MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2014#kavkazcenter.com

{{Link summary|ratedsupplements.co.uk }}

This link has been repeated added to multiple articles by multiple IPs and users. Deli nk (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• {{vandal|Bpi asa}}
• {{vandal|James Author1970}}
• {{vandal|Andy Madison}}
• {{IPvandal|149.254.49.80}}
• {{IPvandal|149.254.58.21}}
• {{IPvandal|149.254.51.193}}
• {{IPvandal|149.254.51.124}}

:*I see nothing in the DB since this report. {{declined}}, please re-report if the spamming resumes. MER-C 12:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

{{UserSummary|Chowdhary747}} Adding Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Communication to multiple articles --Janke | Talk 12:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

:The spam blacklist cannot prevent the insertion of internal links, you want the edit filter. {{declined}}. MER-C 04:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Link summary|earthspacecircle.blogspot.com}}

Hi, IP 151.231.111.122 was recently blocked by {{u|Favonian}} for trying to force their blogspot site into various articles. I reverted their spam, and have been [http://wikipediatools.appspot.com/linksearch.jsp?radio=on&set=top20&link=earthspacecircle.blogspot.com keeping an eye on the spam] and it appears to have flared up again on the French and Spanish projects. I don't know if blacklisting is the way to go, but I thought I'd bring it up here since it would otherwise be very difficult to control this vandalism if they're now creating sock accounts and spamming user pages, which it appears they are doing. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

:UPDATE: As of my comment above, there were 66 instances of the links in the French Wikipedia, and 30 were in place at the Spanish Wikipedia. The links at es.* have been removed. Within the collapse below is the report for France as it currently appears. It appears that there are a few, but not many individual socks being used.

{{collapse top}}

Results for fr.wikipedia.org:

1. Utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/
2. Discussion utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/
3. Utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/
4. Discussion utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/
5. Utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/
6. Discussion utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/
7. Utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-cats-eye-nebula-dying-star-creates.html
8. Discussion utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-cats-eye-nebula-dying-star-creates.html
9. Utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-cats-eye-nebula-dying-star-creates.html
10. Discussion utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-cats-eye-nebula-dying-star-creates.html
11. Utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-cats-eye-nebula-dying-star-creates.html
12. Discussion utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-cats-eye-nebula-dying-star-creates.html
13. Utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-giant-hubble-mosaic-of-crab-nebula.html
14. Discussion utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-giant-hubble-mosaic-of-crab-nebula.html
15. Utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-giant-hubble-mosaic-of-crab-nebula.html
16. Discussion utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-giant-hubble-mosaic-of-crab-nebula.html
17. Utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-giant-hubble-mosaic-of-crab-nebula.html
18. Discussion utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-giant-hubble-mosaic-of-crab-nebula.html
19. Utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-carina-nebula-star-birth-in-extreme.html
20. Discussion utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-carina-nebula-star-birth-in-extreme.html
21. Utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-carina-nebula-star-birth-in-extreme.html
22. Discussion utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-carina-nebula-star-birth-in-extreme.html
23. Utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-carina-nebula-star-birth-in-extreme.html
24. Discussion utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-carina-nebula-star-birth-in-extreme.html
25. Utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-ring-nebula-looking-down-barrel-of.html
26. Discussion utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-ring-nebula-looking-down-barrel-of.html
27. Utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-ring-nebula-looking-down-barrel-of.html
28. Discussion utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-ring-nebula-looking-down-barrel-of.html
29. Utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-ring-nebula-looking-down-barrel-of.html
30. Discussion utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-ring-nebula-looking-down-barrel-of.html
31. Utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-rosette-nebula.html
32. Discussion utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-rosette-nebula.html
33. Utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-rosette-nebula.html
34. Discussion utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-rosette-nebula.html
35. Utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-rosette-nebula.html
36. Discussion utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-rosette-nebula.html
37. Utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-horsehead-nebula.html
38. Discussion utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-horsehead-nebula.html
39. Utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-horsehead-nebula.html
40. Discussion utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-horsehead-nebula.html
41. Utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-horsehead-nebula.html
42. Discussion utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-horsehead-nebula.html
43. Utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/vistas-infrared-view-of-orion-nebula.html
44. Discussion utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/vistas-infrared-view-of-orion-nebula.html
45. Utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/vistas-infrared-view-of-orion-nebula.html
46. Discussion utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/vistas-infrared-view-of-orion-nebula.html
47. Utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/vistas-infrared-view-of-orion-nebula.html
48. Discussion utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2013/07/vistas-infrared-view-of-orion-nebula.html
49. Utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-crab-nebula-in-taurus.html
50. Discussion utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-crab-nebula-in-taurus.html
51. Utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-crab-nebula-in-taurus.html
52. Discussion utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-crab-nebula-in-taurus.html
53. Utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-crab-nebula-in-taurus.html
54. Discussion utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-crab-nebula-in-taurus.html
55. Utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vistas-look-at-helix-nebula.html
56. Discussion utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vistas-look-at-helix-nebula.html
57. Utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vistas-look-at-helix-nebula.html
58. Discussion utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vistas-look-at-helix-nebula.html
59. Utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vistas-look-at-helix-nebula.html
60. Discussion utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vistas-look-at-helix-nebula.html
61. Utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vst-images-lagoon-nebula.html
62. Discussion utilisateur:Elene231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vst-images-lagoon-nebula.html
63. Utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vst-images-lagoon-nebula.html
64. Discussion utilisateur:Alexe232 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vst-images-lagoon-nebula.html
65. Utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vst-images-lagoon-nebula.html
66. Discussion utilisateur:Alexx231 uses link earthspacecircle.blogspot.com/2014/02/vst-images-lagoon-nebula.html

{{collapse bottom}}

: Sorry if this level of detail isn't normally submitted. I just didn't want it to disappear because of edit reversions. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

::If it's being spammed on multiple wikis, then m:Talk:Spam blacklist would be the way to go. MER-C 13:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

:::Thanks {{u|MER-C}}. Just filed there. One of these days I'll get the process right! :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

::::This domain has been blacklisted globally. MER-C 04:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• {{Link summary|r4rating.com}}

• :Rationale: I submitted this site for spam consideration [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki%20talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February%202014 here] but it was declined for being isolated to one user. That user {{u|Athul noble}} was blocked and came back as sock {{u|Noblenobz}}, who was also blocked. Now there is a third account that appears to be here for a single purpose, to inject r4rating.com into various Bollywood articles. The site is clearly unreliable and basically takes content from Wikipedia and from other legitimate sources and regurgitates it, then tries to position itself in Wikipedia articles presumably as a reliable "source" for the content. Anyhow, they appear to be back as these contributions suggest. The user name may also be a vio of username guidelines. User has resubmitted reverted content ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manoj_K._Jayan&diff=prev&oldid=596990408 removal], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manoj_K._Jayan&diff=next&oldid=596990408 resubmission]). Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

:{{added}} MER-C 12:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Link summary|suzukicycles.org}} Frequently cited, frequently plagiarized. Trove of copyrighted photos, books and text violates WP:COPYLINK and WP:SPS --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:Support blacklisting. Werieth (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

These sites are being promoted by a publicity agency, banned from Wikipedia, which has been posting articles about them. After an article is deleted and the poster blocked, a new article with similar contents is posted from a different account, almost always under a different title. Since they keep using new accounts and new article titles, account blocking and page protection haven't been entirely effective.

