Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.27.185.101 (talk) at 12:29, 27 August 2015 (→Proposed removals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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 – 678107981 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions


    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]
    Activity insufficient for blacklisting, by the looks of it. no Declined. MER-C 13:12, 24 August 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]

    latinoreview.com

    latinoreview.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

    Caught a malware attempt while checking a recent BLP addition on Steve Lemme. [6]

    I checked the Google Safe Browsing list, and it wasn't listed. no Declined. MER-C 13:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    sancharexpress.com

    sancharexpress.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

    182.68.77.253 (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)
    115.113.100.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    115.113.100.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

    Non-WP:RS scandal site ("articles" being spammed on BLPs today: #1, #2, #3, #4) spammed on articles relating to India by multiple IPs, both as refspam and linkspam. Thomas.W talk 13:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    binghamtontimes.com

    binghamtontimes.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

    Added under Bangalorean.net, is it related? Guy (Help!) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @SmartSE: I think this is waiting for you. Brianhe (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no such entity in Binghamton. Contacts list it at Yonkers, New York and Bangalore, neither being very close.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Sorry for not making this clearer - see my comment at 17:57, 27 July 2015 above. It was being used alongside Bangalorean.net in a spam article and the author was linked to the site. (and @Brianhe: - note the lack of caps in my real username...) SmartSE (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    infibeam.com

    infibeam.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

    Infibeam is one of the India's leading ecommerce website. Infibeam has become India's first E-commerce website to file IPO.Infibeam also owns [1][2][3] the DotTripleO domain extension. .OOO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash207 (talk • contribs)

    Fixed formatting: changed URLs to internal Wiki-links, added reflist and sig. No change in content. GermanJoe (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ http://profit.ndtv.com/news/corporates/article-infibeam-files-for-ipo-in-first-e-commerce-listing-777076
    2. ^ http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/07/01/infibeam-ipo-idINKCN0PB3R420150701
    3. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/IndiGo-and-Infibeam-file-for-Rs-3000-crore-IPOs/articleshow/47888578.cms

    vk.com

    vk.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

    Found on List of Teacher's Pet episodes being used in references to share illegal copies of episodes. VK (social networking website) (the full name of the website) is a Russian social networking site. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - VKontakte is the Russian Facebook (it got started before Facebook created a Russian-language version). It's hugely popular and like Twitter and regular Facebook, can be a reliable primary source. It should not be blacklisted because of this incident. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikimandia: Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case, I'll retract this request. The fact that media can be shared on it concerns me though (though the same can be said for Youtube). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the same can be said for YouTube. There are so many documentaries, interviews, news clips on there etc. that are used as sources that are definitely not identified as third-party content (ie OKed by copyright owner to be on there, in order to get a cut of the profit from the views). There's a ton of otherwise OK sites that you can use for this purpose though - I think it just hasn't been deleted yet. It may not have been reported. Usually it's the owner of the content that alerts the company. We can't really WP's job to police that though, it's more about blocking the accounts used to insert spam links in WP articles, and also block sites that are clearly spam-only. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined per above -- may be suited for User:XLinkBot (if it isn't there already). MER-C 13:10, 24 August 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]

    IP blocked for 7 months. MER-C 03:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. This has come up before, they are clearly spammers and not going away. --Guy (Help!) 13:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    wikigrain.org

    wikigrain.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

    Wikigrain captures Wikipedia articles (including spam, pure promotion, copyright violations etc) and archives the deleted ones. It should never be allowed to be used as a source, like it was at this spammy article [7] that is pure promotion and was the resurrection of a previously deleted article. It was basically linking to its own previously deleted article - you can see how this is an issue. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. This will never be usable as a source and there is ample evidence of it causing confusion around the project. --Guy (Help!) 11:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism Picture

    A vandal and its several sockpuppets have been trying to replace the taxobox picture with this URL, including [8] and [9] and [10]----Mr Fink (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be isolated to one page - I would regard protection a suitable alternative to try first (if this persists). no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    visasavenue.com

    Dead link reference spam, probably from the same user. Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 16:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    steamlocomotive.com

