consensus.
    3. Even if that source was decided to be unreliable, that would not justify blacklisting. Are we going to blacklist all sites like RT (TV network) because "it has been accused of spreading disinformation"?
    4. You are talking about "abuse". What abuse? Was anywhere decided that an abuse related to this site had happen? Was anyone sanctioned for this abuse? There was no abuse to my knowledge. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes: Regarding the "Does this look like a spam website" - this is, as you argue as well, not about what a site is about, it is about whether it was abused. And you do not ask volunteers to invest their time to clean up all the wrong use of a website either (clean up the additions that did not follow logic and procedures). And that you did not see the abuse does not necessarily mean that there was no abuse. Anyway, I'll leave it for User:Amatulic to comment about that, he made that call and apparently did find that there was enough abuse of the site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is what I think. I have discussed this site in the past with two contributors who used it for sourcing. I think the use of this site was mostly appropriate, because it was used for describing claims by rebels, which no one sees as "the truth" (frequently just the opposite per other sources). There was almost no discussion about this site on article talk pages. There were several discussions of this site on WP:RSNB, but they were nothing special, just an ordinary discussion of a source with questionable reliability. Neither you not Amatulic provided any links or diffs with proof of actual abuse. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I say - I'll leave it to Amutalic to comment on that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. No credible rationale for removal from the blacklist (rather the opposite: the site fails WP:RS and the argument for removal appears to me to deny this). Defer to whitelist for a link in the article on the site. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I can easily agree that it fails WP:RS for anything except sourcing claims by the rebels. However, simply not being a reliable source is not a reason to blacklist a site per policy. There was no rationale for blacklisting it at the first place. Was it used for spamming? No, it was not to my knowledge, and no one proved the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Any claim that is provably significant will be covered by an independent source. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    mixcloud.com

    The podcast site follows DMCA guidelines and blocks playback of violating material it can detect. It is at least as ethical as allowed archive.org. The sited blog does not list when or why mixcloud was banned. Tearaway (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. This request does not address the reasons for blacklisting or give any substantive argument for removal. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. I'm of no status or experience to DO this but can I second Guy's flagging of this as a 'TO DO', please? There is substantial need to reference material archived via Mixcloud across a range of Wikipedia interests and topics!Michaelk xsx (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The original blacklisting has been done after Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Oct_1#MIXCLOUD_LTD_Spam, and a subsequent request to remove that in 2012, MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2012#mixcloud.com, got quick support (3 years after the original spamming) of another obvious COI sock. The article Mixcloud then in 2013 was created by an SPA, which suggests that they are still there. I do therefore not believe that now they are gone, and will not promote their site further. Where needed, specific links can be whitelisted, as well as an about.htm or similar for display on the article. Hence, per Guy: here no Declined, but  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    misericords.co.uk

    How can the site be useful Source for the three misericords of Peterborough Cathedral. Possibly for other British churches as well.

    Why it should not be blacklisted I don't know why it was blacklisted, as I couldn't find it on the full log, but it seems a very useful and relatively scholarly, if not very pretty, website. Jtle515 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Timesofbook.com

    Anyone can help me to remove the website named timesofbook.com from wiki blacklist? The thing is i purchased newly this website. after that slowly i found that this website is blacklisted in wiki spam list. i apologies that what things happened previously. This is very great website which is provide more info about books info and authors info to its customer. it have more than 200 facebook followers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbiinformer (talk • contribs)

    @Sbiinformer: when did you purchase this website? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I purchased it on mid of February, 2015. --Sbiinformer (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. We don't remove websites at the request of the owner, sorry. --Guy (Help!) 20:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    LoveBugFans.com

    How can the site be useful LoveBugFans is recognized by VW of America and occasionally monitored by Disney. It's on the up and up and a tremendous resource about the history of the Herbie character and how to build a replica or see an original. The information and downloads are in a free, easy to navigate, family friendly universal format. I remember when this was going on, and the repeated reposting of the hacked links was an attempt to thwart a known scammer, who's no longer an issue... and hasn't been for several years now. If you take a look at the site and various drop down menus, there's tons of cool free stuff, including music and a custom made Atari-like game, and a message board with free image hosting. All ad-free and member supported. It has been on line since 2001.

    Why it should not be blacklisted I found this site in the June, 2010 blacklist 1 along with three other Herbie related sites. One of them, lovebugcentral, was being run as sort of a scam by the owner (Bob K.) where unsuspecting people would ask him to locate a Herbie replica for an appearance, and he would then locate and convince a Herbie replica owner to show up at kids birthday party or whatever free of charge. Then afterward, he'd start calling, emailing, and hassling the people who requested an appearance for a sizable "donation." He set up his site up as a mirror of LoveBugFans after being ousted from the greater community for theft. He was eventually called out on it and his site went defunct sometime in 2013. He was forever deleting the legitimate links on Wikipedia, changing the code to direct to his site while leaving the visible text unchanged, in an effort to direct traffic his way. He also peppered the internet with links on other VW club sites and forums and never provided links in kind. Once his scam was discovered, I know people were also removing his links. We're pretty protective of the character's integrity.

    The short version is that a scammer was using an innocent character for his own gain, and kept deleting legitimate links form Wikipedia and replacing them with is own. Thank you for looking into this.

    Dirk Rockland.

    no Declined. See WP:EL, fansites are one of the categories we don't allow anyway. --Guy (Help!) 21:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Saff.ba

    It is a radical Islamist magazine, that promotes terrorist activities.

    There's an article about it in English language here. However, since it is a Serbo-Croatian language magazine, most of news reports were in that language, from various places. For example, by the Večernji list from Croatia (here). --AnulBanul (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. No reason advanced for removal. --Guy (Help!) 21:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indianetzone.com

    While preparing biographies on Indian personalities, I have found this site very useful as it carries reliable information on India related subjects. In many cases, I could overlook the site as the information could be gathered from elsewhere, but one a few occasions, that was the only site I could locate. Presently I am working on a bio on Maniben Kara, an Indian trade unionist, and this site alone gives any insight into her personal life. I am not sure why this site is in the blacklist in the first place, but if someone could check and release it from the list, it would help. --jojo@nthony (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    sgs

    please remove sgs.com from blacklist

    12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Rainer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.101.138 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. No reason advanced for removal. --Guy (Help!) 21:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    thepetitionsite.com

    Summary: websites called "petition" are blacklisted, but petition websites with other names are not, resulting in an nonsensical and inequitable application of the ban on "soapbox" promotions. Given that high-profile petition services are not presently blacklisted, we would request that "petition" domains are removed from the blacklist.

    For illustration purposes, here is the relevant section of the global blacklist <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist>: 

    #Petition sites
\bthepetitionsite\.com\b
\bgopetition\.(?:com|co\.uk|us)\b
\bipetition\.com\b
\.ipetitions\.com
\bpetition(?:online|s24|site|spot|-?them)\.com\b
\bwebpetitions\.com\b
#end of petition sites

    thepetitionsite.com was added to the blacklist in June 2010 by editor Stifle, in response to a request from Dirk Beetstra. Here is the initial request/justification: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=365606869#thepetitionsite.com

    I agree with these editors that banning "soapbox" promotions is just. But I disagree that a domain-wide ban is an appropriate measure, for these two reasons:

    • Fairness: Not all petition sites are banned, but merely the ones whose domain names include the term. Avaaz.org, Change.org, and MoveOn.org, for example, are cited throughout Wikipedia, despite being online petition services.
    We would expect that the potential for soapbox/spam abuse exists equally across all petitions sites, not merely the ones whose domain name includes the term, and therefore request that the black- or white-listing be applied equally to all petition sites.
    Here are 28 links from wikipedia to petitions on avaaz.org:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.avaaz.org
    Here are 279 links from wikipedia to petitions on change.org:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.change.org%2Fpetitions
    • Relevance: Over ThePetitionSite.com's 14-year history, it has collected hundreds of millions of petition signatures, resulting in many thousands of legislative victories and news citations. The petitions themselves are, in many cases, newsworthy.
    As an example, here is a campaign from 2014 that was covered by CNN, NYT, Guardian, Time, UK Daily Mail and Mirror, etc: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

    For these reasons, we would prefer a solution in which Wikipedia bans spammers rather than blacklisting legitimate websites.

    COI disclosure: I am associated with the website in question. Nonetheless, the inequity of the current blacklisting solution -- namely, where sources of potential soapbox promotions are banned only if they happen to use the term 'petition' in their domain -- seems like something Wikipedia admins would want to take action on, regardless of my professional affiliations.