{{Link summary|NewYorkStay.com}}

{{Link summary|youtube.com}}

• www.youtube.com/user/newyorkstaycom
• appeared in NewYorkStay or NewYork Stay

{{Link summary|justiceforall.com}}

{{Link summary|kulaw.com}}

• appeared in John J. Uustal with the link text "Kelley/Uustal Official Site", and likely in John Uustal

{{Link summary|4cabling.com.au}}

• appeared in 4Cabling

{{Link summary|aasted.eu}}

• appeared in Aasted

{{Link summary|alsbridge.com}}

• appeared in Alsbridge (company) and probably Alsbridge

{{Link summary|awaionline.com}}

• appeared in American Writers and Artists Inc.

{{Link summary|bizible.com}}

• appeared in Bizible

—rybec

:Rybec, you didn't date your signature. Hard to tell when you added this. Are these domains still a problem? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

::This request was filed on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk%3ASpam-blacklist&diff=569142459&oldid=568983866 18 August 2013]. -- SMS ^Talk 20:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|ebscohost.com}}

Here's a specific suggestion:

ebscohost\.com(\.|.*(pdfviewer|EbscoContent))     #Block 3 kinds of unusable EBSCOHOST links but allow permalinks: Match proxies: there's a literal "." after "com", and temporary session links, which contain pdfviewer or EbscoContent

{{smalldiv|1=

(

This is a consolidation of these two simpler regexes:

ebscohost\.com.*pdfviewer          #Block unusable wp:EBSCOHOST links but allow permalinks
ebscohost\.com\.                   #Match proxies, which is where it's not the end of the hostname - there's a literal "." after "com".

}}

Wikipedia has many apparently dead-on-arrival links (like [http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=111&sid=b3387fad-2fe1-4ede-a963-0b5087cc9e5b%40sessionmgr115 this] intended to be to PDFs of the form ebscohost.com...pdfviewer...:

All 7 of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=ebscohost+pdfviewer 323] pages containing ebscohost and pdfviewer] I looked at had dead EBSCO links. These are NOT links that hit a paywall (like [http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=neh&tg=UI&an=326730&site=novp-live this]. Rather, they bring up 404-like server error messages, and did from the day they were added; they're non-persistent URLs.

A second problematic type of EBSCO link are proxied URLs, like the three added by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open-source_movement&diff=prev&oldid=475497813 a user's (sole ever) edit] that are of the form hxxp://0-web.ebscohost.com.sculib.scu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=[hex string]@sessionmgr13&vid=4&hid=13. (Note the bold portion!) These links work ONLY for subscribers that are ALSO at SCU. We shouldn't allow such links, and the blacklist (or a similarly functioning parallel system) would be a good solution.

I've noticed that EBSCO staff has been heavily editing their own article. I solicited assistance, hoping they'd be available, willing, and able to help fix these links or suggest ways to deal with them systematically. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:EBSCO_Publishing#Link_problems note posted]; no response. What EBSCOhost calls permalinks, like http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ulh&AN=37698669&site=ehost-live&scope=site are acceptable, and so I've designed a regex that allows the permalinks but forbids the non-persistent URLs.

Research suggests it's not possible to convert the non-persistent URLs to persistent URLs using the data in the former. --Elvey (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

:The second problem is the use of a proxied URL, ie, the link points to a institution's proxy server such as sculib.scu.edu. This is not specific to ebscohost - it happens with links to other subscription databases too. A search for "ezproxy", for example, will bring up hundreds of such links. They are a bad thing. Nurg (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC) (reposted)

::I am tempted to see these sites as redirects, which will be location-dependent whether they work. I would consider that these should typically be converted to direct links to the object (within educational institutions, one can generally use a web-proxy to get to literature - a direct link would either be the link on the server where the literature resides, or the DOI. Links through proxy servers have no place whatsoever. I am somewhat tempted to say that these need blanket blacklisting on meta, as they could possibly be abused to circumvent other blacklistings (for a relatively open proxy), and serve no function whatsoever to most readers except for the (few) ones that have access through the proxy - I doubt even if the url can be understood well enough to be able to figure out a real link from it. It is however going to be very obnoxious for the users that in good faith insert the proxy url they copy from their web-browser and then they can't save, and one could think of cases where it is appropriate (if information is only available to people who can pass the proxy and no-where else in the world, it could still a good reference for certain information - think of it of a book of which the single copy is in an nearly inaccessible library (the library in the Vatican), it is still verifiable by proxying through people who do have access to the library (ask the pope)).

::Note, that with creative regex rule-writing, we could blacklist the two 'bad' examples of Nurg (the non-persistent link and the institution proxies), still enabling good ones (the permalinks). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC) (reposted, indented, and 1 sentence snipped)

:::We use the blacklist to limit examiner.com links, because they generally fail RS, so I think it's appropriate that we add regexes for the impermanent URLs. (Arguably it would be better to have a similarly functioning parallel system with its own error messages handle sites like examiner.com and this ebsco problem, but in the meantime, I say let's put in regexes to handle them.) I also match the ebscohost proxy URLs, but not by matching on 'ezproxy', because some of the ebscohost proxy URLs don't contain 'ezproxy'. (It could be considered as part of a future proposed blacklist addition.) {{User|Beetstra}} suggested blanket blacklisting on meta be considered, but at meta, though I see these links on other sites - e.g 'fr.', I was told firmly, "Deal with it at the local wiki level." (Discussion at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=5798048#Unusable_EBSCOHOST_links.) --Elvey (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