    Withdrawn, thanks to input from others. Complaint at other boards still needs settling, but this is not a blacklist candidate. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple users, possibly good faith but that strains credulity given the ad load of the site. Not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As to the eventual decision, I'd still opposed blacklisting. I see nothing here so bad that blacklisting is justified. It should remain at the editor's discretion, as it seems likely that this site may be useful for some aspects, even if not so for others. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That discusison noted sockpuppet use to try to force-add this link. That's the sole reaosn I brought it here. I DGAF about it otherwise and have played no part at all in the edit disputes. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Which "noted sockpuppet"? The only editor I can see adding this link was Jackdude101 and I see no claim that they're a sockpuppet. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As far as ads are concerned, I do not see any, so it may depend on how up-to-date your browser is. This website has been used countless times by many different individuals on several other railway-related Wikipedia articles for years. Search for "Steamlocomotive.com" on Wikipedia to see for yourself. Previously, the website was primarily focused on steam locomotives in North America and Australia, but has very recently expanded to include New Zealand, Ireland, and the UK. To my knowledge, this is the first time that this website has been used as a reference for articles about steam locomotives outside North America and Australia. It seems to me that the true reason why people all of a sudden are against this website despite the fact that it's been used as a valid source on Wikipedia for years is that it's starting to be used on British-related articles. I could see how an American-based website being used as a reference for a British-based subject might irk people living in Britain (Americans, what do they know, right?), but having a personal bias against sources that are not based in your own country is not a valid reason to denounce them. American sources can be used to reference British articles, British sources can be used to reference American articles, and so on. In short, there is nothing wrong with this website and dragging it through the mud is unreasonable. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    marinelike.com

    Repeatedly added (see contribs) by morphing Latvian IPs. Some of this is weak EL-failing content about individual modern ships: removable as ELs, but not really spam. That seems though to be a veneer though over the main spam, which is a sailor's recruitment site. Past warnings to the IPs, but they were either unread as morphed or just ignored. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 15:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    moeinmusic.com

    Google is warning "This site may be hacked" - potential malware hazard. Dl2000 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just did a Google Safe Browsing API lookup, and the domain is no longer listed. no Declined. MER-C 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    personalgrowth.com

    user has been replacing deadlinks with links to this site. The deadlink ref spamming is bad enough (which is something that has been noted at COIN that seems to be happening more frequently), but apparently just about anybody can write anything and that site will publish it, per here - this site shouldn't be used as a reference anywhere in WP. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added MER-C 03:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    t4c-apocalypse.com

    t4c-apocalypse.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

    See [11], three spam-only accounts have been replacing the official website to a unofficial game server. Please add this URL to the blacklist. Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 08:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Plagiarism of The Merck Index

    These two sites plagiarise The Merck Index: either the current online database operated by the Royal Society of Chemistry; or possibly past, print versions of The Merck Index from before the RSC took over the product; in which case Merck are the copyright owners. Note that I am employed as Wikimedian in Residence at the RSC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. I just wanted to back up this request and confirm that these two websites appear to be hosting content copied from Merck Index. And regardless of copyright status, we should reference the original, not a copy. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    haloactive.com

    haloactive.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

    • Recent spamming by multiple accounts:

    [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]]

    Several more today: [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]] Mean as custard (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added MER-C 01:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    iotworm.com

    Mostly to Internet of Things, but also Machine to machine and Industrial Internet (maybe others). It's a low quality site that is about one notch above blogspam, but still a long, long way below WP:EL.

    This keeps getting re-added, mostly as multiple inlined ELs. Re-added by a wide range of throwaway IPs and an obvious socking problem too. As there's no engagement, just edit-warring, I would expect this problem to get worse and wider, so blacklisting the root cause is more appropriate than page protection. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed additions

    *.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]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, abuse is still happening. --Guy (Help!) 12:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: This is affecting more than just *.guru (example). Not sure if that is intended. -LiberatorG (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @LiberatorG: Also here [22] -- Callinus (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not intended. I will look at it. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also here guru.bafta.org -- Callinus (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    guru.bafta.org is obviously a legitimate site. Will it be de-blacklisted or added to the whitelist? Lapadite (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm minus Removing this due to collateral damage per the above and numerous requests on WT:WHITELIST. Please fix your regex before trying again. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 17 August 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. [23], [24]. This is essentially a vanity press - it has no editorial oversight, yet contents of books is being represented as being issued by xlibris corporation [25] or published by xlibris division of Random House [26].