    Thank you.
    Mcglynn (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined. Thank you for alerting us to this inconsistency, but the correct fix is to blacklist the other petition sites. The problem is users adding links to petitions, either soliciting signatures, or as original research (e.g. for the existence and content of said petitions). That's why the blacklist entries were made in the first place. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I just removed the main space links to avaaz.org. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    circlemakers.org

    This was spammed by IPs in January and blacklisted, but it seems to me likely that this was a Joe-job - the IPs geolocate to France, whereas the website is British. A lot of crop circle fans hate the circlemakers website because it documents the circles having been made by humans, not extraterrestrials. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It is the purpose of the blacklist to stop abuse of external links. Whether material is good or bad, useless or whatever does not matter, what matters is how it was added to Wikipedia - blacklisting is a proper measure to stop abuse, even if the target is a Joe-job. Can you verify that the Joe-jobbing stopped? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it has, yes. I see no more evidence of it. As I say, it seems to have been an attempt by crop circle kooks to get a site they dislike, blacklisted. There wasn't that much activity and I am happy to watch it personally going forward (I watch the Crop circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article). Guy (Help!) 12:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    screenrant.com

    This site was blacklisted by an incorrect request, from a user who does not seem to understand the purpose of this black list. This site is not spam, and is definitely a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree with this request. Addition of this site was inappropriate. The purpose of the spam blacklist is not to block unreliable sources, and that's the only reason it was added. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Delisted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bergspider - Protected edit request on 16 June 2015

    Kindly remove my website from blacklist: bergspider.net. Someone has been posting my website on Wikipedia which is very embarassing for me. Please remove the links that were posted.

    My website adds value to its visitors by giving them relevant and up-to-date information on the latest technologies.

    I share the same vision as is of Wikipedia to make information accessible to more and more people.

    As we share the common goals so it would be kind action on your part to remove all the links that are posted and remove my website from your spam filter.

    Thanking You,

    GawenBerg (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Best Regards, GawenBerg (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)BergSpider.net Team GawenBerg (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. We generally don't remove entries from the blacklist by request from anyone associated with a blacklisted site. If a trusted, high-volume editor makes a case that your site is useful for linking on Wikipedia, we will consider it.
    Also, there are no links to bergspider.net on Wikipedia, so someone must have removed them already. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=*.bergspider.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch ~Amatulić (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @GawenBerg: So you tried to remove your domain from the blacklist yourself, but found you couldn't. Not the best way to build trust. Thomas.W talk 17:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Gawenberg here made it appear as if they made a request and not himself.
    @Gawenberg: Someone, and to us it does not matter who, abused Wikipedia by posting those links everywhere (just like you did on one page). We protect Wikipedia by blacklisting those links so that those links can not be added anymore. If you think that the IPs are not you, then please, do take it up with them to resolve that issue, but as long as we feel the abuse is or will persist, we will protect Wikipedia by keeping that link on the blacklist. Therefore: no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dirk Beetstra I understand every word you just say but man I made a mistake ..but you need to believe this i am not a spammer...please remove my website form blacklist Thanks you i believe you will understand— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawenberg (talk • contribs)
    Also here.
    @Gawenberg: - there is no reason to remove it from the blacklist, if established editors find the site of use, they will ask for the removal (or specific whitelisting). And note that this is beyond making a mistake, the MediaWiki server gives ample warning when you edit (just below, straight above the save button you pressed when you inserted the link, it says "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use ..", and when editing as an IP you must have had captcha's and remarks about our inclusions standards for external links), which you all ignored. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @ Dirk Beetstra Please Please Kindly Remove my website form blacklist[reply]
    no Declined, for reasons explained above. --Guy (Help!) 16:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    soualwjoab.com

    Website

    i have no iead why this site blocked !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmail Al Gathuth (talk • contribs)

    This site is meta blacklisted, See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/soualwjoab.com ,  Deferred to meta --Versageek 20:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Versageek can you remove it from blacklist cuz i got all information from this site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmail Al Gathuth (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, [61] says all you need to know about this user and this site. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    azlyrics.com

    This is the same as sites like MetroLyrics yet they're not blocked. This site is harmless and is just a social lyrics site, unsure why it's blocked. --Anarchyte 11:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My regular answer would be 'maybe because this one was caught being abused, and the others were not', but it turns out that this one was blacklisted for WP:LINKVIO, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2013#azlyrics.com. I am not sure whether these sites have legitimate use on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    sysoon.com

    sysoon.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 website was blacklisted a few years ago - including regex term "sysoon" ( globally blacklisted by \bsysoon\b ) becose there is more international websites worldwide sysoon.com, sysoon.uk, sysoon.be, sysoon.de, etc... Please check if blacklist is necessary anymore, becose there is many userful information to use. How can the site be useful: Funeral and cemeteries resource, more languages suport, easy and fast research Why it should not be blacklisted: My research show that new owner is not using any bad practices. In 2012 and 2015 - WebbyAwards honoree, or see article Article: The rise of the e-funeral— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.54.54 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 11 July 2015‎

    As you were already on meta, you probably know we can't do anything here. Specific links however can be whitelisted if de-blacklisting on meta is declined, hence:  Defer to Whitelist. Here no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    tradekey.com

    tradekey.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 Don't know why this company website is showing blocked. It is not even in the blacklist log. Kindly check on this matter Saadtk (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    nytimes.com

    nytimes.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 Don't understand why this was blacklisted.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not blacklisted at the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com

    How can the site be useful This website is a legitimate source for local news.

    Why it should not be blacklisted I'm unsure as to why it was blacklisted at all.. The site has lots of coverage of local news and sports that is useful for fleshing out articles. For example, I was trying to source information on some minor league baseball teams and the best sources I could find were from local beat writers that post to this website.

    no Declined. This is a perennial request, examiner.com is not a reliable source and there is long-term abuse. Please request whitelisting of any specific links which are agreed, at WP:RSN, to meet our sourcing guidelines. --Guy (Help!) 20:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see evidence of this "long term abuse". It seems fool-hardy to block an entire website because of a few bad apples. There is a lot of good content there. Spanneraol (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can look through the past discusisons: [62]. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have no interest in reading that: examiner.com pays its authors per pageview, and so there is a massive spam incentive (and it indeed was spammed relentlessly, which is why it's now blacklisted), not helped by the fact that it deliberately tries to confuse itself with newspapers that call themselves "examiner". In addition, there's no editorial oversight, so no reason to link to it at all as a source. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spanneraol: I find this discussion always quite informative to show how examiner.com was used, and how it will be used when editors are allowed to use it at will. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    yachtpals.com

    How can the site be useful Seems a legit secondary source for sailing info including stuff not covered elsewhere about 20th century sailing history.

    Why it should not be blacklisted Has been requested to be removed before, as genuinely a normal site ... no idea why perception in the past seems to have been toward the opinion that they were self-delisting (would they really even know/care?) ... MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2012/06#Yachtpals previous request. prat (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Does not seem to pass WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 18:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Reliability is not a criteria for being put on the blacklist. It seems this criteria has abused several times, such as with Bible history (dot) com and with Knowyourmeme. This is the type of source that is not recommended, but not necessarily without use. WP:RS is only an absolute must in cases of WP:BLP . --Typenolies (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pratyeka: Yachtpals was spammed by several IPs in a small range. Following blacklisting, an IP in the same range requested delisting. That is obvious example of someone with a vested interest trying to push their links (or a group of people doing that, or an SEO company). Then in one whitelist request, an alternative was found easily, and here it is suggested that it is not a WP:RS anyway. With a history of spamming, and no history of significant use (no granted whitelist requests, hardly any whitelist requests anyway) I am reluctant to de-list.  Defer to Whitelist for specific links that are needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliability would be a reason to delist after evidence of spamming. It's not reliable, therefore there's no reason to delist. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    pv-magazine.com

    This website is a secondary source which includes specific information on photovoltaic projects throughout the world. It was used legitimately in a number of photovoltaic power stations articles and is generally reliable. It was discussed in May 2011 for spamming.

    How can the site be useful It is used as a reliable source. Often this website is the only English secondary source with a specific information.