::::Well? Do we need to run a bot to remove all the extant links first, or is there more that is holding this addition back? --Elvey (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::3000 links to improve in one go - seems like a good idea to me, yes!--Elvey (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::Given the fiasco of the many editors pissed off by the actions of {{User|Cyberpower678}}'s bot {{User|Cyberbot II}}, a non-spam blacklist (see the big text above) is urgently needed. If one of Cyberpower678's bots is set up to handle entries on this list appropriately, it would be appropriate to ad the EBSCOHOST regex to it, and move the examiner.com and petition regexes to it.--Elvey (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Many? Don't see that yet. Elvey, most of the links we block are blocked because they are/were spammed (examiner.com was spammed and is a spam-problem, for most of the petition sites, that is also true - it is a spam problem .. your remark regarding that is wrong), we do not block because we don't like links, or because they are unusable or because they are unreliable sources .. Nonetheless, your suggestion to have a second similar list might have merit, but that is a mediawiki developer problem that should be solved at the bugzilla level .. and I do not have much hope since we are waiting for several blacklist-related 'bugs' (improvements) for years already. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks, I see what you're saying. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lukeno94#September_2013 Here] is a good example of the problem (of the list being used for reasons other than to block spam and bot {{User|Cyberbot II}} pissing off many users) : {{User|Luke}} is ADAMANT: "If something gets tagged as being on the spam blacklist, I will remove it, pure and simple." He's saying he's NOT going to examine the link, or attempt to repair or replace it. He's going to ASSUME the blacklist maintainers are making sure that the blacklist pretty much only blocks spam (like the spamhaus SBL and XBL maintainers do, if you're familiar with those lists).

::::::::It's a problem that this blacklist is not a Spamhaus caliber blacklist; it's more like some of the more aggressive blacklists that are willing to regularly include entries that can be expected to cause considerable collateral damage. And that wouldn't be so bad if this blacklist was not marketed/described as pretty much only blocking spam. I'm willing to bet that the typical editor who tries to add a legitimate reliable source that is blacklisted collateral damage ends up not adding it, because we don't have multiple lists. The bot and the blacklist description pages are wrong to say the link Luke removed was spam; he was misled. The solution isn't to threaten to block everyone who does what he intends to do. It's to fix the list by splitting it. ASAP.

::::::::We should still be blocking no-ip.com and examiner.com by default. Just not with this list. Roughly how many have I seen/do I think have expressed/do I think are upset because of the bot? Me? Around 6/?/60+, based on the 6. What about you? Is effecting a new list a developer problem at all? I would expect replicating the existing system and changing the names of a few things would be relatively trivial task for the right person (an admin, not a developer), compared to a real development project, such as a significant enhancement. Many good examiner.com-type links were not blocked because the links were a spam problem, but rather because they might have been one. But yes, I see your point - the examiner.com domain was blocked because it is a spam problem, I stand corrected. (BTW, is there a working 'spam' definition for use here? I usually refer to the definitions like the ones spamhaus proffers, tweaked to apply to this medium. I guess I'll go look for that …) I remember the first time I tried to save an edit and couldn't, and for the longest time had no idea why Wikipedia wouldn't let me save the edits I'd made to an article, which included adding an examiner.com source to it. The error messages had me thoroughly confused - and I'm knowledgeable about spam blacklists - but I still got the most pathetic and inscrutable error messages, and had no idea why Wikipedia wouldn't let me save the edits i'd made to an article. I have just gone through the same motions, which confirmed what I have seen others' comments suggest: the error messages shown to legit editors are still a pretty serious FAIL, though they are better than I remember. I recall they were worse than nothing, worse than useless. For no-ip.com links, the error message is still awfully misleading, as it describes my only options as:

{{quote|

::::::::* If you feel the link is needed, you can:

::::::::**Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you).

::::::::**Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page.

}}

::::::::This error message is unhelpful. The appropriate action is to request that the subdomain, rwservices.no-ip.info be whitelisted. It needs to be whitelisted. The error message is **misleading**.

:::::::: --Elvey (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::::PS: From current discussions: Surely you admit this listing wasn't because of a spam problem:

:::::::: {{quote|�justjared\.buzznet\.com� # Kanonkas # Gossip site/copyvio issues/speculation/not a reliable source used wrongly}}

::::::::Perhaps {{User|Versageek}}, creator of bot {{User|XLinkBot}} would be up to the task (of a non-spam blacklist system.) --Elvey (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• This makes sense, can it be done as an edit filter so the contributor knows why it's been blocked and what to do about it? Liamdavies (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• {{Link summary|jatland.com}}
• {{UserSummary|Diptanshu.D}}
• This is not spam but rather an open wiki. The latest attempt to use it on an article can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakda&diff=587647541&oldid=560754881 here]. It is almost always used to source villages, castes or clans in India/Pakistan and it is hopelessly unreliable even by open wiki standards. I do a manual search and clean roughly every fortnight and cannot recall the last time that the search revealed nothing - that it is an open wiki seems not to be widely known, so reviewers etc accept it and, to the best of my knowledge, no-one else is patrolling for this. XLinkBot would prevent the addition but almost always the subject is not in fact notable anyway & the article ends up being PRODed. Another recent example was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bhattu_Kalan&diff=prev&oldid=584107350 this]. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

:*I'm not going to clean the present batch of insertions until some resolution appears here ... but someone added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=jatland.com&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 a shedload of cites etc] using this open wiki on 30 December. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

:I see quite some being added by Diptanshu.D, who appears to be a regular. Did you discuss this issue with them? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

::I've left a note with them about general issues but they are far from being the only person who introduces this source. In fact, my experience is that most introductions come from anons. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

:::(disclaimer: the db just started up, I have no records yet of anons). Are these reference-additions by anons or plain links (makes a difference for XLinkBot). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

::::They appear both in external links and as citations; in both cases, they are quite often barelinks. Is that what you mean? Quite often, although seemingly not in the latest batch, someone just copies an entire article from jatland to create a new one here on WP & then adds the jatland link. - Sitush (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::I've revertlisted it (so XLinkBot reverts external link additions, not references; of course only for not-autoconfirmed and IP editors). Lets see what happens with that. If it is used to copyvio, unreliable, and it is somewhat 'pushed', then blacklisting may be an option. However, I'd like to hear Diptanshu.D's take on it as they have used it quite extensively. 'on hold' (do we have a template for that) for a couple of days to allow for that discussion (unless the spamming by IPs goes on too much). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

::::::Thanks. I hope that {{ping|Diptanshu.D}} can shed some light. (There is {{tl|On hold}} but I cannot recall ever seeing it used - perhaps appears at DYK and on GA reviews?) - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|ilawyermarketing.com}}

The website above claims specialization in SEO, and produces promotional materials for legal firms, disguised as "infographics". At least one (likely more) IP editors add these as citations in loosely-related Wikipedia articles, occasionally adding text and occasionally replacing valid citations. The site above does not appear to be spamming directly, but the sites I am nominating are hosting materials that they produced. All of the links below were added by {{IP summary|76.88.84.30}}.