    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]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist after cleanup. Genuine sources can be whitelisted. --Guy (Help!) 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    bangalorean.net

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

    SEO article hosting site: see analysis at COIN and another attempt by anon to insert link today, after offending users blocked. -- Brianhe (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with Brianhe. This site is being used to provide fake references for undisclosed paid editors. SmartSE (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And here is a good example of it being used as WP:REFSPAM. SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst we're at it, this site is also being used by the same group of editors and is written by the same people. This was used at Agent X (Brand) and is written by the senior editor of bangalorean.net. Probably worth blacklisting this as well. SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    bayridge.net

    support adding to spam blacklist. editor disclosed their ownership of the site here, along with a demonstration of the attitude that a dug-in attitude that means this will likely be a recurring problem - they seem to feel fully entitled to use WP to promote their website. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. One article, one editor (now blocked). We'd only need to look at this if the spamming were more widespread, we can control it now with a block and (if necessary) semiprotection. --Guy (Help!) 16:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    cbrates.com

    Also:

    And 2 other single-edit IPs. This is long time abuse, started back in 2010.

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:42, 29 July 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]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    facebook.com/groups/ElonMusk

    Unofficial Facebook fan group being repeatedly added by User:202.86.32.122, who was blocked for this.

    [27]
    [28]
    [29]
    [30]
    [31]

    Same user tried adding unofficial Facebook Peter Capaldi fan group (facebook.com/PeterCapaldi), which had been added to blacklist already. Btw, the group is NOT on Musk's twitter page anywhere that I could see. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 04:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User above has been blocked for two weeks for repeatedly adding the link, and now an apparently sock is adding it again. Glen 06:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    Stale

    for a long time -> no Declined for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (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]
    Stale

    for a long time -> no Declined for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (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]
    Stale

    for a long time -> no Declined for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (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]

    Stale

    for a long time -> no Declined for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.newlovetimes.com

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

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

    for a long time -> no Declined for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 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]

    Stale

    for a long time -> no Declined for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 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]

    Stale

    for a long time -> no Declined for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 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]
    Stale

    for a long time -> no Declined for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    huntingforbinoculars.net

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

    plus Added MER-C 03:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    healthy4u.net

    healthy4u.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Note: additional IPs also reported at WT:WPSPAM#healthy4u.net. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Definitely spam, this is never going to pass muster as a source. --Guy (Help!) 07:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    balearic-villas.com

    balearic-villas.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

    77.227.96.7 (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)
    141.105.96.115 (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)

    Spam links to a company that sells and rents out holiday apartments and villas in the Balearic Islands, Spain. Regularly added to a large number of articles, mainly articles about islands and localities in the Balearics, but also unrelated articles (such as this), by various IPs, most of them being fairly quickly removed by other editors as "good faith edits" (and I made a link search and removed the links that were on en-WP now), but the regular addition of the links shows that it's definitely not being done in good faith. Thomas.W talk 10:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    lulu.com

    Just referencing article to share topics thematic schizophrenia and its secular conclusion. --Joseph L. Russell, Jr. 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetlifeWP (talk • contribs)

    @MetlifeWP: - as far as I can see, this is blacklisted already. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I tested that, it is blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    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]

    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]

    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]

     Defer to Global blacklist. @Jtle515: It's blacklisted globally, not blacklisted here on the English Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:43, 7 August 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]

    Looks like they were caught spamming multiple domains.[41]
     Defer to Whitelist to whitelist individual pages on a case-by-case basis. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:47, 7 August 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]
    There's some quite impressive crop-field artwork on that site. It would be nice, if they own those photographs, if they'd be interesting in donating them to Commons. No objection from me for de-listing with monitoring. It would be nice to have a feature where we can poke a hole in the blacklist for specific articles. That would prevent the Joe-job spamming. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    minus Removed from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:50, 9 August 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]
    no Declined per WP:LINKVIO, as above. --Guy (Help!) 16:26, 6 August 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]

    @Saadtk: That's because it isn't blacklisted here on the English Wikipedia. It's blacklisted globally.  Defer to Global blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    attukaldevi.com

    I was noted the attukaldevi.com is block listed, but this site is more informative of Attukal Devi temple in Trivandrum, Kerala. We can add this site in Attukal_Temple wiki page for more information about the temple. I kindly requesting to reconsider this website and remove from spam list.

     Not done Per this report. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    petitions.whitehouse.gov/response

    How can the site be useful Official White House responses are an excellent point for political discussion. People need to know the results of the whitehouse.gov petitions rather than going to a random blog where the petition is analyzed and the actual link to the petition is provided.