    Why it should not be blacklisted It is useful as a source for many articles. Despite that the website was spammed, it is a valuable resource for myself and others who works with energy-related articles. When discussed in 2011, it was said that "If a non-COI editor makes a later request, it could be reconsidered". Accordingly I am making that request. Additional issues are that the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive, and it was blacklisted without prior notifying relevant Wikiproject. Beagel (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The original thread regarding the spamming is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Mar_1#User:Paulzubrinich
    "Despite that the website was spammed .... the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive". I respectfully disagree - it prevented the spamming (there were multiple accounts (some likely with a conflict of interest: User:Beckystuart - [63]; User:Paulzubrinich), they show an intention to spam ([64]), they mislead other editors ([65]), replace other sources with theirs, there is no reason to think that it should stop (in fact, User:MER-C noted the creation of new socks when old were blocked)), it does not punish anyone.
    Blacklisted without prior notifying relevant WikiProject - that is at best a good consideration, but is not, has never been, and should never be a compulsory part of blacklisting.
    Did you look whether the spamming actually is not still actively busy, so that we can safely say that blacklisting is not necessary anymore to prevent further spamming? Otherwise, I would consider to  Defer to Whitelist for the links that are needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking account the time how long this site has been blacklisted there are not so much websites left. However, it is a very time-consuming to apply for each single link for whitelisting (as a rule, it takes weeks to get any reaction and too often the reaction is an advice to look for some other source.) During the latest discussion about different -technology.com sites there were several proposals how to use bots and filter to make the process of blacklisting more transparent and detecting spammers more easily; however, it seems that there is no wish to change the current system. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is good that we do not have any deadlines, then.
    Beagel, WP:BRFA is right there for that task (I am not going to operate that bot, and I warn anyone who wants to take that task of familiarising themselves of what happened with Betacommand). I believe that it should not be compulsory, that is it - and you still seem to think that I am unwilling to notify wikiprojects of 'their' links being blacklisted, and that I don't (or didn't) make the analysis. I explained what and how I analysed it, and I still believe that most of these -technology.com links are not secondary sources, but simple re-reports of primary sources (in fact, the first addition of one of those sites that I encountered made by you (after the many by the spammers) was exactly that - a rewrite of the company report - in fact, I only believed it when I found the original, as they did not source where they actually got the information from).
    I don't think that this process is less transparent than WP:AN/I or WP:RS/N .. it is just that people don't care. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no analysis what is the impact to the work of other editors who are here to improve the Wikipedia and not for spamming. And no intention to see the situation from these editors point of view. And it is big difference, if the source is directly from the company (that is, primary source) or re-written (not re-printed) by the webmedia source (secondary source). Beagel (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't start that again, 'the work of other editors who are here to improve the Wikipedia and not for spamming' - you say you have all these pages on your watchlist (together with tens of others in the Wikiproject), still none cared about the spammers.
    No, it is not, it is re-written without pointing to the original source - it is only reliable when you see the original source and compare. This is not a reliable secondary source. There is nothing against primary sources, and this is a prime example why prime sources should sometimes be used over secondary sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said I have all these pages in my watchlist. My watchlist icludes only about 3,000 pages including files, templates, projects etc. However, your accusation that "none cared about the spammers" is baseless. I can't speak on behalf of anybody else; however, if there has been spamming also like vandalism etc I have always dealt with this. For some reasons, there has been no such a large-scale spamming at these pages on my watch list as you seems to imply. Therefore, my experience have been that blacklisting of certain websites have been created more harm and extra work than any spammer I have dealt with. And this is not said only by me but has been said here by several other editors. So, maybe instead of denying the problem it would be better if we could together find a way to make the system less painful for the ordinary editors without being less effective for fighting spammers. I personally suggested some potential solutions (I don't say that they are ready solutions or that there is no better solutions) but instead the of dialogue and discussing it you just rejected any cahnge to the current system. Although, if the link is added not by spammer but ordinary editor with a long edit history without histroy of spamming, vandalizing, paid editing etc, it would be logical if the link will be whitelisted more or less automatically. Beagel (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I did not mean it in that way, not as a personal complaint to you. These spammers were too smart for that, Beagel. Still, between the 7-or-so last accounts (some likely socks seen their timing!) there are about 250 link additions. Count that for all the sites there are a couple of hundreds of links (500? 700?), and the fact that this is known to be busy for 7 years (did I still miss accounts, I think I blacklisted after 4, found more later, and I did see a number of accounts with in total 4 or 5 edits where they add 3 or 4 links, is it a spammer or not? I also have a 'gap' where the spammers don't seem to have been active, that is too curious to be true) quite some of the links that are there were originally spammed (the one on Navy is spammed (and IMHO, inappropriate)). Even if you had ALL articles in one of the spammed subject areas on your watchlist (which no-one has, I do not have all 14.000 chemicals on my watchlist), you might have seen just a couple of edits over months - as I said, they are smart, they know we are looking (we caught them spamming earlier).
    I may have underestimated how often this link was used by regulars (the analysis if it should have been is elsewhere), but as I said - I see an (obviously incomplete) set of editors spamming, with hundreds of edits between them, and several hundreds of links there, and I found it easier to find spammers than regulars adding the site (it took me quite some time before I ran into the first case where you added the link, and as for the four you requested whitelisting for, I found that one replaceable as well (don't remember where, I left it)). Maybe the cleanup of at least the spammed links should have been more rigorous before blacklisting (and I still believe that quite some of the rest should go as well, there are better sources). Announcing it to the WikiProjects (which would probably be 30 or 40 in this case .. each for a 15-20 links on average) might have been an option, though I a) doubt much participation in cleaning (personal experience), and b) if you notify them on a regular basis of pending blacklisting that participation will even become lower - in the end I don't think it will have much of an effect, and c) the spamming would still go on and that would also need to be cleaned. The bot does a similar thing, it notifies people of 'questionable' links on pages on their watchlist. You say that you have 3000 pages on your watchlist, so a rough guess, that there would be 25 pages with now blacklisted links (tagged in one go, so all visible). Most of those 25 pages are likely watched by another 10 people, so you would on average have to evaluate 2 of them. I, as spam-fighter, would however first have to clean-out all the spammed links, and then evaluate (which is difficult for me, I am not a specialist in all these subjects) whether the others are replaceable, should go or should be whitelisted (in the meantime, I have to revert the ongoing spam).
    I am not rejecting any change - I am all for more participation. But having compulsory notifications to Wikiprojects is not a solution (but just for the compulsory part of it - WP:PHARM is going to kill me after the 3rd notification of a Taladafil spammer, do I REALLY have to notify them? - and some links are plain spam and should undoubtedly be blacklisted but do not 'belong' to one, or any WikiProject. As I said elsewhere, I know what happened with Betacommand, the idea is good but the practical application is running into problems which will make people yell at the bot operator that operates that bot). For me, the solution is to get more people aware of the page and get more people commenting, and helping. And I have asked for that on several occasions ...
    In most cases, requests for whitelisting for links added by regulars and requested by regulars go fairly automatic - though, and I have said that here before, besides that it was spammed, I have serious questions about the reliability (reliability is not the right word, it turns out that it is reliable, it is more that they are not independent determinations of the facts than really reliability - they are secondary, they appear therefore independent, but that is a wrong impression) and suitability of these links (and not only of the ones that were spammed). Examiner.com links are not automatically whitelisted if a regular requests it - we ask everybody to go the extra mile and show there is no better source for the same info. I think that that should happen here as well (but now it is not blacklisted no-one will care about the links that are there: they are fine because they are not blacklisted - and (likely after a bit of time) the spammers can carry on). --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    re@ In most cases, requests for whitelisting for links added by regulars and requested by regulars go fairly automatic. Based on my recent experience by asking whitelisting some links, which were not spamming and were not added by spammers, which you rejected, I would say that this statement does not reflect the reality adequately. There may be or may be not better sources, but it should not be the bases of rejection (as this is also not the bases of blacklisting). I do not reject the idea that in certain cases blacklisting and whitelisting of websites should be done based on their reliability but there should be very clearly defined written policy on this — otherwise it would be just a subjectivity of acting admin or in the worst cases, even censorship which goes againts the core principles of Wikipedia.
    re@compulsory notifications. I see the point and agree that proposing it as "compulsory" may create problems. I think that for Wikiprojects it would probably work better as opt-in, so they will have a choice if they would like to recieve these notifications or not. As my other proposals, I still think that it would be necessary analysing impact of the certain website/publisher blacklisting to the articles by using bot and/or specific Wikitool. It should be not only listing affected articles, but also list of editors who have added that certain website link into articles by number of that kind of edits. I also support what was said by another editor that in certain cases it would be more efficient to use filters instead of blacklisting. But, of course, these (and probably also some other) proposals need wider and better organized discussion. I have to admit that my proposal last time at Village Pump was not well-described and the discussion was not appropriately structured, which does not help to keep that discussion focused. Beagel (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the whitelisting - whitelisting is done for links that are really needed. Do we have to whitelist an unreliable source where better sources exist (and in some cases were even already in use)? These sources should not be used, they should be replaced with reliable sources, even if those reliable sources are primary.
    Opt-in is also difficult, it is not dependent on the nature of the wikiproject, it is dependent on the nature of the site. Of course wikiproject pharmacology does not want to be notified if we blacklist another taladifil site, they do want to be notified if some publisher that they use is spamming Wikipedia and runs the risk to have their links blacklisted. Still, if you think that a bot c/should be written for this, that is something that we have bot-requests for.