• {{Link summary|jknylaw.com}}

:Added to several bicycle-related articles: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle&diff=prev&oldid=586699358] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_law_in_California&diff=prev&oldid=586699049] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_helmet_laws&diff=prev&oldid=586697656] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_law_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=585507509] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_lighting&diff=prev&oldid=585505560]

• {{Link summary|elkusandsisson.com}}

:Added to sport concussion related articles: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prevention_of_concussions&diff=prev&oldid=585936631] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protective_equipment_in_gridiron_football&diff=prev&oldid=585614411]

• {{Link summary|wkfirm.com}}

:Added to articles on holiday lighting and Christmas trees: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holiday_lighting_technology&diff=prev&oldid=585506787] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christmas_tree&diff=prev&oldid=585503184]

• {{Link summary|franklin-lawfirm.com}}

:Added to Labor Day: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Labor_Day&diff=prev&oldid=585506596] - this "infographic" was created by a different SEO firm, but reasons for listing are the same.

• {{Link summary|harrisonbodell.com}}

:Added to articles on employment law: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wrongful_dismissal&diff=next&oldid=584738845] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ageism&diff=prev&oldid=584731921]

Ivanvector (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

:Also:

:*{{spamlink|thehigginsfirm.com}}

:*{{spamlink|seriousinjury.com}}

:That said, I cannot find anything apart from that one IP. I've blocked it for 2 months. MER-C 05:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

{{Link summary|soccerdatabase.eu}}

Back in May 2013 this link was mass removed from Wikipedia because it was deemed to be a copyright violating mirror website, of the defunct 'playerhistory.com' website. As I understand it, the owner of 'playerhistory.com' is {{user|Polarman}} and he has been taking legal action against the owners of 'soccerdatabase.eu' for violating copyright. This website has no place on Wikipedia and should therefore be blocked. Note that a previous attempt to blacklist 'soccerdatabase.eu' fizzled out with no real decision either way. GiantSnowman 12:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support, this should be blocked per WP:LINKVIO and all current links removed. Liamdavies (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, and please can someone with the proper userright deal with this long-standing request? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• It looks like 'soccerdatabase.eu' is not reachable anymore. I don't know whether this is related to the legal action mentioned above and I also don't know whether the announced relaunch of 'playerhistory.com' will preserve the former player IDs. But as long as this is still a possible option I would rather prefer to keep the 'soccerdatabase.eu' links and reuse them for 'playerhistory.com'. This won't be possible if the data is deleted. Please first talk to {{user|Polarman}} about the current status before taking any decisions. --RonaldH (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• Blacklisting would have as a result that no new links could be added. One could easily then remove the old links, replacing them with the comment ''. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
• ...which would be the ideal outcome. We could, over time, replace the existing links with proper sources while preventing any new links being added. GiantSnowman 21:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
• I would really urge you to first talk to {{user|Polarman}} about the current status and the outlook of playerhistory.com. I don't like to see this request being based on obsolete information. There is no imminent danger as far as the addition of new links is concerned as soccerdatabase.eu is not properly working at this stage anymore. --RonaldH (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

{{od}} Editors continue to add this website (most in ignorance/good faith, while others are known vandals) - can we get some movement on this please? GiantSnowman 19:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

:Anyone? This has been listed for nearly 6 months now. GiantSnowman 12:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

::The delay was because I didn't see the point of adding a broken site. That said, soccerdatabase.eu is up again. I'll take a look at this later today. MER-C 03:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

:::{{added}} MER-C 11:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

:::: {{ping|MER-C}} - merci! GiantSnowman 12:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Link summary|amesweb.info}} Anonymous, unreliable reference page, repeatedly spammed to several articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

:*{{IPSummary|88.227.249.35}}

:*{{IPSummary|88.227.193.128}}

:*{{IPSummary|88.227.210.73}}

:*{{IPSummary|88.227.186.116}}

:*{{IPSummary|88.227.239.148}}

:*{{IPSummary|88.232.128.247}}

:*{{IPSummary|88.255.59.60}}

:*{{IPSummary|150.128.86.90}}

:*{{IPSummary|188.57.220.195}}

:There are a few links on de.wp which I haven't looked at. I don't see any warnings. MER-C 10:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

::Nothing since then. {{declined}}. Please re-report if the spamming resumes. If multiple wikis are affected, report to the global spam blacklist instead. MER-C 11:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• {{IPSummary|92.29.74.232}}
• {{IPSummary|78.144.240.223}}
• {{Link summary|crazynutt3rs.co.uk}}
• :Rationale: Link is repeatedly recently spammed to Swinging (sexual practice). If it were just that one article I'd just ask for semi-protection and call it a day, but the IP editor 92.29.74.232 recently spammed it to multiple articles. Recommend keeping it blacklisted for at least 3 months. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
• :Update: Added 78.144.240.223. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• {{done}} OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|thenewcalculus.weebly.com}}
• {{IPSummary|197.79.22.89}}
• {{IPSummary|195.92.70.130}}
• {{IPSummary|197.79.19.35}}
• {{IPSummary|12.176.152.194}}
• {{IPSummary|197.79.12.107}}
• {{IPSummary|41.117.252.14}}
• {{IPSummary|197.79.24.192}}
• {{IPSummary|98.194.121.63}}

This link to the personal website with author's original research is repeatedly and disruptively added on mathematics related talk pages.

Most recent diff: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANumber&diff=599145438&oldid=596686646]

For more relevant diffs, see all edits by above IP list, and there is much more. - DVdm (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

: {{done}} OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

= Proposed removals =

• {{Link summary|thehamptons.com}}

The site was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=316155190#www.thehamptons.com put on the blacklist in 2009] because three editors continually added the site to the article, The Hamptons. Those editors (2 IPs and one registered user) have long since refrained from editing Wikipedia. I am requesting to remove this site from the blacklist because there are useful articles only present on the site. One example is an original film review of a 1998 Louis C.K. film (which I cannot even link to in this request). I cannot link to the article currently because of a conflict that was resolved long ago. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone here to take a look at this? -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

:{{deferwhite}}. 2009 is still fairly recent. I can't see removing the site from the blacklist for the purpose of linking a couple times in The Hamptons article, and I see no reason to de-list the site for the purpose of referencing film reviews by anonymous or non-notable reviewers — references that would likely be removed, because we generally don't cite local news sources. The whitelist is the place to poke holes in the blacklist for specific links. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|homelesshub.ca}}

I would like to request that Homeless Hub be removed from Wikipedia's blacklist. The story behind the blacklisting seems to have begun in October and November 2009 with an overzealous Project Coordinator at the Canadian Homelessness Research Network (CHRN) at York University, Toronto. Stephen Gaetz is the professor who received the prestigious Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council SSHRC seven-year grant to set up this much-needed Research Network (CHRN). The site now has thousands of research documents. In some cases the site provides the only open-access digital copy of resources. Homeless hub is a very rich resource for academics and for researchers on homelessness, particularly on homelessness in Canada, an under-researched area.