    Why it should not be blacklisted This section of the website is responses only. This section only applies to petitions that have already been completed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbrasga (talk • contribs)

    This is a case for whitelisting, which was already implemented (see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Log#September_2014). http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses should work (note, you missed an 's' at the end of your url, the site without the 's' is a 404, and will indeed not save on Wikipedia as it is not whitelisted). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC) (adapted --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    And I stand corrected, the 'homepage' is the /responses one, but all the individual responses are in the /response/ 'tree'. Implemented per this thread. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rbrasga: (should have read this request completely) - ".. rather than going to a random blog where the petition is analyzed .." - if all people have is a random blog and the original, then the fact that the whole petition is performed is likely not notable and should not be included in Wikipedia. If there are no independent, reliable sources mentioning the petition, it should go. Information based on the petition should NOT go by primary sources only. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: - Sorry for the confusion. Thank you for looking into my request. I will try to find a reliable source and cite that instead of the petition response. At the time of the request, no reliable sources had mentioned the specific petition response as it was only made public within that hour.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.49.224.62 (talk • contribs)
    You're welcome. I hope that you can find a reliable source to strengthen your statement. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not blacklist this website. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluerasberry: - the site is blacklisted as it is and was regularly abused (I've recently looked into the blacklist hits, and it showed a case where the petition part was clearly used for soapboxing - which is and was a continuing problem with petition sites ('sign [here] to save the poor wallywolly from being eaten by the president!'). As argued above, the only moment a petition is notable to be mentioned is if independent sources have mentioned the petition. There is simply no need to link to (open) petitions. There may be rare cases where there is reason to primary source the petition after it is closed, but a) then there is the blanket whitelisted /responses, and b) there is the whitelist. The problems with petition sites massively outweigh the minor cases where they need to be linked, and as I said, if you can make your case, those will be happily whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why the site should not be blacklisted is because it is not a petition site. It is unfortunately named. It is primarily a website for publishing personal statements from policy experts and those are worth citing because they are secondary sources written by the most expert government employees which can be identified.
    As you say - petitions are not appropriate for citation, nor are primary sources. This domain is useful because it has so many secondary sources (government interpretations of a lot of primary data) written for a layman audience by a diversity of experts.
    I cannot say how troublesome it is that people link to petitions here when they should not. It is a lot of trouble for users to figure out how to make whitelist requests when they wish to cite a secondary source here. The confusion about this website repeats itself. I agree that petition websites should be routinely blacklisted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also save the wallywollies. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bluerasberry: About what part of the website are you now talking? If you are talking about petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ - then you are talking about a petition site which should be blocked. If you are talking about petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses/, then you are talking about the reasonably secondary source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As a clarification to by above question, see e.g. petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/demand-independent-journalism-america-we-simply-cannot-stand-anything-less-truth, "WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO: Demand independent Journalism for America, as We simply cannot stand for anything less than the truth ..." .. that is a cause that people want votes for, and that is what Wikipedia has been abused for to get votes for (the site even suggests to promote the petition on twitter and facebook, some did make the step to go to Wikipedia). petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/balanced-approach-reforming-postal-service on the other hand, is the "OFFICIAL OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET RESPONSE TO" .. the petition "A Balanced Approach to Reforming the Postal Service". --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra Let me confirm that I see the abuse, and that I do not want Wikipedia to link to petitions. I want to clarify that I am not advocating that petitions should be linked here.
    I was unaware of the responses section. I wonder if I missed it, or if it is new. Still, responses appear in multiple places. If there are multiple petitions on the same topic, then they all have the response, and the response will be in the petition space. It seems like the responses will not have a link to the mirror at the /response/ space.
    The first link you gave ("Demand independent Journalism") would be petition spam on Wikipedia because it is just a petition. The second link has no petition ("Reforming the Postal Service"), and is just a response. However, check "Reforming the Postal Service" in this link - petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/preserve-6-day-mail-delivery . It is the same response, just posted on the same page as a petition, and also there is no link from this page that I see to the response page. The petition signatures are there, but it seems like it might not be active and that no one can sign now. I would say that this is also a valid source to which to link. The response is the same. I am not sure which is the original source and which is the mirror. Also it is not easy to know that there is a special /response/ section also giving the information.
    I think it would be find to only link to what is in the responses section, but also, for older petitions (1-2 years ago?) there seems to be no mirror in the response section, or I cannot find them. Not sure... Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The /response section is not blacklisted, and can be linked to.
    I agree that there are older petitions that might not have a response, and might be a suitable reference, and that is why we have the blacklist. Same goes for petitions where there is a response answered in the petition page. Unfortunately, barring someone blanket whitelisting all closed petitions preemptively, there is no way to filter those automatically as they are on the same path. I do still think though, that even if the office replied, that it does not mean that the petition itself is notable, or that the petition needs to be mentioned in Wikipedia.
    Therefore, seeing that there is regular abuse of petition sites (up to the official ones like this one of the US government) I think that some form of control is needed, and I think that the whitelist can easily handle those cases where a petition is needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    typography.guru