    Maybe here notifications were necessary, but I still insist that I could find spammers easier than regulars using this site, and I still believe that a lot of these pages that are there should be replaced with the proper primary source as this secondary source is of less value (and because it is plainly re-writing the same info as the primary source - sometimes less correct) than the primary source. I am convinced that most of the news-items reported by these sites will not survive a WP:RS/N-discussion when the original is presented. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that I did not decline/reject in those three discussions, I merely suggested alternatives that are not blacklisted and discussed the request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    re@Opt-in is also difficult, it is not dependent on the nature of the wikiproject, it is dependent on the nature of the site. Of course wikiproject pharmacology does not want to be notified if we blacklist another taladifil site, they do want to be notified if some publisher that they use is spamming Wikipedia and runs the risk to have their links blacklisted. I am some how confused. How the opt-in is more difficult compared to the current situation where is no notification? If you think that there are cases when notification is necessary nothwithstanding the opt-in, it could be done in addition to the bot manually. It needs only some goodwill for this.
    re@I still insist that I could find spammers easier than regulars using this site. Excuse me but I can't understand what is your point. Nobody is not questioning your experiences fighting spamming but does it really more important than work of regulars using these sites for writing encyclopaedia?
    re@I still believe that a lot of these pages that are there should be replaced. This is your right to believe. This does not mean you are right. I also believe that some of sites should be replaced while "some others" are useful for the project. That does not mean I am right. I agree that there is no agreement, a community based discussion is needed and as the reliability depends of the context, each link under question should be discussed separately. Beagel (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Opt-in is not more difficult than no notification, it is more difficult than blanket-always-notification. Opt-in on which links. I think that the situation I describe is going to be the same for all wikiprojects, so all WikiProjects would not opt-in and have to rely on the goodwill of the editors (which is there anyway, you are now just saying because in this one case you were not notified that it is never done - I realise that with the -technology.com sites I underestimated the size of the situation.
    No, not more important per sé - the point is, spammers make money spamming their links, they insist, they go on (examples are there of organisations who spam 3-9 years despite links being blacklisted, this is not your run-of-the-mill vandalism, they persist). Playing whack-a-mole is futile, not blacklisting a site where the spammers are shown to be still active is damaging Wikipedia more than the little hurdle of whitelisting the material that is really needed. Often, the sites are of use on a very small subset of the 4 million+ pages that we have. I am sorry, but leaving some sites not blacklisted gives a lot of work to very few editors in favour of very, very few additions which are really important by a large group of editors. If I go through 20 situations where the link is used on Wikipedia (that was for the -technology.com websites) go back sifting through the history, and I find that none of those 20 were actually added by regulars but all by spammers then the conclusion rises quickly that regulars do not use the site very often and spammers do. Because that is what happened with the -technology.com websites, Beagel. I believe you that you say that you used that link regularly, but over the last three months 30-40 additions were by 6 to 8 spammers, and 3-4 by 1 to 2 regulars. If there are already 6-7 sock/meat puppets (or a whole sweat-shop), blocking the editors is futile, and page-protection is futile and gives a lot of aggravation to regulars as well - where is the line between continuing to play whack-a-mole with spammers and a bit of inconvenience to request whitelist the few links that are really needed?
    I agree that the reliability depends on the context and use (there are cases where porn sites do need to be linked, despite that 99+% is plain abuse of the link). But if a site is actively and definitely spammed, or the site is not one of general use, then the mitigation plan is to blacklist the whole domain, and allow individual links to be whitelisted on their own merits. If those links are shown to be useful and not replaceable by other (better) sources, then whitelisting is a formality (even for a site of questionable reliability). Your suggestion 'each link under question should be discussed separately' - that is exactly where the whitelist comes in, where every single link can be separately whitelisted. If a site can be shown to be of general use (most/all of the discussions result in whitelisting), and the spam threat seems to have stopped, then de-listing could be considered. And those are the arguments that should be answered in this thread, not accusations of unwillingness to notify WikiProjects (how do you know that was not done in this case anyway?), nor unfounded remarks that it was a long time anyway (there are tools to show that sites are still spammed or that the threat has stopped completely).
    Note that also the argument that this is often the only English source is not valid - WP:V does not require the sources to be in English, and you suggest that there are non-English sources. Moreover, if this source is an English translation of another language, you just assume that the translation is correct. Also, WP:V does not require a source to be online, nor does it require a source to be actually linked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    re@I realise that with the -technology.com sites I underestimated the size of the situation. Yes, you did. And does "I underestimated the size of the situation" means that the blacklisting is based on one man estimation? However, this is exactly the reason why an impact analysis and usage of bot or special tool for this is needed. E.g. after proposal to blacklist the site (or group of sites by the same owner) the bot would list all the articles using this site as a reference, creates a list of users who have added this site with number of additions; and a number of individual Wikiproject banners on the affected articles. First, it gives an overview what the impact is. In the case of -technology.com sites the total number of articles is thousands, and number of editors adding this is hundreds. Second, it assist to detect spammers. Third, if a particular Wikiproject has hundreds of affected articles, one will know that for community-based consensus the notification of that particular WP is necessary. Knowing this beforehand probably would (and should) change the process of blacklisting.
    re@If I go through 20 situations where the link is used on Wikipedia (that was for the -technology.com websites) go back sifting through the history, and I find that none of those 20 were actually added by regulars but all by spammers then the conclusion rises quickly that regulars do not use the site very often and spammers do. Taking decision by 20 articles if thousands of articles are affected is not very representative. Again, using impact analysis as suggested at the previous paragraph would avoid that kind of underestimations. On the other hand, refusing to see the need for this will result with repeating similar situation again and again.
    re@If those links are shown to be useful and not replaceable by other (better) sources, then whitelisting is a formality (even for a site of questionable reliability). If the whitelisting request is made by regular editor, not a spammer, and it is useful for the article, the fact if the the link is replaceable or not should not to be relevant because blaclisting is preventive, not punitive. From the preventive point of view, it does not make a difference, if the useful link added by regular editor is replaceable or not.
    re@Note that also the argument that this is often the only English source is not valid - WP:V does not require the sources to be in English, and you suggest that there are non-English sources. I did not make this argument. Again, as I said in my previous paragraph, from the preventive point of view this is irrelevant. If requested by a regular editor and if it is useful, it should be whitelisted notwithstanding if and in which languages alternatives exist. Beagel (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @underestimation: No, if you read the thread, you see that it was not a one-man investigation, and if you read the related threads you see that more. And the number is hundreds, not thousands (maybe a thousand). I also saw hundreds of edits by identified spammers. Also, for the recent additions we have those statistics, and they do not make it much better, one or two uses by regulars, 20-30 by spammers.
    @20 situations: Again, it is hundreds, and it is a subset - I do not believe that the relative situation will be significantly different on 100 examinations. And again, I do see the need, I have done it in the past, and this situation does not occur thát often - you are around for what, 7 years and this is the first time that you see it happening, I am around for about 10 and this is also one of the first times this happens.
    @replaceability: I still do not see why you insist to use an unreliable source when better, reliable sources exist. In fact, I don't understand why you used that unreliable source in the first place when you added it originally.
    And yes, you make that exact argument in your delisting request: "How can the site be useful It is used as a reliable source. Often this website is the only English secondary source with a specific information." - that is it used as a source does not mean we need a link to it (not a WP:V requirement), and you remark that it is the 'only English secondary source' suggests that there are other language secondary sources with the same information (and being in English is not a WP:V requirement either). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @And the number is hundreds, not thousands (maybe a thousand). The number of three -techology.com sites for WP Energy alone was more than 300. Taking account all other -technology.com sites for other WPs the number of "hundreds, not thousands" is an underestimation.
    @for the recent additions we have those statistics Could you provide the link to this statistics? However, we are not blaclisting also recent edits - if you blacklist the site, you blacklist all links referring to the that site.
    @I do not believe that the relative situation will be significantly different on 100 examinations. I have to apology that I did not explained my suggestion clearly. The issue is not about checking 20 sites or 100 sites. The idea is to list all editors who have added links to that particular site with a number of links added. This is different from what you do/did.
    @I don't understand why you used that unreliable source in the first place when you added it originally. Fact that you believe that the source is unreliable is what you believe–it does not make this source unreliable per se. As I said, we have a different board for discussing reliability, it is not the purpose of this board. And taking account that there are several articles which I have brought to GA/FA level, including working specifically with the quality of sources, your allegation that I intentionally use unrealiable sources is unfounded. And again, purpose of this board is not to discuss relaibility of sources - the purpose is to fight spam. Beagel (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a bit of a count, a good 1500 maybe (all over, so not only mainspace). We get somewhere inbetween.
    They are all in the COIBot reports linked from the discussions. No, we blacklist only new additions, not old ones. They are not affected except when removed (then re-addition would not work - which is why it is better that they get whitelisted when appropriate or removed when spammed/inappropriate).
    What I did was check a good number of existing links, finding who added them. If of that subset only very few (if any) are by regulars, whereas the spammers that show up in that all link to many additions (the 8 identified accounts over a period of 6 years, sometimes operating at the same time, and I know that there are SPA's that I am unsure about, and likely missing accounts, have more than 400 edits on their name - about 20-25% of the total links already, not taking into account that some of the links are on talkpages which the spammers never added). I know that that means that 75-80% MAY have been added by regulars, but the sample subset did not show many regulars (as I said, there were some which did not have enough edits on their name to distinguish between being genuine new editors or spam SPAs - I have not listed nor ocunted them).
    Maybe these sources and their alternatives should go through a WP:RS/N discussion, then. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. No rationale to overcome the past spamming. --Guy (Help!) 15:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    energy-business-review.com

    This website is a secondary source which includes good, detailed information on different type of energy projects throughout the world. It was used legitimately in a number of energy-related articles and is generally reliable and, notwithstanding blacklisting, it is still in use in some articles. It was discussed in October 2009 whith several other website for spamming. I myself have never seen it spammed on Wikipedia, just used as a reference.

    How can the site be useful It is used as a reliable source. Often this website is the only English secondary source with a specific information.

    Why it should not be blacklisted It may have been spammed with several other websites but it is most useful as a source for many articles. Despite that the website was spammed, it is a valuable resource for myself and others who works with energy-related articles. Additional issues are that the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive, and it was blacklisted without prior notifying relevant Wikiproject. Beagel (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This site is part of the large scale CBROnline-spamming. This is mainly a site that re-reports company reports. There may be a few links left, most were removed, most are replaceable with the proper primary source (repeating the primary source does not make this a secondary source), whitelisting can handle the rest.
    "Despite that the website was spammed .... the blacklisting seems punitive, not preventive". I respectfully disagree - it prevented the spamming (as has been shown, it is still ongoing with numerous related accounts lately spamming sites of the same owner), it does not punish anyone.
    Blacklisted without prior notifying relevant WikiProject - that is at best a good consideration, but is not, has never been, and should never be a compulsory part of blacklisting.
    Did you look whether the spamming actually is not still actively busy, so that we can safely say that blacklisting is not necessary anymore to prevent further spamming? Otherwise, I would consider to  Defer to Whitelist for the links that are needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking account the time how long this site has been blacklisted there are not so much websites left. However, it is a very time-consuming to apply for each single link for whitelisting (as a rule, it takes weeks to get any reaction and too often the reaction is an advice to look for some other source.) AS for CBROnline, it is perfect example of sites too large and too important to so easily blacklist. And no, this is not only company reports. Also, if the site is blacklisted, that means you can't to add this site, so how one could say it is still spamming? During the latest discussion about different -technology.com sites there were several proposals how to use bots and filter to make the process of blacklisting more transparent and detecting spammers more easily; however, it seems that there is no wish to change the current system. Beagel (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, there is nothing against more people actually helping at the whitelist and blacklist .. they are after all community noticeboards and crosslinked from all of them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the question on how to see whether a site is still spammed - that is how I found the ongoing CBROnline.com-spam, because people are still trying to add and were still spamming links belonging to the company. I think that that is a compulsory analysis to be done before de-blacklisting is considered, as well as an analysis of the overall use of the link (we have 4 million pages, if we are talking thousands of pages in a subject-range, but only 10 which would be enhanced by a reference to this site, then whitelisting is a better solution). I believe still that whitelisting is a better solution for this site as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just curious - where's the logfile that shows the hits on the blacklist? Is it one of the edit filters? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Amatulic: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/spamblacklist&limit=500&type=spamblacklist&user= <- admin only. I went through attempts to add cbronline.com, looking at the contributions of editors who hit the blacklist on it, found an IP that had such a hit, and as contributions only spam to -technology.com sites. COIBot helps you further. Digging further .... --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a cbronline.com piece which I need as a reference for the RadioShack and InterTAN articles. It's a 1988 press blurb about the shutdown of the former RadioShack stores in West Germany, URL is http://www.cbronline.com/news/happy_with_its_relationship_with_tandy_intertan_names_uk_operation_its_shining_star and the same text isn't on other sites as this was so long ago. K7L (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined, individual pages can be whitelisted if they are shown to meet WP:RS. --Guy (Help!) 08:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    army-guide.com

    Was blacklisted 6 years ago because somebody seemed to spam links to it [66].

    Seems to contain much useful info. Concretely I wanted to reference the list of contracts from www.army-guide.com/eng/product116.html to add a unit cost estimate to BTR-80. The German and French Wikipedias use it on many pages, but the uses seem relevant and not overly spammy.

    Just because the site was spammed to Wikipedia 6 years ago, an eternity in Internet time, doesn't mean it will happen again today. Lets try unbanning it and see. Thue (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    6 years is not necessarily long - we have companies around who got their first links blacklisted 7 years ago, and who are still active to push other links ..
    If it is just one link, I would suggest to try whitelisting first. If more are coming up and pass the bar, then maybe it is time to consider whitelisting. I think that was what was suggested on Meta as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    6 years is 1/4 the age of the Internet - that is a long time! I only need one link right now, but it seems like a very useful page, so I strongly suggest unblocking all of it. Thue (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what I said, we have companies spamming for that same 1/4 of the age of the Internet (and longer; and actually, this company spammed for half of that time, 1/8th of the age of the internet!). A previous request for whitelisting showed a rather unreliable document, and therefore I'd like to see an analysis for this one as well. As you say "I only need one link right now, but it seems like a very useful page" - you 'need one link' (that is what we have a whitelist for), and it 'seems' useful (and that will be shown if there are really multiple coming, at which time we can consider de-listing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The site has a page for each weapon system, and seem very informative. The part I especially like is the list of actual contracts, from which you can estimate the unit cost of the weapon systems. That is useful for almost all Wikipedia pages on weapon systems, of which there are a lot. The text and other data seems very useful as well, but the list of contracts in itself should be enough to make the page unambiguously useful. Hence I would like to get all of it whitelisted, and not just this one. Thue (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You still talk in terms of 'seems very useful'. We had a request for whitelisting for a page on this site not too long ago, where the reliability of that specific page was strongly questioned. That is why I suggest, try to see what happens with a couple of whitelisting requests on different pages, show that individual pages come through and also that they stick, and then re-request delisting. I am not against de-listing per sé (I have not outright declined this, I just suggest that maybe a couple of whitelist discussions before delisting would probably help).
    I do note that this looks a bit like an aggregator site - they do not do their own independent research, but they get their info from other websites, rewrite and publish it. Often, the 'other website' where they got the info from is the better source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Googling, the only prior discussion I can find is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dad7/babynology.hist this], which is a poor argument for keeping it blocked:
    Quote: It [i.e. Army Guide] was posted frequently in external links, but this appears to have been done by one or two "enthusiastic" users with "good intentions" (providing additional sources on the topic), which perhaps triggered the initial fear that this was a spam link. If you look at the links posted, they were all relevant to the page that they were posted in. If you look at the contributions of the people who posted them, they're on a wide variety of topics, not just associated with the site in question... so it doesn't appear to be for the sake of advertising or a bot ... Finally, yes, this site was posted frequently, but it's an extensive site, so it can be realistically associated with many articles here at Wikipedia.
    As for army-guide being aggregate information, that is the whole point. What I wanted was an aggregate list of purchases to determine the unit cost. I just googled for that, and couldn't find it anywhere else. I actually don't know how reliable army-guide.com is, but it would seem silly for them to invent that list of purchases out of thin air.
    Is the Wikipedia blacklist really meant to be this kind of bureaucratic roadblock? The top comment itself says it just exists to prevent spam, not to judge the quality of the site being linked to. Surely the few overenthusiastic regular Wikipedians have learned their lesson now after 6 years? Since it doesn't seem to have been a case of the the army-guide people themselves posting the links, there is little reason to believe the spamming will re-occur. Thue (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You are linking in the beginning to 3 years of spamming of http...spam.army-guide.com (maimed link, my bolding), which links back to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1#http:.2F.2Fspam.army-guide.com .. I see at least 14 accounts worth 3 years of spamming. That, for me, is enough to first want to see some discussion on specific links and their general use. Then we have this discussion, where the one link (and as far as I can see, the only time any link) was requested for whitelisting, it was deemed unreliable. This would be the second request, which does not give much to go on as to really how much general use there is. As it is an aggregator site, as you confess, that information is available from other sites (another thing the lack of whitelisting requests is suggesting is that others use those other sites). As I said, we have companies blacklisted in 2009/2010 which are still spamming Wikipedia using other domains (or spamming while avoiding to use the domain). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, of those 14 editors, 12 are IPs - not a 'few overenthusiastic regulars'. And we are not here to learn spammers a lesson (which is a futile action anyway), we are here to stop the abuse of Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Being an aggregator site is not a valid argument for blacklisting, so that means it can't be also an argument for refusing to remove a site from the blacklist. Bringing this argument into discussion will just defocus the issue. As for former spamming — six years is a very long time for a project like Wikipedia. If the spamming happens, the limited blacklisting time could be appropriate but for indef blacklisting more strict rules are needed. It is also concerning that there seems to be a strong bias against blacklisted sites, which one could call even censorship. As these decisions, as a rule, depends of personal preferences of the single admin, it raises question if the abusive use of mop may be an issue. Beagel (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Beagel, the argument for blacklisting is that it was spammed for 3 years by multiple editors - that is the argument that I am careful removing it. Point is, that I would like to see whether this site is really of general use and that it merits de-listing, or that this is something that can easily be handled by whitelisting because it is only a few links anyway. The point that it may not be a reliable source does not help, but is not the reason for listing or delisting, that is purely your conclusion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, I am not using any administrative tools, nor did I officially decline this, I have just given a suggestion. How you can construe that as abuse of administrative tools is beyond me, and is chilling this discussion and not helping your argument in any form. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I am going on - this is a community discussion noticeboard. The decision is not that of a single admin, that decision should be made by consensus, awaiting different editors for input. I am the first one to comment. There is no rule that others can not comment, give their opinion or analysis. 6 years is a long time, but again, I have shown you companies who are spamming Wikipedia for over 6 years, so if having been blacklisted for 6 years is long, then how do you call companies that spam Wikipedia for 6 years. Did you show, or even research, whether the 14 accounts really stopped spamming, or are you just assuming that it must have stopped since it is 6 years ago? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even worse, Beagel, is the point that first I have a set of sites that is being spammed that I do not blacklist directly but allow for a community discussion. All that is brought forward is yet another set of spammers of these sites. I look around, and I have trouble finding regulars using the site, all I find is more spammers. Looking at the site, I see that there are alternatives (better alternatives) for most of the links that I see added, and I, after 3 weeks, decide to blacklist. Ample time for community discussion, but you tell me off because I did not inform the community. Now, we are about 1 day into this request, I give an opinion and wait for discussion, and I give a suggestion. Again, I allow for community input on this, allow for consensus to form, and also allow for some further research into the issue (did the spamming really stop?). 20 hours into the discussion, you accuse me, once again, of abuse of administrative tools because I do not use them. Beagel, there is a strong consensus against spam, it violates our core policies and guidelines. As there is a whitelist, and I suggested the use of the whitelist, there is no censorship (an argument that you used again). If I would decline whitelisting without suggesting alternatives to solve the problem, and those alternatives would not exist, then that might be construed as censorship, and remotely as an abuse of administrative tools (which also there were not used, unless the denial of the use of administrative tools is administrative abuse - which then is true for all administrators who did not edit the whitelist allowing for the site being linked).
    Note, the blacklisting of the CBROnline links was 6 years ago, and they, evidently, still at it. Blacklisting does not occur after 1 day of spamming, which means that CBROnline was already spamming for several years, which makes them spamming for significantly over 6 years. And here I am told that 6 years is a long time?
    evidently, I am going to let another admin make the decision whether there is consensus to remove or otherwise. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    re@The point that it may not be a reliable source does not help, but is not the reason for listing or delisting, that is purely your conclusion. If this not the reason for listing or delisting, why do use this argument in delisting discussions, not only in this discussion but also in other delisting discussions? Just for the record: this was not me or user Thue who started discussion about reliability of this site.
    re@I would like to see whether this site is really of general use. Well, if the site has been six years blacklisted, you can't really expect that it is still of general use in Wikipedia. That is exactly the problem with a long-term (indef. blacklistings).
    re@I am not using any administrative tools, nor did I officially decline this, I have just given a suggestion. Listing and delisting is a prerogative of admins. And taking account the fact that this community discussion noticeboard is more or less one-man-show (e.g. all this I do and I allow' things), you even do not need to officially decline any delisting request because it is unlikely that any other admin will even comment the specific discussion.
    re@I see that there are alternatives (better alternatives) for most of the links that I see added. But as you just said, this is not the basis for listing or delisting. This is you personal opinion which you are using to reject delisting/whitelisting request, even if made by ordinary editors who have nothing to do being SPAs or spammers.
    re@"I suggested the use of the whitelist" What the point if you are going to use the same arguments for rejects there–as I have learnt from my recent experiences.
    re@I look around, and I have trouble finding regulars using the site, all I find is more spammers. This is interesting. I did not check the history but how you call in this context Thue if not regular? And this has not been the case with some other sites you have blacklisted.
    re@there is a strong consensus against spam, it violates our core policies and guidelines. That is true. However, finding more balance approach between blacklisting and other values of Wikipedia, is not supporting spammers. The most efficient for fighting spamming would be blaclisting whole www; however, doing this will probably also end Wikipedia as we know it. So, labelling editors who would like to see more balanced approach as supporters of spamming is quite demagogic.
    re@If I would decline whitelisting without suggesting alternatives to solve the problem, and those alternatives would not exist, then that might be construed as censorship, and remotely as an abuse of administrative tools. Suggesting alternatives is fine but again, if the request is made by regular editor (not spammer), and the reference is valid and useful (notwithstanding if alternatives exist or not), there is no valid basis do not whitelist. Rejecting that kind of request is not preventive (as in this case it is not a spam) but rather punitive. And yes, not always but in extreme cases one could say that this is a misuse of admin. privileges.
    re@the blacklisting of the CBROnline. This request is not about the CBROnline, so please do not defocus the discussion again. Beagel (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reliability - it is not the reason for blacklisting, but it is a factor taken into account.
    @General use - No, of course it is not used on Wikipedia, in those 6 years also hardly anyone requested whitelisting, which does not suggest that it is a site that is wanted. There is now one request for de-listing, and we just have to de-list in the assumption that it is of general use.
    @One man show/administrative tools - Obviously, I would block everyone who would be willing to help and I have never asked for more help on these pages.
    @alternatives - no, it is not the basis, it is a factor. I do not know why you insist to use a site that was spammed and where the specific document is shown to be less reliable than an alternative. WP:V is one of our pillars, and insisting to use an unreliable source not in line with that.
    @Suggested whitelist - as the previous point, do you really insist to use an unreliable source where alternatives exist?
    @Looking around - that was an argument used in context with the -technology.com sites - Thue has nothing to do with that. And as I said, it took me a long time before I found the first addition by a non-spammer, by you, which was the use of the site as an unreliable and replaceable reference. I have not, do not and never will suggest that Thue or you are spammers, those are unfounded suggestions coming from you, Beagel.
    @'The most efficient for fighting spamming would be blacklisting whole www; - that is not what we do, and you know it.
    @decline whitelisting - I could also say that insisting to use an unreliable source where reliable sources exist is an abuse of editing priviliges. I also fail to see why admin time (and discussion time) should be wasted on whitelisting unreliable sites where the requester does not want to go the extra mile to see
    @CBROnline was brought up to show that 6 years of spamming is not long. The evidence that 6 years is a long time ago hangs on the argument that it is a quarter of the age of the internet. If the spammers were active for 2-3 months, 6 years ago, I might very well de-list quicker (I have delisted sites on that) - here we have 3 years of spamming, starting 9 years ago, forced to end 6 years ago. No, that is not long, and I have given examples why it is not long.
    For de-listing this site a reasonably strong case can be made, but arguments like 'it seems useful', and '6 years is a long time' are both unreferenced and unhelpful - the points should be that it was discussed and the general consensus within a group of users is that it is useful, and show that the spamming did actually stop. Tools for both do exist. That case would only be stronger if a couple of granted whitelisting requests would be there (and the link suggested in this thread is already a good candidate). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    re@WP:V is one of our pillars, and insisting to use an unreliable source not in line with that. The point is that reliability does not based on what decision-making admin thinks to be or to be not reliable. Reliability should be discussed at WP:RSN, not WP:SBL.
    re@I also fail to see why admin time (and discussion time) should be wasted on whitelisting unreliable sites where the requester does not want to go the extra mile to see I think that we should not to waste anybody's time—not admin's or regular editors'. The current whitelisting is time-consuming and it would save everybody's time if requests by long-time regular editors who have no history of spamming or paid editing go automatically. Again Reliability should be discussed at WP:RSN, not WP:SBL or WT:WHITELIST.
    re@I have not, do not and never will suggest that Thue or you are spammers, those are unfounded suggestions coming from you, Beagel. I apology for misunderstanding you. I thought that we discuss army-guide.com and not -technology.com here. However, if we discuss -technology.com site, saying that "I have trouble finding regulars using the site, all I find is more spammers" (sic! in the present tense) after discussions here where a number of long-time editors have said that they are using these -technology.com sites, is something which does not correspond to the true.
    re@I would block everyone who would be willing to help and I have never asked for more help on these pages. I never said that you would or did. However, de facto the situation is that decisions are made by very limited number of admins here. Also your replies in the style "I do", "I allow", etc do not help to create a feeling that decisions are made based on wider consensus.
    The most efficient for fighting spamming would be blacklisting whole www; - that is not what we do, and you know it. My suggestion was exaggeration, of course, and you know it. But the line is somewhere between blacklisting everything and blacklisting nothing and we have different understandings where it should be. By my understanding, as of today blacklisting is used in more proportions than it is useful for creating an encyclopaedia, which is the core purpose of Wikipedia before other important tasks. I am concerned about the mentality do not take into account the impact of blacklisting to regular editors writing an encyclopaedia. Beagel (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The decision whether something is reliable, or whether better sources exist should come before it was originally added. I think that if a regular is considering to use, or is using, a site where someone else questions the reliability, that then first that reliability needs to be established before we whitelist/deblacklist. And no, the whitelisting/delisting should not be automatic.
    That is semantics. You know that I meant that in the time that I was researching the additions of the site. It now turns out that regulars do use the site .. I still wonder about the ratio. For army-guide.com, when it was blacklisted it was solely spammed, there were no regulars using the site. And in the argument of delisting or elsewhere here, there was never the argument that regulars are on a regular basis using this site (or attempting to) - just solely a remark that it seems useful.
    Re@Block: And here I was the one to exaggerate. Generally discussions here stay open for some time, and there are a (albeit limited) number of admins working here. Although far from requirement or rule, very often the reporter does not execute the case. Fact is, there are only limited editors here, a known problem, but <sarcasm> it is so much cooler to work at CfD </sarcasm>. This is an area that certainly needs more admins (or even editors who investigate), what does not help is to suggest that we should not blacklist because we are only so few and our decisions do not represent a community consensus.
    There are some cases which are grey areas (I still believe that they are more the exception than the rule) - and note that the spammers do not take into what is useful for creating an encyclopedia, nor what is the core purpose of Wikipedia.
    (I do feel that these discussions stray too far from the purpose of these sections, maybe parts of these discussions should be done separately, and maybe even brought to wider discussion with a/some RfCs). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined, per above. --Guy (Help!) 20:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    hotrails.co.uk

    This site is a compendium of information about the Blue Öyster Cult and related bands and artists, which appears to have been blacklisted since an unfortunate editing dispute way back in 2008. There is some info on this revision of WikiProject Spam talk page, and then it was blacklisted as logged at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log/start to 2009#March 2008.

    There was also a request for unblocking at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008#hotrails.co.uk which was rejected on the grounds that it was the original anon editor making the request, but which does make a case for instance that it contains an interview with drummer Albert Bouchard which he described as the most in-depth he had given, and which would certainly be a reference for sections of the main article.

    The site contains a great deal of information that would be useful as references, such as the most complete list anywhere of Blue Öyster Cult live performances, and numerous interviews with band members, crew and associates that are not available anywhere else.

    Given that there didn't seem to be any serious issue with the site itself, just a dispute with an aggressive anonymous editor more than six years ago, I feel that it is probably safe to unblock. As an administrator I could do it myself, but having not been particularly active on Wikipedia for quite some time, I thought I'd put in a formal request. --Stormie (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support AcceptanceWP:ELNO does not pertain to normal sources. If the admin has a specific reason why it should be considered a spammed link, he should make it clear and verbose. --Typenolies (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Typenolies: Evidence of spam needs to exist, we do not necessarily have to (keep on) repeating it. If it is blacklisted, it is a spammed/pushed link, and that is what Stormie actually already made clear, and what you can also find following the tracking links from the template. Showing insistence to spam is actually quite a good reason to have it on the blacklist.
    That being said, the site seems of limited use, is this not something that the whitelist ( Defer to Whitelist) can handle? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that if the link is still being abused as spam that should be shown. Given the passage of time and abuse of the link limited to a single editor, it probably didn't merit blacklisting of the link (protection of the article and blocking of the user probably would have been better) in the first place. Given the limited breadth of use and abuse for the link, it would make more sense to be removed from the blacklist altogether. --Typenolies (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It can't be used for spam because it's on the blacklist! Guy (Help!) 21:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Typenolies: - "if the link is still being abused as spam that should be shown" - per Guy, it is blacklisted, it can not be abused. "Given the passage of time" - we have companies spamming for 8 years - time did not and will not solve the problem, it pays their bills. "abuse of the link limited to a single editor", I see a good handful, I also see at least 2 pages, and the original discussion mentions an incentive to continue, protection or blocking was obviously not a solution or better. As I mentioned before, if there is information on specific pages on that site that are deemed giving unique information that needs to be included, get them whitelisted and use them as references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    GokkenTotaal.nl


    How can the site be useful
    I want to provide the best news about the ongoing legalization of gambling in The Netherlands. A lot of people are interested in this news. I couldn't find any information about blacklisting my website.
    Why it should not be blacklisted
    Apparently, the previous owner created spam on gokkentotaal.nl, but also on Wikipedia. I am now cleaning up the mess he made, and i cleaned almost everything. I think after 5 years and also a new owner, that my website should be unblocked. I also research the content I publish.

    no Declined. I'm sure your intentions are good, but we do not remove sites from the blacklist at the request of the owner or anyone else associated with the site. If a trusted, high-volume contributor finds it necessary to use the site as a reference and makes a delisting request, we will consider it. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Homeless Hub

    I would like to request that homelesshub.ca be removed from the blacklist. I have reviewed the logs and past deletion requests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_56#homeless_hub) and gather that both the creation/multiple deletions of a Homeless Hub page and requests from people affiliated with the Homeless Hub in 2010 have kept it on the blacklist. It appears that the owners of the site didn’t know what they were doing and were not following guidelines, but I don’t think the website is inherently spammy, or that Wikipedia is at risk of further misconduct from removal at this time.

    I am not affiliated with this organization; rather, I noticed a broken link on a related researcher/professor's bio page and tried to update it with a suitable replacement. it looks like the page I tried to add is on this blacklisted domain (see talk page here). But upon reflection it seems to me that Wikipedia is missing out on a significant citation resource for an area of knowledge while this entire scholarly website is banned.

    Browsing the site it is evidently a repository of original reports from a wide variety of publishers, researchers and organizations. It is clearly run by a reputable organization: The Canadian Observatory on Homelessness (previously the Canadian Homelessness Research Network - the name change is the reason for the broken link I was updating in the first place when I discovered the blacklist issue).

    I am a librarian, and am always kind of blown away to find websites with this volume of freely available information relevant to a specific topic, especially when it comes to Canadian sources (it often seems like everything is American). Documents on this site can probably enrich Wikipedia articles in this area: for example, there have been new Housing First developments in Canada regarding homeless youth that could be added to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First#Canada) but which it cannot be effectively cited, as the report is hosted on homelesshub.ca (see www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/HFFWYouth-FullReport_0.pdf). Not all of these reports appear to be available on other websites.

    Most of my contributions to Wikipedia have been anonymous; only a few have been under this account, and this is certainly the first time I've had to do something as involved as request that something be removed from the blacklist. If any other information is required I am very interested in learning how this process works! Onshisan (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll refer to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2010#homelesshub.ca which gives the whole history of the abuse and spamming that occurred with this site (note that that request was performed by site the site owner). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. Not usable as a source and extensive evidence of past spamming. --Guy (Help!) 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Timesofbook.com

    Anyone can help me to remove the website named timesofbook.com from wiki blacklist? The thing is i purchased newly this website. after that slowly i found that this website is blacklisted in wiki spam list. i apologies that what things happened previously. This is very great website which is provide more info about books info and authors info to its customer. it have more than 200 facebook followers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbiinformer (talk • contribs)

    @Sbiinformer: when did you purchase this website? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I purchased it on mid of February, 2015. --Sbiinformer (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. We don't remove websites at the request of the owner, sorry. --Guy (Help!) 20:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    LoveBugFans.com

    How can the site be useful LoveBugFans is recognized by VW of America and occasionally monitored by Disney. It's on the up and up and a tremendous resource about the history of the Herbie character and how to build a replica or see an original. The information and downloads are in a free, easy to navigate, family friendly universal format. I remember when this was going on, and the repeated reposting of the hacked links was an attempt to thwart a known scammer, who's no longer an issue... and hasn't been for several years now. If you take a look at the site and various drop down menus, there's tons of cool free stuff, including music and a custom made Atari-like game, and a message board with free image hosting. All ad-free and member supported. It has been on line since 2001.

    Why it should not be blacklisted I found this site in the June, 2010 blacklist 1 along with three other Herbie related sites. One of them, lovebugcentral, was being run as sort of a scam by the owner (Bob K.) where unsuspecting people would ask him to locate a Herbie replica for an appearance, and he would then locate and convince a Herbie replica owner to show up at kids birthday party or whatever free of charge. Then afterward, he'd start calling, emailing, and hassling the people who requested an appearance for a sizable "donation." He set up his site up as a mirror of LoveBugFans after being ousted from the greater community for theft. He was eventually called out on it and his site went defunct sometime in 2013. He was forever deleting the legitimate links on Wikipedia, changing the code to direct to his site while leaving the visible text unchanged, in an effort to direct traffic his way. He also peppered the internet with links on other VW club sites and forums and never provided links in kind. Once his scam was discovered, I know people were also removing his links. We're pretty protective of the character's integrity.

    The short version is that a scammer was using an innocent character for his own gain, and kept deleting legitimate links form Wikipedia and replacing them with is own. Thank you for looking into this.

    Dirk Rockland.

    no Declined. See WP:EL, fansites are one of the categories we don't allow anyway. --Guy (Help!) 21:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Saff.ba

    It is a radical Islamist magazine, that promotes terrorist activities.

    There's an article about it in English language here. However, since it is a Serbo-Croatian language magazine, most of news reports were in that language, from various places. For example, by the Večernji list from Croatia (here). --AnulBanul (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. No reason advanced for removal. --Guy (Help!) 21:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    sgs

    please remove sgs.com from blacklist

    12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC) Rainer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.101.138 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. No reason advanced for removal. --Guy (Help!) 21:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    thepetitionsite.com

    Summary: websites called "petition" are blacklisted, but petition websites with other names are not, resulting in an nonsensical and inequitable application of the ban on "soapbox" promotions. Given that high-profile petition services are not presently blacklisted, we would request that "petition" domains are removed from the blacklist.

    For illustration purposes, here is the relevant section of the global blacklist <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist>: 

    #Petition sites
\bthepetitionsite\.com\b
\bgopetition\.(?:com|co\.uk|us)\b
\bipetition\.com\b
\.ipetitions\.com
\bpetition(?:online|s24|site|spot|-?them)\.com\b
\bwebpetitions\.com\b
#end of petition sites

    thepetitionsite.com was added to the blacklist in June 2010 by editor Stifle, in response to a request from Dirk Beetstra. Here is the initial request/justification: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=365606869#thepetitionsite.com

    I agree with these editors that banning "soapbox" promotions is just. But I disagree that a domain-wide ban is an appropriate measure, for these two reasons:

    • Fairness: Not all petition sites are banned, but merely the ones whose domain names include the term. Avaaz.org, Change.org, and MoveOn.org, for example, are cited throughout Wikipedia, despite being online petition services.
    We would expect that the potential for soapbox/spam abuse exists equally across all petitions sites, not merely the ones whose domain name includes the term, and therefore request that the black- or white-listing be applied equally to all petition sites.
    Here are 28 links from wikipedia to petitions on avaaz.org:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.avaaz.org
    Here are 279 links from wikipedia to petitions on change.org:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.change.org%2Fpetitions
    • Relevance: Over ThePetitionSite.com's 14-year history, it has collected hundreds of millions of petition signatures, resulting in many thousands of legislative victories and news citations. The petitions themselves are, in many cases, newsworthy.
    As an example, here is a campaign from 2014 that was covered by CNN, NYT, Guardian, Time, UK Daily Mail and Mirror, etc: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

    For these reasons, we would prefer a solution in which Wikipedia bans spammers rather than blacklisting legitimate websites.

    COI disclosure: I am associated with the website in question. Nonetheless, the inequity of the current blacklisting solution -- namely, where sources of potential soapbox promotions are banned only if they happen to use the term 'petition' in their domain -- seems like something Wikipedia admins would want to take action on, regardless of my professional affiliations.

    Thank you.
    Mcglynn (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined. Thank you for alerting us to this inconsistency, but the correct fix is to blacklist the other petition sites. The problem is users adding links to petitions, either soliciting signatures, or as original research (e.g. for the existence and content of said petitions). That's why the blacklist entries were made in the first place. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I just removed the main space links to avaaz.org. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    screenrant.com

    This site was blacklisted by an incorrect request, from a user who does not seem to understand the purpose of this black list. This site is not spam, and is definitely a reliable source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree with this request. Addition of this site was inappropriate. The purpose of the spam blacklist is not to block unreliable sources, and that's the only reason it was added. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Delisted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bergspider - Protected edit request on 16 June 2015

    Kindly remove my website from blacklist: bergspider.net. Someone has been posting my website on Wikipedia which is very embarassing for me. Please remove the links that were posted.

    My website adds value to its visitors by giving them relevant and up-to-date information on the latest technologies.

    I share the same vision as is of Wikipedia to make information accessible to more and more people.

    As we share the common goals so it would be kind action on your part to remove all the links that are posted and remove my website from your spam filter.

    Thanking You,

    GawenBerg (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Best Regards, GawenBerg (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)BergSpider.net Team GawenBerg (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. We generally don't remove entries from the blacklist by request from anyone associated with a blacklisted site. If a trusted, high-volume editor makes a case that your site is useful for linking on Wikipedia, we will consider it.
    Also, there are no links to bergspider.net on Wikipedia, so someone must have removed them already. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=*.bergspider.net&title=Special%3ALinkSearch ~Amatulić (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @GawenBerg: So you tried to remove your domain from the blacklist yourself, but found you couldn't. Not the best way to build trust. Thomas.W talk 17:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Gawenberg here made it appear as if they made a request and not himself.
    @Gawenberg: Someone, and to us it does not matter who, abused Wikipedia by posting those links everywhere (just like you did on one page). We protect Wikipedia by blacklisting those links so that those links can not be added anymore. If you think that the IPs are not you, then please, do take it up with them to resolve that issue, but as long as we feel the abuse is or will persist, we will protect Wikipedia by keeping that link on the blacklist. Therefore: no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dirk Beetstra I understand every word you just say but man I made a mistake ..but you need to believe this i am not a spammer...please remove my website form blacklist Thanks you i believe you will understand— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawenberg (talk • contribs)
    Also here.
    @Gawenberg: - there is no reason to remove it from the blacklist, if established editors find the site of use, they will ask for the removal (or specific whitelisting). And note that this is beyond making a mistake, the MediaWiki server gives ample warning when you edit (just below, straight above the save button you pressed when you inserted the link, it says "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use ..", and when editing as an IP you must have had captcha's and remarks about our inclusions standards for external links), which you all ignored. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC) @ Dirk Beetstra Please Please Kindly Remove my website form blacklist[reply]
    no Declined, for reasons explained above. --Guy (Help!) 16:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    soualwjoab.com

    Website

    i have no iead why this site blocked !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmail Al Gathuth (talk • contribs)

    This site is meta blacklisted, See: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/XWiki/soualwjoab.com ,  Deferred to meta --Versageek 20:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Versageek can you remove it from blacklist cuz i got all information from this site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmail Al Gathuth (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, [67] says all you need to know about this user and this site. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    sysoon.com

    sysoon.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 website was blacklisted a few years ago - including regex term "sysoon" ( globally blacklisted by \bsysoon\b ) becose there is more international websites worldwide sysoon.com, sysoon.uk, sysoon.be, sysoon.de, etc... Please check if blacklist is necessary anymore, becose there is many userful information to use. How can the site be useful: Funeral and cemeteries resource, more languages suport, easy and fast research Why it should not be blacklisted: My research show that new owner is not using any bad practices. In 2012 and 2015 - WebbyAwards honoree, or see article Article: The rise of the e-funeral— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.54.54 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 11 July 2015‎

    As you were already on meta, you probably know we can't do anything here. Specific links however can be whitelisted if de-blacklisting on meta is declined, hence:  Defer to Whitelist. Here no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Logging / COIBot Instr

    Blacklist logging

    Full instructions for admins


    Quick reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.
    Note: If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

    The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

    1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
    2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


    Discussion

    When are we allowed to link to entries on the blacklist?

    I assume never but I wasn't sure where to ask this and I'm asking the question because The Pirate Bay inludes a link in the infobox that is apparently on the blacklist. The link is http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion, which has been added to the article using code to bypass the blacklist. I previously removed the link because it didn't appear to be valid, but it has been restored with a source and I've been told to discuss it on the talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't worry about it. For one thing, the blacklist simply prevents a link being created—it is not a policy statement regarding whether the text representing the link should not be displayed. For another, articles like that are patrolled by activists who do what they can to publicize a favored product (in this case, a website), and battling them is a waste of time. The infobox has six external links which obviously fail WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, yet only the foolhardy would get involved. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution is simple, those links and representations are in violation of our pillars, the article should be cleaned and warriors blocked. Some blacklisting and page protection to keep it clean would be a solution. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Content farms

    I don't pay much attention to this stuff, so I'm not sure this is the right process or whether there is one. Is there some automated way in which we block content farms (i.e. programmatic publishers of user-written junk articles) from being cited as sources? I'm thinking of things like About.com, eHow.com, todayifoundout.com, allexperts.com, etc. If so, is there a preferred way to get around this in the rare cases it might be necessary, e.g. to cite a content farm as a primary source for WP's article about that content farm itself as a notable business?

    And what about URL shorteners? There's an ever-growing number of these, and any of them could be used to insert misleading links or evade any of the applied blacklists. So are we blacklisting those as well, or just living with it?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the sites out of the top paragraph are blacklisted or revertlisted (examiner.com, hulu). If significant abuse/misuse (this is not really spam) can be shown over actual use, I'd argue that the spam-blacklist is the mechanism to stop editors (though for these, an edit filter is actually a better alternative).
    The latter, url-shorteners, are blanket (and sometimes preemptively) blacklisted on meta without questions. Hundreds of them are already on there, and regularly more are added. There are only very few redirect sites which are useful (assign-only-redirects like dx.doi.org which we do not blacklist), and only very few specific redirects that can not be excluded (like the Google custom search, which is abuse-able (and was abused) as a redirect while some custom search engines are used for Wikipedia purposes, and a case I am aware of where one page needed so many long external links to an external search that page-size became an issue (hundreds of characters long links each with a search parameter); those can be handled by whitelisting). m:User:LiWa3 and User:COIBot detect quite some of them automatically and report them to meta (see m:Category:COIBot_reports_for_redirect_sites). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Where are we at now

    It's been almost 2 years since Cyberbot II first started going around tagging pages with links on the blacklist. When it started there were roughly 5000 articles on Wikipedia that got the tag. People hated it, and the bot, and they were right to. No one wants to see something like that pop up on an article, especially GAs and FAs. But it brought an important fact to light, and that was the article had a problem. The link was either bad, or the link was good but would be vulnerable to vandalism that would have made it a hassle to fix if the link was blanked out. Since Cyberbot II started its task, I'm pleased to say, the dust has settled and we have gone from 5000 articles to around 655 articles. That's an accomplishment.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=671848876"