Based on my recent perusals of the history of Runaway (dependent), Homelessness and Stephen Gaetz and contributions by User:AMarsolais, User:Fhyork, User:Stephen Gaetz and User:Betacommand, the request for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion&diff=prev&oldid=462756554 undeletion], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2010#homelesshub.ca spam blacklist] and more, I have pieced together what seems to be an unfortunate series of mistakes.

Several people from or related to Canadian Homelessness Research Network became Wikipedia editors and attempted to create articles or add content to articles with links to the Homeless Hub. This is a COI but it may well have been unintended. It is not obvious to everyone at first that it is important that an individual restrain from correcting his own wikipedia biography, for example, without reference a valid source other than himself. Given the work the CHRN does, the reputation they have with other academics, and the robust content offered on the site, it appears to me, as an independent researcher and wikipedia editor, that their violations in 2009-2010 represented errors in human judgement not a violation that deserves years of being held in a blacklist. The editors even used their own names which are easily linked to the CHRN so there was no attempt at underhandedness.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AMarsolais User:AMarsolais] who was a new, uninformed and inexperienced Wikipedia editor added content on at least two Wikipedia pages Runaway (dependent) and Homelessness. From the beginning the references were incomplete and her knowledge of templates was lacking. The articles she referenced were sound but she used the homelesshub.ca directly as an external link and as her inline citation. From her earliest edits User:Betacommand took an aggressive approach and accused her of COI spam (revert COI spam). They sparred, misbehaved and they were both banned from Wikipedia. User:AMarsolais is currently blocked. "The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:03:17, 8 December 2009 [User:J.delanoy (talk | contribs) blocked AMarsolais [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AMarsolais talk] | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts). User:Betacommand was also[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Betacommand banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of no less than 1 year by the Arbitration Committee.]

User:Fhyork created the article Stephen Gaetz starting with a sandbox and asking for advice along the way. Stephen Gaetzcorrected some errors.

I became concerned this past week when I received a blacklist alert from Wikipedia about references I had used with homelesshub.ca in the url. I think I did it a couple of times because I was sure there was a mistake. I noticed that a number of the references in the article Homelessness in Canada andPoverty in Canada have no url. A number of these very useful articles are available in digital format at the Homeless Hub. These articles on social issues are difficult to edit because they need constant updating. Homeless Hub provides updated material from a wide variety of sources.

This has taken a lot of my time to prepare. I added to the wikipedia article on Stephen Gaetz to attest to his work as a respected researcher and academic before deciding to request the removal of the blacklisting. I am hoping that you will reconsider.

Please note that in 2010 User:Kmilaney also tried to start a page that referenced some of the excellent work on homelessness in Canada on the talk page onHomelessness but the entry was 'blacklisted.' He "asked for some guidance on what this means but did not hear anything back from editors. We have solid evidence based work on a national level that would greatly enhance the wiki section on homelessness - especially in the north american context. Could someone provide some guidance on how to contribute? (User:Kmilaney (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC))"

It is not easy to understand how to navigate the process of removing a site from a blacklist. Thank you for any help you can provide. oceanflynn 06:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)oceanflynn 06:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I can't see any point in this site being blacklisted. It looks like a good potential resource to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• The use of multiple accounts which show a strong suggestion of a conflict of interest in an effort to get this linked, and using these accounts to perform edits like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=318073772&oldid=316870020 this] (adding it to a non-canada specific page about affordable housing, where it is completely out of place, it really does not belong there) does show that this site should be blacklisted to avoid that type of inappropriate linking. We are not here to promote a cause. {{Deferwhite}} for specific links for specific targets. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
• Noting, this link is inappropriate as an external link on Homelessness in Canada, Poverty in Canada, Runaway (dependent), Stephen Gaetz and Homelessness. I just note that there are a lot of indirect links throughout that do not belong per the external links guideline in the subject where they are linked from. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I struggle to understand your point of view Dirk Beetstra so I looked up your contributions and found the pivotal article you wrote on the subject of libraries, conflict of interest and spamming in Wikipedia which applies directly to Homeless Hub since it is in fact a library of documentation on homelessness. This has been a major area of concern for you for a very long time so I am trying to read through the labyrinth of discussions over the last 7 years at least.

Your record of contributions in impressive. I cannot imagine the amount of work it is to administer this very useful bot as User:COIBot.

You argue on your [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beetstra talk page] that "External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia (Dirk Beetstra)."

I use wikipedia constantly as a place to learn something new or to confirm information. But I read every article critically checking dates, authors, publishers etc on references for example. Five minutes on Wikipedia may lead to hours of reading academic articles elsewhere. If I was still teaching I would encourage my students to do the same. Who cares? Wikipedia is a modern day miracle and it will not lose readers because they read elsewhere too.

You feel that a reference from a reliable organizations with solid academic credentials may add links "for the sole purpose of search engine optimisation" and that this too is spamming. I could understand this with enbridge.com or IntercontinentalExchange where theice.com was added to section headings etc. and throughout the content but I struggle with the concept of theme-specific research organizations that are simply making it easier for researchers to find appropriate digital materials without having to go through a google search, for example, that casts a very wide net. Homelessness is a great example. Homelessness is inextricably linked with housing markets, urban affairs, poverty studies, health, human geography, etc. Individual nations, provinces/states, municipalities and cities develop contextualized public policy based on existing federal and state/provincial institutions, laws and funding and this requires research networks specific to their needs and concerns. Stephen Gaetz and his team of researchers across Canada who contribute to the Homeless Hub resource, has received his second substantial grant to continue their valuable work on homelessness from the foremost Canadian national research funding agency Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The academics contributing peer-reviewed articles to this resource are not anti-homelessness activists. They represent different academic disciplines and offer many different solutions.