    typography.guru: 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

    How can the site be useful This could be (and no doubt will be) described pejoratively as "a blog site", but it's by someone, Ralf Herrmann, who is WP:RS in the field of typography and particularly usability as it applies to typography. Typography.guru was launched in February 2015, but it's really more of a split of an existing site for English language coverage, away from his main German language site at http://Typografie.info

    Why it should not be blacklisted It has just been swept in the bulk addition [42] of *.guru to the blacklist.

    I'm actually rather saddened to see that moments after he had blacklisted it, JzG then removed an EL from the X-height article (of course that conveniently prevents anyone else restoring it). A ref he had previously twice removed (it has been added by two independent editors) as "The .guru domain is blogs ans orherr such unreliable sources. feel free to cite him in a reliable source." The implication being that a RS stops being RS if they publish through a particular TLD, which is nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, I think that Andy is right: Although the guru tld is ridiculous, this particular site appears to pass WP:SPS and its material has been used and useful. (I do take issue with the characterization of an author as a "reliable source" as that's not at all how we define reliability in this project but that's irrelevant.) ElKevbo (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is precisely why we have the whitelist. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that he's an RS beforehand, because of a whole career outside WP and outside this site as an authority on typeface design. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that this is a self-published source you like. I like Bad Science, but I don't cite it. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    When did blacklisting an entire TLD become an appropriate response to SPS?
    What's "Bad Science"? Dr Ben Goldacre? We not merely cite him, we have a whole article on him. He exemplifies the good aspect of SPS: when a recognised authority publishes under their own imprimatur. The situation here is similar. It's not that I like him (I'm a rank amateur as a typographer), it's that the typography community recognises the long-established German language http://typographie.info as a valuable and trustworthy resource. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we have an article on him, and we cite many of his published articles in the press and journals, but I do not cite his badscience.net website per WP:SPS and lack of peer-review. Many skeptics regard badscience.net as a long-standing and trustworthy source, as indeed it is, but anything usable as a source should be published elsewhere with editorial oversight or peer-review. Ditto David Gorski, who writes a blog at http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ (not citable) and also writes often substantially identical content for Science Based Medicine, which has editorial oversight and review so is citable, with some caveats. Do you see what I'm getting at? Guy (Help!) 11:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    nambla.org

    nambla.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

    Why this link would be useful:

    Useful on North American Man/Boy Love Association and Allen Ginsberg, (where the website is mentioned using {{code}}), David Thorstad (where the website is mentioned using WebCite but not the original page), and could be useful for pages such as List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations and others in a similar vein.

    Why the website should not be blacklisted:

    Similar websites, such as ipce.info, are not blacklisted. Although the website definitely propagates a pro-paedophile point of view, there is no evidence (as far as I can tell) of indecent images on their website, and I'm sure the issue of spamming can now be treated on a case-by-case basis. Articles related to paedophilia and pederasty are closely monitored by Wikipedians. The main reason given for its deletion, according to the archives, is this Fox News article (hardly a WP:RS).

    ipce.info: 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

    — Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 16:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, for reasons that should be obvious.  Defer to Whitelist for a single appropriate link on the article if necessary. --Guy (Help!) 16:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mixcloud.com

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

    Why this link would be useful:

    Allows Radio Presenters who use Mixcloud to store previous shows to use the link in articles about their shows, and to use it in the references to show that they are legitimate radio presenters.

    Why the website should not be blacklisted:

    The website is 100% legal as it does not allow people do download music or to view the tracklist before listening to a song. Artists also get royalties for music, so there isn't a reason for it to be blocked. Hazzy6000 (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazzy6000 (talk • contribs) [reply]

    @Hazzy6000: This was blacklisted because of significant COI spam spamming several years, not for any of the reasons you suggest. A more detailed decline was posted MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2015#mixcloud.com, just a couple of weeks ago. I stand by my point of then, no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links that are of interest. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    simplytablecloths.co.uk

    simplytablecloths.co.uk: 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

    How can the site be useful

    Has a relevant blog post which can be used as a reference to the uses of Teflon.

    Why the website should not be blacklisted:

    This site was blacklisted for spamming not long ago for incorrect uses of references which has now been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gman2489 (talk • contribs)

    Given the contents of your userpage, the real reason for blacklisting and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dasbinays, I'm not convinced this is a good faith request. MER-C 02:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. --Guy (Help!) 16:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    PhilippineTalks.com

    This is a entertainment and humor news websites in the Philippines which doesnt contains any spam links. The news here are basically reviewed by some expert editors from the Philippines. Please remove this from spam list.

    talibong (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Apr_1#seo-package.co.uk_spam_on_Wikipedia. Waiting for a report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Talibong: Wait, this is a removal request. Anyway, this was spammed. Criteria is not whether it contains spam links, criteria are whether it is not spammed anymore, whether it is of use to Wikipedia on a regular basis and similar. If you just need a specific link, I would suggest to ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist for thát link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    typemock.com

    How can the site be useful Main page of a company listed on wikipedia.

    Why it should not be blacklisted How can we exclude this link from blacklist. according to WP:ELOFFICIAL each company is allowed to add its homepage infobox Typemock. --Gikipedian (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined Spammed in 2008, current request is for a hideously promotional article, requester is a WP:SPA whose first edit is this request - I have real concerns that the purpose of the request is to allow continued promotion. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    thewebminer.com

    How can the site be useful Contains articles about crawling technologies

    Why it should not be blacklisted It's site of a tech company and contains useful resources. Website is banned since 2012 for a link in web scraping article. 188.27.185.101 (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed Proposed removals

    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 [43]. 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 [44]. 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]

    technologyadvice.com

    technologyadvice.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
    In general, they are a nice website providing reviews for IT companies & computer software. I don't know why they got blacklisted, but I guess that this happened because of the wrong usage of their links by a user and not by their company or so. Since wikipedia needs such nice independent reviews for considering a subject notable for discussion, I guess that many of this website's reviews would be very helpful for supporting IT articles.
    Antpetsas (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC) User:Antpetsas (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC+3)[reply]

    no Declined It was added due to spam. Your own history is as far as I can tell exclusively promotional, I don't think you understand what constitutes a reliable independent source yet. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    teluguone.com removal request

    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

    • REQUEST TO REMOVE FROM THE SPAM LIST *

    Deliberate attempt of some one to make it in the spam list .sir www.teluguone.com is the only major resource which is available on internet for telugu related articles on all categories and more over it is a very old website sir and a prestigious website . It is looking like someones deliberate attempt to get it on to the blacklist .. You can look for the website credentials and everything . It is a very old website . Knowledge back availible on telugulanguage— Preceding unsigned comment added by Queendivz (talk • contribs)

    @Queendivz: That someone appears to be, among others, you: this diff clearly shows the problem that wikipedia had with this site. no Declined --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 28 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

    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]

    Question - Dying Scene

    Hey guys, the site owner of Dying Scene is posting at User_talk:Robzwop#Response_to_your_note and he's interested in getting his site deblacklisted. He was honest in that the blacklisting was his site's fault and that he understood why it was blacklisted. He's also stated that the site has grown since then and could possibly be used as a RS now. Since he's the site owner he can't file a request and I'm not terribly familiar with the whole process of de-blacklisting, but I did give him some general advice on things that I think would be helpful in general. Can anyone else swing in there and see if there's a good case to be made for de-blacklisting? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am unconvinced. This site is blacklisted for 6 years now, and repeatedly asked to be de-blacklisted, and editors have been repeatedly asked to request whitelisting for specific links that are needed. Still, there has only been one such request by an editor whose first edit (of three in total) was to request said whitelisting for a draft article that is still in draft. No regular (or other editor) has ever felt the need to request whitelisting, which strongly suggests that the site is not needed, an assessment that is also suggested in previous threads regarding de-blacklisting: the site can easily be replaced by other sites. In summary, there are zero whitelistings of this site. If that changes (i.e., we get a significant number of whitelistings that have been granted because replacement is not possible) then we could consider de-blacklisting.
    The fact that editors with a conflict of interest are still here discussing this shows the interest they have in having it de-blacklisted, even if they say that they stopped editing Wikipedia. Editors who
    Added to that, Dying Scene is a redlink, and I don't think that we have an article about the subject, suggesting the notability is low (see also Dying Scene Radio, which is 3 times deleted, once discussed and now salted).
    Overall, as per previous discussions by mutiple established editors:  Defer to Whitelist for those specific links that are needed for attribution or to link to the official site of the subject of it's own article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=678107981"