I carefully read your [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beetstra/Archivists 2007 essay on this], noting that your article is identified as an [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Essay.svg essay], not a Wikipedia guideline. You expressed concern as early as 2007, that these were indeed spam regardless of the value of their data. This essay was cited by Ann Lally in a May 18, 2009 paper entitled [http://interactivearchivist.archivists.org/case-studies/wikipedia-at-uw/ Using Wikipedia to Highlight Digital Collections at the University of Washington] Lally described how a graduate student who was hired by the library added over two hundred links to the University of Washington Libraries Digital Collections to relevant Wikipedia articles in 2006 with three or four links to their collections from one article. Lally noted later concerns that their contributions might be considered to be spamming and discussed how to avoid that. In June 2007 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jul#Library_links_discussions lengthy discussions were held on Wikipedia pages] and your essay was a response to that. Lally considered your essay to be enormously helpful.

{{quote|There have been several cases of universities, libraries, musea and other archives (from here referred to as 'archives') where the main (or only) contributions of the (single purpose) accounts have been the addition of external links. Often only in external links sections, sometimes as references (but without adding actual content). An increasing number of these link additions are addressed as spam. Though the links as such are not spam in the classical sense of the word, the link additions are un-solicited (see spam). Even while these links are as such OK (they provide reliable information, often from respected organisations), the way they are added is not, and they are not necessarily appropriate (even if they are on-topic). Often the accounts in this discussion have a conflict of interest, and thatshould be addressed. It must be said here, these editors are welcome. They are all specialists, and have a lot of data available that can enhance this encyclopedia. Often these accounts are 'new' (that is, they have not been doing anything else and have not been addressed about the fact that their link additions may be in violation of (some of the) policies and guidelines.) This document tries to summarise why these link additions can be addressed as 'spamming', and why the actions of these accounts may be worth considering.|Dirk Beetstra}}

Wikipedia administrator User:DGG commented on the Lally article and endorsed your view, acknowledging it was a personal view. He too dealt with "cases of these large scale link additions by libraries, publishers, and other organizations, most well-intentioned, but often disruptive." In his own [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG talk page] he described his frustration with spammers whose "activities are a serious danger to the integrity of any good site like ours. We have our methods for detecting and dealing with them. The most effective way is to block access to their web sites, by preventing links to known spam sites from appearing in Wikipedia. This is a partially automated procedure, carried out at several different levels, both at enWP and cooperatively by the different WPs.... This has led to a practice of blocking on any reasonable suspicion. Alas, anyone who deals with this much of the time will soon become over-suspicious, baning well-intentioned people and blocking good links. It's an inevitable side-effect of policing work. This applies equally to commercial and non-commercial sites. I find the commercial ones easier to deal with, because they tend to add even larger numbers, and get caught all the sooner. And the non-commercial spammers have a narrower line between them and the well-intentioned people."

He also noted however that "Frankly, no opportunity for teaching people how to find material should be lost--or misused. If any libraries are putting in excessive links to show themselves off, of course it is spam. But unique library resources are as appropriate to include as any other kind of resource.

That said, I agree with aboutmovies that the main link to resources should be the references. The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 7.02:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)"

In that same talk page in July 2007 Aboutmovies also agreed claiming that "a good student reading the article will click on the footnote and discover the wonder land o’ old dusty documents and microfilm available at a library near him or her. If they still object to that, well that just bears out the business argument. Otherwise adding it is SPAM and goes against much of WP:WWIN."

I understand that there is a conflict of interest in targeting wikipedia articles by a library employee for example. However, when there is a source such as a major museum, gallery or university research network that offer invaluable open access to data that is found nowhere else, it makes sense that an independent researcher like myself who has replaced most but not all print with open-source electronic libraries and digital data, can use these legitimate resources as urls in references. I enjoyed magical archival moments "wonder land o’ old dusty documents" but putting on your white gloves and dusting off the microfilm in darkened rooms is not an option for your average wikipedia reader or student in 2014.

So for now I understand that as I add content and inline citations to articles related to homelessness in Canada, and there are quite a few, I will add the references I have found thanks to Homeless Hub but I will not be able to credit them with the source and the url will remain a blank. If I add the accessdate field it will run an error message so I guess I leave that blank too. Readers of course can simply cut and paste the title in google and the url might pop up. I guess that is better than the white gloves and microfilm but it feels like a step backwards. I am still arguing for the removal of the blacklist on homelesshub.ca. However, if there is a consensus that this blacklisting serves the purpose of protecting Wikipedia from linkfarms and spammers, so be it. oceanflynn 20:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

:Thank you for your analysis and your words. Response to the 'who cares' - people who have written our policies and guidelines cared, and certain forms of linking are not in line with building an encyclopedia. Also, referencing without a working link to the content (as for example has to be done for dead-tree-only references anyway) is perfectly acceptable, as is referencing to material behind paywalls - the thing is not that one needs to be able to verify the material (if one can, that is great, of course), the point is that it has to be verifiable.

:What you should do is cite as usual, and ask for specific whitelisting for the links on homelesshub.ca that you need. Not citing the right place is wrong, that would be ignoring our core policies. I am sorry, but due to the spamming, and due to the abuse of people likely involved with homelesshub.ca, editors will have to go the extra mile and go through the whitelisting. If it is really shown that the site is of major importance and there is a large influx of whitelisting requests, then we would consider de-blacklisting more easily (but I wonder if it is going to be more than 25 links in total, of use on a good handful of pages out of the millions of each we have). That is why we have a whitelist. {{deferwhite}}. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• {{Link summary|cpu-galaxy.at}}

While I don't prefer this one as a source for old microchip technical specifications, it was the only hit that got me certain numbers for the Intel 1103 memory chip. It does appear to be a genuine microchip museum site (contact info has email and phone number in an image, probably for spambot protection), so I suspect it got blacklisted because someone started posting a bunch of corrections/citations in a short period of time and got mistaken for spam or vandalism. Featherwinglove (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• {{Link summary|iwawaterwiki.org}}

The site was apparently blacklisted in 2010 due to repeated external links by user Beddowve, who has since been banned indefinitely. The IWA Water Wiki is a useful external resource for many water related topics, and it would be useful to be able to link to it. --Tentotwo (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

:You do realize that wikis are by definition practically useless as a reference (except where it serves as a primary reference), and wikis are discouraged as external links (moreover, we are not writing a linkfarm here). Tempted to decline, and let this go through the whitelist for specific links for specific pages. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks for the quick response. Yes, wikis are generally useless as references, but not as "further reading" resources providing more in-depth information on certain topics (for example, compare the Wikipedia section Water_purification#Coagulation_and_flocculation with the corresponding entry on the IWA Water Wiki, CoagulationandFlocculationinWaterandWastewaterTreatment). I guess going through the whitelisting process for specific pages would work as well, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to keep the page blacklisted, since the excessive linking was a one-off event and offending user has been blocked.--Tentotwo (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|kavkazcenter.com}}

The main media outlet for the insurgency operating in Russia's North Caucasus region, although biased, it is a useful source of information for this obscure conflict that has very limited English language sources. Kavkaz Center is also used on numerous pages (including it's own) from before the blacklisting occured and is a source for much of the English language reporting that does occur on this conflict Gazkthul (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|thewebminer.com}}

I request for this site to be whitelisted because the suspicion of spam that it was marked more than half a year ago is very inconsistent. First of all it was marked by Reaper Eternal which is considered in wikipedia community a controversial admin. Secondly, the only page that it has been on, web scraping has changed the whole design leaving no place for additional links.

Another important reason why this site is valuable to wikipedia is that it contains essential information related to web scraping community it contains free data available on the site that is constantly updated. Yes the site offers a service of specific and large data extraction for money but the main reason why i want it whitelisted is for the free extraction tool available on it in "tools" section that are relevant for articles like Data analysis, Data clustering, Data scraping and other articles related to statistics.

Also it's a relevant source of data for statistics and academic research for special discounts that it offers.

Lastly i want to underline the spam that is made on the same subject by larger companies on the same category of topics and are neglected by the page admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhateverFloatsYourBoat93 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 March 2014‎

:First of all, Reaper Eternal has admin privileges because the community trusts him with the administrator tools. Trying to malign someone else does not help your case.

:None of the other reasons you mention is a valid reason to remove the site from the blacklist. Furthermore, we generally entertain these de-listing requests only from trusted high-volume editors.

:{{deferwhite}} to request consideration of specific links for use in specific articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

:Commment Creating a new account every few months and requesting that this site be unblocked is a waste of everyones time. I suggest you find more constructive uses of your time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|examiner.com}}
• examiner.com/article/exclusive-ex-beatle-stu-sutcliffe-s-sister-tells-why-voice-on-song-is-him
• examiner.com/article/exclusive-two-who-knew-ex-beatle-stu-sutcliffe-weigh-on-song-controversy
• examiner.com/article/new-details-add-to-debate-on-unearthed-song-by-former-beatle-stu-sutcliffe
• examiner.com/article/new-song-with-stu-sutcliffe-lyrics-premieres-on-uk-radio

Trying to add info on Stuart Sutcliffe's posthumous music, but all of examiner.com is blocked. Any particular reason?Seltaeb Eht (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

::I see no reason to unblock these links. The writer of all four articles is Steve Marinucci, a freelance music critic who runs a blog and writes for examiner.com. He has no mainstream fame; that is, he is not known as a music critic in the mainstream media. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

:::Any reason why it's blocked in the first place? I don't see why it's not reliable simply because he is not notable.Seltaeb Eht (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

::::The whole www.examiner.com site is blocked because it was being used as a reference even though the 'articles' were not subject to any editorial oversight; the writers just submitted the articles and they were published. This makes it fail the guideline at WP:Reliable sources.

::::If Marinucci was acknowledged as an industry expert then we could use his writings in any form, even blogs. An example of that is the blog of film critic Roger Ebert. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::Ok, that makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't realley know about examiner. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

::*If memory serves me correctly, Marinucci placed a few of his own links here pre-blacklisting. I could be wrong. In any case, Binksternet is on target. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not completely on target - examiner.com was not blacklisted because it was inappropriately used as a reference - it is blacklisted because it was spammed, and because it offers a pay-per-click incentive (in other words, become an examiner - write your article, scrape contents, reproduce other works, whatever and publish it on examiner.com - link it from where ever you want (and Wikipedia is a place that anyone can edit ..) and wait for someone to follow your links - every time someone follows your link and lands on your document: bingo, more money on your account). Of course, the information is getting better, examiner.com is vetting its writers more and if you really write completely useless rubbish there, your links will not be followed anyway, but the incentive is still there. That combined with the fact indeed that reliability is often questionable and that information is often available from better sources resulted in it being blanket blacklisted. Individual links can be whitelisted if they can be shown to fulfill the requirements (most importantly, reliability (written by 'an expert', e.g.) and non-replaceability (the info should not be available elsewhere)). {{deferwhite}} --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

:*Examiner isn't vetting writers any better than before. Some process as always. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

:** If memory serves me well, it was even worse - new accounts need identification (social security number), and need to submit documents that are checked for suitability (but I think once you're passed that, it is free game) - in 'the beginning' of examiner.com, there was no identity check nor 'suitability' checking. Anyway, this is still not going to be removed, documents will need to be individually vetted at the whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

::*They've always required a social. They pay and the payment is reported to the IRS. 1099's are issued for payments over a specific amount. They made a short-lived stab about 2 years ago at tightening up and rating writers based on skill. that failed. There is no editorial oversight. I know of blatant copyvios and outright theft of photos that were reported and Examiner doesn't even try to look into. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|traveloka.com}}

This website seems to be blocked due to sockpuppet spam allegation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lauriejackpot1/Archive

However it would seem that the link Traveloka was randomly included by the Sockpuppet rather than intentional spam attempt to the domain.

Traveloka is currently one of the largest online travel agents in Indonesia, if not already the largest one.

--Alfanhendro (talk) 18:32, 04 March 2014 (UTC)

:{{declined}}. No valid reason has been offered as to why de-listing this site will benefit the Wikipedia project. If a trusted, high-volume editor makes a request to de-list this site, we may reconsider. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Reason for de-listing is due to notability of the link, specially in Indonesia. Indonesia is one of the largest country in the world (with 250 million population). And Traveloka is the leading flight search engine there (Indonesia Alexa Rank 293).

The benefit of the linking Traveloka.com at id.wikipedia.org will be quite comparable to linking Kayak.com (US Alexa Rank 196) at en.wikipedia.org .

Moreover, the reason for blacklisting seems to be rather incidental than a strong reason for a continuous blacklisting.

Alternatively, since the sockpuppet spam was on en.wikipedia.org and simple.wikipedia.org, delist it for only id.wikipedia.org may also make sense.

--Alfanhendro (talk) 17:14, 05 March 2014 (UTC)

:{{declined}} again. Wikipedia is not a travel directory. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::More to the point, Traveloka is not blacklisted here. Apologies for not mentioning that earlier. {{defermetablack}}. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Link summary|encyclopediadramatica.se}}

{{Link summary|encyclopediadramatica.es}}

This isn't a spam website. There's a lot of NSFW content on there, but as we all know, Wikipedia is not censored. IMO it shouldn't be blocked. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 11:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:{{declined}} - the site was abused, and links were placed inappropriately. Moreover, linking was done to pages that should not be linked. The only use is on Encyclopædia Dramatica, and the about page (that is linked there) is sufficient as an external link. Any other use (which would be really just a couple of links) can go through the whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The URL for ED has changed to encyclopediadramatica.es. Can you please allow this URL for redirection for the site for educational purposes?? I would like a whitelist specifically for the ED page so it can go to the new URL. UmJamLam (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

:The .se about pages on .se seem still to work. If the .es is now the official site, the whitelist could be changed to allow the .es-about-page as per all the previous discussion. The home-page is blacklisted for good reasons (see my decline above). Thanks. {{deferwhite}}. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|pincodeofindia.com}}

Check the site. site is clear with content but some one has submitted it to lot of time in Postal Index Number Page of Wiki. Hence it listed in Spam Black List. But site was genuine and clear

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.38.147 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2014‎ (UTC)

:"some one has submitted it to lot of time in Postal Index Number Page of Wiki" - that is exactly the reason it was blacklisted. The site may be valuable to many people, but it is of no encyclopedic interest to Wikipedia. I see no need why this should be delisted. {{declined}}. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Link summary|giftbig.com}}

This is not a spam website. Its a legitimate website selling gift cards and vouchers in India. Reading the user logs detailing the addition to blacklist, we find that somebody tried to insert spam links into wiki pages. Such abuse has stopped since September 2012. Please see the link for details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2012

This site is useful for comparing the gift cards and gift vouchers available from 100+ brands in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mani Mittal (talk • contribs) 08:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

:The abuse stopped because the site has been blacklisted. Furtheremore, there is no legitimate reason to allow linking to this site. Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of letting people compare gift cards and vouchers. Finally, if a trusted, high-volume editor requested de-listing of this site, we'd consider it more seriously. Until that happens, this request is {{declined}}. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Link summary|zunzun.com}}

Online Curve Fitting and Surface Fitting Web Site : zunzun.com. This isn't a spam website. It can be used in pages about interpolation. --Adam majewski (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:A few links:

:*Log entry of addition

:*Previous removal request

:Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::And why do you think that the edit-warring abuse that got the site blacklisted won't resume? Have you read the cases linked in the logfile? The usefulness or relevance of a site has no bearing on whether the site stays in the blacklist. Past behavior is all that matters, and it happens that past behavior related to this site was quite disruptive. {{deferwhite}} for consideration of specific links that may be useful in certain articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Thx for the answer. I'm not the expert in spam area. I have used that page and I have no spam up to now. Maybe something has changed ? Could you explain me the problem with that page in simple words. TIA. --Adam majewski (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::In simple words: Links to zunzun.com were repeatedly added to Wikipedia articles where it was not appropriate, for the apparent purpose of increasing the link count for search engine optimization purposes. Wikipedia is not to be used for publicity, ever. That's spamming. If it's only one or two users spamming the links, they can be blocked and the site doesn't need blacklisting. In this case, however, many anonymous IP addresses were spamming the links, and because playing whack-a-mole is an exercise in futility, the site was blacklisted to prevent further abuse of the Wikipedia project. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Link summary|kavkazcenter.com}}

{{/request|0#kavkazcenter.com}}

I understand this has a POV, but all the pages ive seen it on (and I edit political articles), it is used to cite what comes out of the horse's mouth, NOT the gospel fact. At any rate, it is also just the same non-state media as in the other state-owened medias that have their own POVs and are listed here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2011#kavkazcenter.com the block reasoning] has no indication of its abuse. It merely implies WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but WP doesn't take sides. AND , incindentally, an ][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.168.101.210 IP with no other edits reported it]Lihaas (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

:This has been discussed numerous times on the reliable sources noticeboard, and from e.g. this discussion, several notice that this is not a reliable source (and examples for that are given). This has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this site should simply only be used with extreme care. I would strongly suggest that this should be handled on a case-by-case basis, hence {{deferwhite}}. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

:(edit conflict) The blacklisting decision wasn't made on the basis of one complaint and one RSN report. This site has been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard several times, and deemed unreliable each time:

:*Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 23#Kavkaz Center - a reliable source?

:*Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 25#Inappropriate links and non-reliable sources

:*Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58#KavkazCenter

:*Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 70#Kavkazcenter !

:*Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 90#Kavkaz Center (everyone can help!)

:Given the history of past discussions and the fact that the site doesn't have much use beyond promoting a POV, it was deemed to add no value to the project and blacklisted. As Beetstra said, {{deferwhite}} to have individual links considered on a case-by-case basis. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not all sources of questionable reliability should be included in blacklist. There is large number of reliable sources, including numerous books, which make a reference to kavkaz.org - without trusting this source too much. So can we. Please remove it from blacklist! My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• No, sources that get abused are included in the spam blacklist, what other sites and books do is not our business, but here it was found that this was too often unsuitably used, and that led to that this needed to be controlled. This is exactly what we have a whitelist for. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|google.com}}

This has apparently been added because it was believed that such links are invariably copied-and-pasted from the url of Google search results. However, this is not the case, because I have created a custom search engine which I can't link to, apparently because its url begins with google.com/. See User:Jinkinson/RSST, where I have added the url but not linked it to get around the blacklist. Since NewsAndEventsGuy considers this "gaming the system", I have come here to ask that this very broad listing be removed, or at least that an exception be added for urls starting with google.com/cse/. Jinkinson talk to me 20:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

:No, the /cse part was used to create search engines to deliver just the result the SEO wanted. Since there is only limited use, that specific part of Google was blacklisted. We are aware that there are specific custom made search engines used on Wikipedia, and that is what we have a whitelist for. {{Deferwhite}} for the specific search engine you want to use. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• {{LinkSummary|Engineers-Excel.com}}

This site was blacklisted due to it being percieved as being a spammer site though that is not the case. Request it to be removed from the blacklist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.232.187.122 (talk • contribs)

:No, the site was being blacklisted because it was being spammed, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2009#engineers-excel.com. How is this of use to Wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - is there anything that can be done to get it removed? -Nitin Mehta— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.232.187.122 (talk)

: No. {{declined}} again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That's disappointing ...it's like lifelong punishment!! No probs anyway.

PS - your profile page is amusing :) @Ohnoitsjamie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.232.187.122 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Link summary|bimeanalytics.com}}

Hi there, I wonder if this link can be removed from the blacklist ? I see in a past discussion that apparently it wasn't notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia thus was considered as spam. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia today now that this company has numerous recognition appearances in the press (Forbes, GigaOM, Techcrunch, etc.). Thanks

--User:Nephelai13 ^{T C} 15:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

:{{not done}} Lack of notability is not the reason the site was added to the blacklist, but rather repeat attempts to spam wikipedia with it. If the topic becomes notable, you can make a whitelisting suggestion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =