MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2015

=Proposed additions=

powerstuffs.com
A new site that has been popping up all over india media related articles by a range of IP spammers. Primarily the site consists of postings of copyright lyrics and film clips.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . MER-C 11:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

prolevelweightloss.com
IPs come from India and the same IP Block. Spamming the above URL. Avono (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They are assigned to a Bangladesh ISP. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Other IP addresses: Before I found those two (assigned to Teletalk Bangladesh Ltd.), I blocked the IP range 119.30.32.0/20 for 1 month. Aunup522 has been indef blocked. Please update this report if the problem resumes. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC) MER-C 12:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note please, who is in the same range as an already blocked IP, and tried to delete this section. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 103.230.104.0/22 has also been blocked for 1 month. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ from meta. &mdash; Revi 13:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

allinexporters.com



 * Spammers

This sockmaster and socks are changing good refs to links to this website. Ugly linkspam. Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Turned out to be part of a big nest of spammers, see Sockpuppet_investigations/Communiondresses Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

paincenterny.com



 * Spammers


 * Part of a big nest of spammers, see Sockpuppet_investigations/Communiondresses Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

mygirldress.com





 * Part of a big nest of spammers, see Sockpuppet_investigations/Communiondresses Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

encirca.com





 * Repeated addition of spam link to an individual domain registrar to WebManTools and to various Internet top-level domain registry articles, ongoing since December 2013. K7L (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Warned spam4im. Let me know if they spam again and I will knock out that IP address for a year. MER-C 12:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing since that warning. MER-C 12:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

pillshop.tk





 * all IP's edits are adding spamlink. Please add to spamlist.  I have requested block of IP as a vandal at WP:AIV.  thx Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Site is displaying an "under construction" page, single IP, no spam added since report. . MER-C 12:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

sgs.com

 * There have been numerous single purpose accounts over many years adding spam links to this domain. (Some of the accounts have also made other spam edits relating to the same company, and several of them have clearly indicated that they work for SGS.) 8 accounts are listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Sep 1, and another 25 at Sockpuppet investigations/Vicky4567, but it very likely that those are not all the accounts. Links include www.ee.sgs.com, newsletter.sgs.com, www.foodsafety.sgs.com, www.sustainability.sgs.com, www.lng.sgs.com and others.


 * Here is a small sample of edits by single purpose accounts, all adding spam links to sgs.com, ranging from December 2007 to November 2014:                . The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * MER-C 01:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

bilgiozetim.com, ozguncel.com


Links to these domains are being added by a number of IP editors. This may not be an exhaustive list.

As the websites are in Turkish I am not entirely sure what the content is, but the nature of the edits and the overall design of the linked pages make it clear that these are spam. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There's also spamming on the Turkish Wikipedia. MER-C 13:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, and  have been blocked for repeatedly blanking this section.  Their argument is "bilgiozetim.com and ozguncel.com is not spam but adding spam sites. can some one fix thats problem?" and "thats pages personal blog not spam". I'm not sure what that is intended to mean, but thought their comments should be here.  Deli nk (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another one doing the same today: Deli nk (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

thepiratebay.cr & thepiratebay.cba.pl






    

The Piratebay was shutdown after a raid in December. Now SPAs are trying to change the link in the infobox to the one of the many mirror websites. This is dangerous as they could be used to spread malware as explained in this article. The second link is also hidden under a pay wall. Avono (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * and another one here Avono (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * and another one Avono (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this is pushed hard, and one was already cross-wiki, I have given both of these the honour of being blacklisted globally. ✅.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

celebheightweight.com


Bunch of accounts popping up just the last day spamming this domain. Seems to spam it three times and then jumps on to a new account. The ones I caught so far are:



As well as this older account:



Nymf (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * MER-C 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

edupdf.org
Domains:

Spammers:

The following IPs have already been blocked:

I've gone through and removed all links to the domain that I could find, as they all looked like copyvios.

IPs have been adding links to superficially helpful-appearing documents under the edupdf.org domain. The site doesn't even claim it has the rights to host these documents. All links redirect to documents hosted on chester250.org. The site has many pop-ups, and is aggressive about signing up users. Documents linked to in article are on a wide range of topics, and are added in spurts, which suggest this is deliberate.

Examples: Link to a 4th grade class syllabus at Fauna of Saskatchewan, Coral reef ecology at There's No Place Like Home (an episode of Lost the TV show), a government brochure which is just info from the the official site already linked, etc. With the possible exception of some of the government info, every single example I found, even the links that might otherwise have some value, were clear WP:ELNEVER copyvios.

The "PDFs" look like they're just crawled websites, or directly copied from other sites. Many of the documents, like the one added in this edit, include links to where the actual content came from.

Many links misrepresented the target, as well, implying that the link was to an official website, instead of just a document hosted on a commercial site. Gross. Grayfell (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Found it necessary to remove the 'added' diff. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Found it necessary to remove the 'added' diff. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Persianfootball.com

 * links:


 * users:

This editor, who is currently blocked for two weeks for other infractions, has been spamming this url on article talk pages.

I asked the sysop who applied the most recent blocks what to do about this, and he suggested that one of the courses of action I might consider would be to ask for it to be added to the spam list.

This editor has simply littered talk pages w/the url. He will not listen to others -- he reverted Walter Görlitz who pointed to NOTAFORUM in deleting this editor's addition. See, e.g., here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.Epeefleche (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor concerned has not edited for 8 months and had ceased the behavior before apparent retirement. This domain should also be cleared before listing. . MER-C 13:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Viejaiglesiacatolicaromanaritolatino Wordpress site
Constantly being added to articles about Catholic churches and rites, either in the external links section or, more recently, at the very top of the article. Also added to category and category talk pages.

For example, see contributions of:



... disco spinster   talk  21:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped., also currently handled by XLinkBot. MER-C 12:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

microsoft-cortana.com
This website is constantly put in Microsoft Cortana article but is not registered to Microsoft. It is registered to an ISP in Istanbul, Turkey. Curiously, one of the persons who keep adding it, 92.44.220.141, is also from Istanbul, Turkey. Comodo Internet Security triggered a security alert while I was visiting this website.

Conclusion: High possibility of malware website being advertised in Wikipedia.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * & Can we get these blacklisted? Werieth (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Domain is dead. MER-C 12:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

PeterCapaldi.info


Added by various IPs. most recently. It forwards to a Facebook fan community page. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town  ‖ 01:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything in the DB so . MER-C 12:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the last month. . MER-C 12:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - see - this is a redirect URL, used solely to bypass existing blacklist on other redirect URLs that point to this same Facebook page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

www.robertankony.com


Robert Ankony has admitted that he is ICEMANWCS here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icemanwcs&oldid=641703720#External_links He has also edit under a few different IP's such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/70.123.198.250&offset=&limit=500&target=70.123.198.250 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.43.253.90. He has almost exclusively edited articles where he has inserted references, external links, and further reading references to his website, Vietnam Magazine and books he has written. It is clear he is using Wikipedia mostly as means to promote his own self interests. He violates many Wikipedia guidelines in doing so which include spamming, original research, and conflict of interest. I have placed a warning on his page as well as he promoted his website, books, magazine and self interests through Wikipedia for almost two years.208.54.38.255 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See also the discussions at User talk:Icemanwcs, User talk:208.54.38.255, User talk:Rezin, Talk:Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam, User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2013/May, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Archive 5. Rezin (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also of note is his great increase in the misuse of Wikipedia through references and external links to spam to his website since then. Some appear as useful contributions ( how to know for sure?) while many are unhelpful and designed to promote his website and books. 172.56.8.192 (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this the same user? In any case, I'd recommend against blacklisting the site. Now that I know more about it I might like to add it or re-add it to some appropriate articles. The webmaster/writer is a published author, a Ph.D., who is contributing within his fields of expertise. He may have been over-enthusiastic about linking to his website, etc, but that doesn't negate its value entirely. Rezin (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That a link is added with a coi is not necessarily disqualifying the link itself. However, this editor seems to have edited in violation of our Terms of use, and I would suggest that his edits are cleaned properly (leave the neutral stuff, remove the rest), and that where the links are suitable to draw information from, they are independently, and neutrally re-added by s.o. else (and preferably not plainly reverted back in).  Blacklisting at this time  (unless we see persistence in inappropriate promotion/spamming after a stern warning).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Currently in the process of doing that with much resistance from Rezin who thinks adding one or two sentences which add little to content in order to spam many article justifies keeping the Spam. Robert Ankony has spammed dozens of articles to increase his web presence by misusing Wikipedia for self serving purposes. Rezin also fails to see that Ankony is quoting himself which is also Original research and definitively a conflict of interest editing. Past editors have advised Ankony against this practice but Ankony actually greatly increased his spamming since being advised not to use himself as a source. Ankony clearly has access to secondary sources but almost exclusively spams articles with links to his website, books and articles. I would also say his account is pretty much a single purpose account WP:SPA for promoting his own website, books, and articles. 172.56.9.67 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Further evidence of long history of link spamming by User Talk:Icemanwcs over several months

 * 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crime_in_Detroit&diff=631473703&oldid=631093159
 * 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Combat_stress_reaction&diff=631474882&oldid=631095801
 * 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blog&diff=631673383&oldid=631580584
 * 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-distance_running&diff=631472792&oldid=631434439
 * 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_officer&diff=631473132&oldid=631429760
 * 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drowning&diff=631673322&oldid=631581214
 * 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1967_Detroit_riot&diff=631473783&oldid=631463134
 * 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Firearm&diff=prev&oldid=631017948
 * 9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Small_arms&diff=613292974&oldid=613242022 (17 June 2014)
 * 10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Small_arms&diff=631093900&oldid=630973090 (and again 24 Oct 2014 on same article)
 * 11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M50_Reising&diff=631473979&oldid=630749518 (he also peppered the article with references that link to himself)
 * 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dong_Re_Lao_Mountain&action=historysubmit&diff=642581998&oldid=584768417
 * 13. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helicopter&action=historysubmit&diff=630759046&oldid=630747648

Some of the Warnings about Spamming articles and using himself as a primary source over an extended period
172.56.9.67 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icemanwcs&oldid=628820848#Recent_Additions
 * 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icemanwcs&oldid=628820848#June_2014

It appears that every article he has edited recently (maybe longer) has link spam to his own website, books and articles solely added by himself. 172.56.9.67 (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If this series of edits to Running is an example of his choice of references (an opinion piece in a newspaper), adding it in every possible place and then also in the external links section, then there is only one response possible: clear out everything and consider a considered re-addition by an uninvolved editor. I guess a final warning to the editor about adding links to this website is appropriate as well (if not an immediate block for violating terms of use, spamming/promotion). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Robert Ankony also spammed articles with this IP as well for almost 2 years. All the articles are the same category that he has edited and he appears as the only user of the IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.43.253.90 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to some conversation with Robert Ankony on his talk page and RSN board: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icemanwcs&oldid=642808013#External_links and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=642807195#Robert_Ankony.2C_various_articles


 * Please note, I admitted on another page that my reference in Running was an error in judgment but the paragraph on that page was asking for a citation and I thought my contribution was a starting point. I recognize that was a poor decision, however, I do hope other editors recognize the work that I have contributed over the years to Wikipedia in the fields of Criminology, Military History, and Firearms. Thank you,Icemanwcs (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think my response offered on another page can be helpful here: (talk) It appears you removed all references from years of work yet you left all of my text on the pages. Another editor addressed if a reference can be cited by one person it can be cited by anyone. The question is are my references reliable. Rezin and another editor thought they were. You took the position that because it is my work they must be removed because it is "self-promoting spamming." On the Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol page you stated I have been "spamming the snot out of the page." That's very unfortunate. I put a lot of work into that page and as mentioned have spent ten years researching LURPS. A book that was Nominated for the Army Historical Foundation's Distinguish Writing Award in 2006 and 2009. LURPS was also favorably reviewed by Dr. Erik Villard, US Army Center of Military History, Washington, D.C. And Jason Foster of Vietnam magazine wrote that "LURPS is among the best war diaries available." Vietnam magazine also published some of my work as their cover story "No Peace in the Valley" Oct. 2008. That magazines such as Vietnam or Small Arms of the World are not scholarly is true but they are authoritative sources in their field. Does a source have to be as notable as the New England Journal of Medicine to be referenced on Wikipedia. I think not--but if so why did you remove Policing: An Internal Journal of Police Science and Management? The other issue is the links to my website. I acknowledge this can appear self-serving but it is not for that purpose. Review my website, especially LURPS Gallery it presents a unique contribution to the history of the Vietnam War. It's an archive of photos and scholarly captions that have been complied over many years. Many of the photos are not appropriate for Wikipedia but they show 1968, the most pivotal year of the war. It also depicts the biggest battle of the war, the Tet Offensive, as well as the second largest battle of the war, the Siege of the Marine combat base at Khe Sanh. In addition, it shows the First Air Cavalry Division's assault into A Shau Valley--the most formidable enemy-held territory in South Vietnam. Yes, I served in each of these battles and spent much of my life writing about them because I owe that to the men I served with and to all who died. Please read the work that the links were connected to and see if you still think it is self-promoting. Read "No Peace in the Valley" Oct. 2008, it's on my website. I don't even mention I was there in the article, yet I was. I only use my references or at times direct readers to my website if it adds more relevant detail. I'm sorry you determined that because I researched and wrote articles you believe all my work is self-serving. I consider it an honor to have served with the men I did, both in the military and in law enforcement. I was fortunate that I had the chance to move on in life from a GED to a PhD. Perhaps you should also take a look at the link you removed from Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) about Sgt. Douglas Parkinson titled "Team Leader and Mentor." Doug was a giant in Company E and once said, "Bob get the story out and let people know what happened in Vietnam, or the men we lost will just disappear." I hope you repost the references and links and I will give them an editing which you can review. Thank you,Icemanwcs (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Icemanwcs you are missing the boat. We would not be here if you had not link spammed your website all over many articles. The running article you keep falling back to is one of many and a link spam expert has joined in removing the self promoting link spam you put into so many articles I do not want to even try counting them. No one said "all your work is self serving", it is your link spam that is self promoting and the consensus has been that you have done that. Even your defender Rezin acknowledged issues with your editing "behavior". See WP:NOT and it is clear Wikipedia is not here for promoting outside websites which is obvious by reviewing your edit contributions. Maybe you are unaware of all the ways editors can be reviewed and do not understand every edit you have made is in your history. Maybe you are trying to game the system WP:GAMING. All I see is your actions. I encourage to become very familiar with the link spam guidelines and reliable sources as well. I believe you have a great deal of knowledge to add but it must be done according to the guidelines. Just like being in the military has its own subset culture so does Wikipedia albeit somewhat dysfunctional. Based on your training I am sure that is understandable. Sorry it after seems like I am stepping on your Johnson but I am asking no more from you than I would from myself or any other editor. And I appreciate your many years of service and do not be surprised if I got your back when later when you follow the editing guidelines. Semper Fi 208.54.38.226 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * talk I just noticed this posting after another editor talk recently made a comment on the "Editing Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard (section)." No need to apologize for stepping on anything because I'm man enough to acknowledge my mistakes and man enough to defend what I believe is right. My world isn't shattered because of helpful criticism, it's empowered. Thanks for your help and blunt honesty,Icemanwcs (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * based on the above. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rezin talk talk talk GuyI would like to prudently add the link “Photographic history of 1st Cav LRRP/Rangers in Vietnam 1968” to the following three sites: Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP); LRRP; and 75th Ranger Regiment. The site provides a unique, scholarly account of the LRRP/Rangers in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive (the biggest battle of the war), the Battle of Khe Sanh (the second largest battle of the war), and the air assault into A Shau Valley (the most formidable enemy-held territory in South Vietnam). 1968 was the peak year of the war and today’s Rangers' history links back to the LRRP/Rangers of the Vietnam War. Incidentally, the 1st Air Cavalry Division was the first army division to arrive in Vietnam, and its company of LRRP/Rangers, Company E/H Company (Ranger) lost the last two Rangers of that war. The link Photographic history of 1st Cav LRRP/Rangers in Vietnam 1968 can be view on my Lurps Gallery and would be very relevant to those specific pages. I greatly apologize that some of my work appeared as self-promotional in the past. It was never my intention but reflected an over eagerness to get information out. Respectfully,Icemanwcs (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

usmagazine.us


All "source" the other's bullshit stories about celebrity deaths and the like. Caused some annoyance at Brian Bonsall and Wayne Knight today, pretty clear that's all they're good for. Trying to be sneaky by naming like actual rags. Internet people can and will be fooled. Best to preempt them. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * & Can we get these blacklisted?


 * Comment: All four of those are already blocked by either Comcast or Malwarebytes (that's my deduction given that all four return, for me, blank white pages in different browsers)--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌, sites appear to be dead. Nakon  03:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

www.500everyday.com


Persistent spamming. --TL22 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

- user blocked indef. --TL2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 20:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

bible-history.com


My attention was first drawn to this by the site being spammed into ELs of 4 articles by the IP. I checked its usage and it is used in 170 articles, so before listing here, I posted at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Consensus there is that this site is not appropriate for use in WP, per WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:FORK,  WP:CIRCULAR,  WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK. Please put on the blacklist. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

jude113.wix.com


The IP was recently blocked for "vandalism" (note that reason should have been "adding spam links"), though it is likely that the IP will continue spamming the link after the block expires, so I recommend blacklisting the link to prevent further disruption. Note: Link additions were just links to watch the movies free, which is unlegitimate and Wikipedia is not a link depository. --<b style="color: red">Toon</b><b style="color: blue">Lucas</b><b style="color: red">22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 23:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The block has done the trick it seems, with nothing in the last week. . MER-C 12:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

watchersonthewall.com


A fan website about the popular TV series Game of Thrones, being spammed by one long-term block-evading sockpuppeteer across related articles, notably as references for BLP content in violation of WP:BLP, presumably to promote the website. See generally and Sockpuppet investigations/Piandme/Archive, for recent spamming see the edits of the most recent sock.  Sandstein  23:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , but this needs to be cleared as well. MER-C 12:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

creative-biolabs.com


Websites of company that sells research reagents, getting spammed into various articles about biology by the above IP and others. Jytdog (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)




 * MER-C 12:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thetelemedicinedirectory.com
one spammer, spamming two links into telemedicine articles. Seeking block for spammer here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- activity insufficient for blacklisting. MER-C 11:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

deafcounseling.com


The 74' address added this spamlink to several articles, which i removed. The 71' just started adding them back today. Please put on the spamlist. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * more efforts to do the same today, by same IP addresses. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. -- next step is spam4im (optional), then block. MER-C 12:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

bulkingbro.com


New user adding this link to several articles. Not a source for encyclopedic content. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Blacklist removal request:

The user who added this site to the blacklist stated that it is because it is 'Not a source for encyclopedic content'. Wikipedia states, that "the bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped". So stating that they are blacklisted due to non encyclopedic content is incorrect here.

Furthermore, wikipedia says that Blacklisting a URL is a "last resort for spammers", which is not the case here, I am a new user who had a poor understanding of policy and can now see how my contributions could have been seen as spammy. I was not alerted to my wrongdoings till URLs cited were blacklisted.

Consequently, I have shown that the URLs were cited in goodwill and no more unreliable sources will be used, since I have a better understanding as the wikipedia user who submitted these sites. The most that should occur is that wikipedia users should simply reject these URLs as unreliable if cited in the future, thus, listing them in the blacklist is extreme for these sites with no history of abuse by a user with clearly little knowledge of the process, and certainly not the actions of a mass spammer.

Thankyou Thesib12 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - editor above has made no more edits since adding the spam links and then protesting here. Probably an amateur spammer who stepped in it; probably WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * -- activity insufficient for blacklisting, nothing in last month. MER-C 12:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

naturalandhealthyliving.com


New user adding this link to several articles. Not a source for encyclopedic content. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Blacklist removal

The user who added this site to the blacklist stated that it is because it is 'Not a source for encyclopedic content'. Wikipedia states, that "the bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped". So stating that they are blacklisted due to non encyclopedic content is incorrect here.

Furthermore, wikipedia says that Blacklisting a URL is a "last resort for spammers", which is not the case here, I am a new user who had an admittedly poor understanding of policy, cited a few links in haste, and can now see how my contributions could have been seen as spammy. I was not alerted to my wrongdoings till URLs cited were blacklisted.

Consequently, I have shown that the URLs were cited in goodwill and no more unreliable sources will be used, since I now have a better understanding as the wikipedia user who submitted these sites. The suspected abuse will not continue and I am now well aware of how to cite effectively. The most that should occur is that wikipedia users should simply reject these URLs as unreliable if cited in the future, thus, listing them in the blacklist is extreme for these sites with no history of abuse by a user with clearly little knowledge of the process, and certainly not the actions of a mass spammer. I look forward to being a better member of the WP community.

Thank you Thesib12 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * fwiw, The sites are not appropriate for WP and the blacklist is appropriate to ensure other editors don't spam them. They are very similar to other blacklisted sites - namely commercial websites that exist to sell stuff.  Not reliable sources of content. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There are many websites that are not reliable sources on wikipedia, one of which I informed you about, but that does not mean they are on the blacklist, simply rejected/changed if referred to in the future, blacklisting a URL is a last resort for serious 'spammers' - I would appreciate if an admin could take a look at this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesib12 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - editor above has made no more edits since adding the spam links and then protesting here. Probably an amateur spammer who stepped in it; probably WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

-- activity insufficient for blacklisting, nothing in last month. MER-C 12:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

juderequiz

 * has been spammed to various articles by two different new users with no other edits but to spam it about.   Its unlikely they'll stop making new accounts and spamming that about, they already adding it back in to articles it was removed from repeatidly.   D r e a m Focus  23:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * also


 * , I've blacklisted both domains and ran a CU on the original spammers to look for sleepers. They are socks, but I don't see any others sleepers at the moment. -- Versa geek  23:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

classicistranieri.com
All are added by IPs which geolocate to the Abruzzo region of Italy and who make no other additions to articles apart from adding links to this site. The links often go to recordings which are claimed to be licensed under creative commons but many are copyright infringements, in the US at least. Others go to mirrors of pages on Project Gutenberg. The site is full of ads and contains almost nothing that cannot be legitimately found on archive.org, Project Gutenberg, WikiSource, or Commons which are the original sources for the classicistranieri.com content. Voceditenore (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ... MER-C 01:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

newest-cars.com


This user and the IP are beginning to spam in this website to a few car articles; sometimes they're replacing other references with it, other times they're trying to embed it into the main text. Warning the user just seems to have pushed them onto the IP. Website describes itself as a blog, and doesn't appear to name its authors, so it isn't reliable. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 10:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Only those two users, and nothing in the last two months => activity insufficient for blacklisting. . MER-C 12:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

=Proposed removals=

esybuy.com is no more spam
esybuy.com is no more spam. Domain owner is changed & currently the domain is used by UAE online Shopping portal which is not doing any spam activities. But due to spamming activities of first domain owner the domain name is still in spam. Please follow the below links for more information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive637

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2010

I would request the wikipedia admins remove the domain name esybuy.com from the spam list as soon as possible.

Asohailsk (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that would ever be a valid reference anyway, myself, so I don't see why it should be removed. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * due to an undisclosed conflict of interest. MER-C 12:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked this user for violating the Terms of Service. MER-C 13:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Youtube


I'd suggest this, but I'm sure this has been rejected ten million times before. So, I won't bother properly justifying this request, other than to say that I find this spam blanket ban of five billion-or-whatever-it-is-now videos on the world's largest and most-significant video hosting website nothing short of a colossal misjudgement. At the very least a whitelist might be a good idea (or, if there is one, have that wall-of-text error message I received after my edit mention how to submit to the whitelist WHILE retaining the edit in a holding pattern). Tracing back my IP to the Talk-page edit of Choi Siwon will provide details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:41CD:3800:FCE3:AE21:5DCC:8ABC (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Using the full url ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=something ) should work. . MER-C 03:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Identify.whatbird.com
It gives a lot of useful information on birds. As a normal editor without any deep Wikipedia knowledge, I do not understand why the link is banned.--Michael (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They were blacklisted because they were engaging in paid spamming, advertising on freelancer.com (formerly rentacoder.com) to pay people to spam their links to Wikipedia. They got blacklisted for that, and will remain so. Usefulness or convenience is not a reason to remove a site from a blacklist.
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Feb 2
 * to request white-listing of a specific link for use as a reference on a specific page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

hubpages.com
This website give good articles that come from scholarly sources. I have verified that many of these articles have information that is accurate. I am unsure why this website has been blacklisted, but it would seem that someone may have found something that I have not. Please take a look at the information that is presented on this webpage and make a more educated decision on whether this site should be blacklised or not.
 * This sites offers spam incentives, is basically self-published information, and since it got spammed on Wikipedia, it got blacklisted. There may indeed be good info on this site here and there, but that is why we have a whitelist to allow for specific cases which are really needed: .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

bookielist.com
I tried to add reference to William Hill (bookmaker) with http://bookielist.com/bookmaker-review-william-hill and found out that it was blacklisted. The same got banned from Wikipedia, reason given was: # Reaper Eternal # Sockpuppet investigations/Xbajs00. The link is a review to the article previously stated. --Karlhard (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You want one link, I guess that a better place to ask is on the whitelist for that one link - if there are sockpuppets involved, then there is likely a good reason to block the site. .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

syriadirect.org
syriadirect.org is a valid site. It's blocked due to the fact that adirect.org is blacklisted. Someone has to fix the regex not to be that greedy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is 'adirect.org' blacklisted here? And what is the reason for that rule to be so greedy (if it is that there was a lot of XXXXadirect.org spam, and this is one of the few, if not the only, cases where a legitimate link of use for Wikipedia is caught by that, then I would suggest to ; otherwise, add a \b).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, this rule is one meta, part of a more complex rule added, quite some time ago, because of some large-scale abuse. I'll whitelist this one.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

mappery.com
I was trying to add a link to http://www.mappery.com/map-of/Cambodian-National-Road-Map-also-Index-to-Provience-Road-Maps in a reference citation for National Highway 2 (Cambodia) and of course discovered mappery.com is black listed. I'm just wondering why it is black listed. Granted, it's probably not the most reliable of sources, but the map is legit. Is it because maps can be uploaded by users in violation of copyright? That's the only thing I could think of right off hand. I don't want to link the image (obviously), I just want to use the map as a reference for the route of the highway as I haven't been able to find anything better.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As to be expected, it was pushed in 2007, and then again spammed (as in unsollicited additions throughout Wikipedia) during 2009 at which point it got blacklisted (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam/2009 Archive Jan 1. Reliability is at most a factor ('it gets spammed and it is not reliable anyway'), and copyright violations should be throughout the site or a major, major issue with a site for it to become blacklisted.  If you really need this (really not replaceable), I would suggest to ask for whitelisting of this specific link  - though the issue is now 5 years back, we could try to de-list it (if you think it is of reasonable/general use to Wikipedia as a link/reference - note, I don't think it is, in 5 years hardly anyone bothered to ask for whitelisting: 2 requests in 2010 only, both declined).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

thequotes.net
I was trying to include the link from this site for a wiki page of Sam Pitroda. But it seems this site is blacklisted by wikipedia. I am not seeing any other website with better reference for the Sam Pitroda Quotes than this site. If it is not safe to unlist the entire domain the specific page ( /2014/03/sam-pitroda-quotes/) can be removed from the blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.208.229 (talk • contribs)
 * This was recently spammed by the holding company, using a large range of IPs and quite some domains. Also, this is not blacklisted here.  Please request whitelisting,, here (and for meta) delisting .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

manning.com


I've been approached by an employee of Manning Publications to ask for the publisher to be removed from the local blacklist. I myself am not an employee, but I have done some freelance editing work for Manning and continue to do so, and I'm a member of the Wikipedia Guild of Copyeditors.

Familiarization

I acquainted myself with the facts and sent an email back, including the following:

'It was perceived in June 2012 that a user who had received two warnings on their Talk page for spam in June 2011 was using unnamed accounts (IP address only) to post similar external links onto Wikipedia articles in subsequent months. The final item, for example, on the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=499832796#Long_term_book_seller_spam refers to User: 70.48.80.91 and a click on its contribs link shows two contributions only, both on the 27 June 2012. Clicking through to one of the pages contributed to by 70.48.80.91, Activiti (Software), on the View History tab shows that on 29 June 2012, the edit was reverted by User: Hu12 because it was 'not added to verify content.' That same day, Hu12 placed manning,com on the blacklist.

'The immediate reason for blacklisting, as far as I can see, was sockpuppetry. This is a Wikipedia term for when a user creates a number of accounts which purport to be from different users but are in fact from the same person. I have no idea whether it was User: Candace Gilhoolley who was posting links to manning.com as User: 70.48.80.91 on 29 June 2012, but Hu12 assumed that it was and manning,com was blacklisted.

'My suggestion is that Manning creates a single user account and becomes a more balanced contributor to Wikipedia; and in particular, all contributions go through this account. Some links to manning.com pages will be genuinely useful to Wikipedia visitors; explain so when this is the case, in the revision note to the update. If Wikipedia has only a single user to deal with, even where there is a problem, it is more likely that the user will be blocked than that the site the user is linking to will be blacklisted. That was why manning.com was not blacklisted in June 2011, because there was a channel of communication open, via your talk page. Sockpuppetry is much harder to deal with, hence the blacklist.'

How can the site be useful?

Links to a manning.com web page can be useful for verifying the facts in an article because Manning has an Early Access Program (MEAP) where current topics in the field of computer programming, and particularly web-related and data-related topics, are available in PDF format, with some draft chapters freely downloadable, along with illustrative source code.

Why it should no longer be blacklisted

I closed my email to this employee: 'Don't forget, the best way of advertising Manning Publications is to reference Manning texts in the main body of an article. Manning has a wealth of information in its published corpus, and information-packed sentences supported by reference to a Manning text, published or in MEAP, is surely the best advertising there is. After all, everybody knows how to copy/paste into Amazon's search box.

'I'll be happy to write a request for removing manning.com from Wikipedia's blacklist, but I will have to say that the reason for the blacklisting is now fully understood by those involved and that they will give assurances that they now understand Wikipedia a little better and are keen to become good Wikipedia citizens, along with all the good things I can say about Manning, reputable publisher, etc.'

The reply I received, and reproduce here with the permission of the Manning employee concerned, ended with the following:

'We are also interested in being a more balance user and have been providing some more links over this past month that enhance the existing documentation in the primary sections of articles. I also fully agree with the statement that we know what we did wrong and that we understand Wikipedia a little better and are keen to become good Wikipedia citizens.

'We have also asked our authors to add to wikipedia and have distributed these guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles '

Richard asr (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say, that the immediate reason for blacklisting was that they were adding links that were not added to verify content. The (initial) spamming (with warnings) was performed by people who have an obvious COI, and subsequently other (throwaway) accounts and IPs try to stay under the radar (suggesting that the editor behind that knows that multiple additions result in multiple warnings already?).
 * I see the situation, and am tempted to AGF (though my AGF regarding spam runs thin after warnings are given and ignored, and socks are involved ..). My advice would be - leave it on the spam blacklist for now, have the editor who wants to contribute to Wikipedia make one (1) account (per physical user), and let them show that they can contribute staying away from linking to their website.  And for the cases where they think that that link is pertinent, go to the whitelist and ask for specific and reasoned whitelisting of that link and let consensus form to see whether that link is a necessity, or whether generic forms of linking (ISBN?) or other authoritative websites are more appropriate.  Therefore  for specific links (but I am open to other opinions).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: as above - it appears that no uninvolved editor asked for whitelisting, and that the spam-blacklist hits are either by editors without any contributions, or to Single purpose accounts (as late as November) who in all their edits .. refer to manning publications in alternative ways .. (3 accounts since November 1 ..).  wholeheartedly - the editors did not stop spamming.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

examiner.com
How can the site be useful: As a repository for reviews of obscure but meritorious literature. I'd intended to include the following book review ( http://www.examiner DOT com/article/west-oversea-by-lars-walker ) in an article. It appears on-the-level, and from the reviewer's history ( http://www.examiner DOT com/books-in-columbus/kevin-holtsberry ) I have no reason to assume anything unsavory is going on behind the scenes. I would be happy with a whitelist or "grandfather exemption" for the first link in this paragraph.

Why it should not be blacklisted: From the relevant log entry, they appear they've been blocked since 2009. A prominent argument made during that discussion was: "(examiner)...offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views: "Examiners" are paid a very competitive rate based on standard Internet variables including page views, unique visitors, session length, and advertising performance."

That strikes me as a curious rationale for being blacklisted given that it's essentially identical to the business model of every other private-sector entry Wikipedia considers RS; for example, columnists at the New York Times have to move copy, and anchors on the TV news have to peg the Nielsens, or they're out the door looking for another line of work. With the rapid transition of former "dead tree" institutions onto the internet over the last five years, the differences are diminishing to indistinguishable. Many of them, such as the LA Weekly, rent blog space under their banner.

Otherwise, Wikipedia's main article doesn't link any cited criticism of Examiner.com more recent than 2011.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not the same thing at all. It's a sort of blog with bloggers being paid per hit. There's no editorial oversight as there is at the NYT, etc. At it makes it clear that it is "a content creation network powered by independent and self-motivated writers with focal knowledge and expertise. We are currently supporting 85,000+ writers who share content that matters most to them." It should stay blacklisted. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * They're also going out of their way to attract content we call spam. MER-C 12:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

URL shorteners
...and others.

Either these should all be restored, or the "pink alert" text of...
 * Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. 'goo.gl', 't.co', 'youtu.be', 'bit.ly'), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded.

...should be removed for explicitly recommending editors embrace futility when attempting to link examples here during removal proposals.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that recommends embracing futility. Maybe it could be worded more clearly, but it's a suggestion to use the original "long" link instead of the URL shortener. If the "long" URL also is blacklisted, that's a separate issue, and the possibility to link to blacklisted websites via URL shorteners is the reason why the shorteners are blacklisted, too. I see no reason at all to restore them. Huon (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, aren't most URL shorteners blacklisted at Meta? — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 03:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (non-enwiki admin, but admin on meta) Also blacklisted on Meta Blacklist. Meta blocks ANY URL shorteners caught in our radar, because it can be used to bypass blacklist. &mdash; <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi  08:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Further to the observation of Revi, not that they can be used to bypass the blacklist, redirect sites are used on a regular basis to circumvent the blacklist, and the general addition of redirect sites has been for that reason (if not for worse (malware, phishing), and/or for page-ranking reasons). Moreover, there is NEVER any reason to use a redirect site, one can link to the un-redirected site which also is more obvious to the reader ('what you click is where you go').  They are on meta, but here or there: .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

tutorialspoint.com
How can the site be useful: tutorialspoint.com is a repository that provides free access to largest database of technical and non-technical tutorials. These tutorials are updated and kept up-to-date by their owners. There are many articles on WiKipedia where reference to this site can be given as example.

Why it should not be blacklisted: I have tried my best to search in which segment this website was blocked/spammed. I did not find any logs or information on why it is blocked. This website has very good Alexa ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopal Krishan Verma (talk • contribs)
 * This was abused, spammed cross wiki. I see it is whitelisted on fr.wikipedia, but seen the scale (number of wikis involved and number of IPs/users involved) I don't think that de-listing or broad whitelisting is a good plan.
 * If you need a certain reference somewhere, please ask for whitelisting of that specific url: . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My students worldwide are using this site for technical education. This is a website of high academic values with a huge set of tutorials on technical subjects. In addition, it provides a free online compiler as well as a platform for conducting live instructor-led online classes.  All the services are provided absolutely free of cost.
 * A lot of reader would be curious to know about its services and the resources available on the website. I think this site should once again be visited to re-assure.
 * A page to tutorialspoint.com is worth having as it would provide a single point of information about this website. May be in past it got abused, but now higher Alexa rating proves that it is used by lots of people around the world.-- Gopal Krishan Verma (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or the higher Alexa ranking shows that it was promoted successfully elsewhere. It was spammed to Wikipedia, and I do not see why that situation would have changed.  It's use can be shown by a number of successful whitelisting requests of specific examples which are shown to be necessary.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I could not find any reason why this site and its name is spammed. I wanted to create its wikipedia-page for general information. Have you visited the website and found something mischievous because I did not. May be in past, there would be some act of that sort, but now they have formed a company and officially running this website.  If you take a closer look at tutorialspoint.com's page you would find that they are uploading new tutorials almost everyday.
 * Me and my students have been using this website from past 3 years and I have never heard someone having funded this website or is using any promotional campaign. If Alexa is reflecting good rank doesn't always mean they promoted it well.  Why to ignore the possibility of its popularity because of its good and free contents?
 * I request Wikipedia to allow me create its webpage. -- Gopal Krishan Verma (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, "This was abused, spammed cross wiki." - it has nothing to do with the content. It has to do with someone with a vested interest thinking that it is a good idea to link this everywhere, possibly in order to promote this website and increase it's rankings.  The Spam blacklist is to stop those people from abusing Wikipedia (which was what happened), not because the external information is not liked.
 * You can create the wikipage, just leave out the external link to this website for now. If the Wikipedia page sticks, you can ask for the front-page to be whitelisted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just ran into this trying to fix broken links to  in ALGOL and Comparison of JavaScript-based source code editors. It is appropriate to link there in this context. When was the last time those links have been added massively?  « Saper // @talk »  21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both those articles are disasters in terms of external links - on Comparison of JavaScript-based source code editors, the whole list of external links in the text should be converted to WikiLinks, and pruned for notability (that is a typical example of WP:SPAMHOLE, and a total failure to adhere to our pillar WP:NOT). Algol has way too many external links in the prose, and many of the external links (including the one to the tutorialspoint-page) are inappropriate per WP:ELNO ("Algol-68 Execution online using browsers. by Mohtashim" does NOT tell you more about the software, and is at best the official link of that specific Algol-68 executor, not an official site for Algol).  I will either start some cleanup soon, or at least tag these for cleanup.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

ffconsultancy
The site " ffconsultancy.com " is in global spam-blacklisting, though it was quite enough to put in a local English list. As far as I read on talk Spam, the whole portal was blocked because of "megalomania" of his author. It is sad, but it doesn't reduce the importance of the information on the site. The "Ray Tracer Language Comparison" ( http://www.ffconsultancy.com/languages/ray_tracer/ ) subpage of that portal is a very important WP:RS for pages like Hindley-Milner, MLton, Standard ML, OCaml, Scheme, Stalin (Scheme implementation), etc., and for C++ criticism. I'm sure, Jon Harrop won't spam Wiki in other languages, and there will be only a single link in each adequate page. So I request on moving the portal to local English wiki spam-blacklisting. (If he or someone will spam, the question may be decided locally.) -- Arachnelis (russian)
 * If you want it removed from the global list, you should request that at mete:, if you want to allow it localy, you should be at the local whitelist: . (Note: this might have been blacklisted globally in 2007-ish, since at that time the local blacklists did not exist).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

lmgtfy.com
Simpler to link to search strings when sharing research path references than Google itself, contains no embedded advertising strings, is overall shorter to type out, and its url shortener isn't used by spam bots. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is basically a redirect site, and redirect sites are often abused, totally unnecessary, and for that reason, blanket blacklisted. If you want a preferred result you can link directly to the result, if you want to show a search, there is no problem in using either a template expanding the full link, or copy-pasting the full link from another browser window.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yad Vashesm


I just trying to add a link to an article by Yad Vashem, which was blocked because Yad Vashem is on the spam list. I don't possibly why Vad Vashem should be on the blacklist, and I can't help, but wondering if this reflects somebody's anti-Semitic agenda. I would be very happy if that link was taken off the blacklist. Thanks! --A.S. Brown (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, A.S. Brown. Thanks for your question.  The actual link that you want to add is not blacklisted, but you were trying to add a link to a google search result (' http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQFjAJ&url=http://www.yadvashem.org/untoldstories/Documents/studies/Andreas_Hillgruber.pdf&ei=da73VIulGYGnNszzgJAP&usg=AFQjCNGECmMLglcznS6im4ex7ERGJmL3CA&sig2=Vo6wvSE9qvgY1m-ZIlBceg. '), which is blacklisted (for both intentional and unintentional SEO reasons).  Please use http://www.yadvashem.org/untoldstories/Documents/studies/Andreas_Hillgruber.pdf, which is not blacklisted.  Please, next time, do not immediately consider that it might be because it is on 'someone's anti-Semitic agenda' .. wait for the real reasons why certain things don't work.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Beetstra. I stand corrected, but please note that I could not think of any reason why Vad Vashem might be blacklisted. Thank you nonetheless for your help.--A.S. Brown (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - links get blacklisted because they were inappropriately pushed, plainly spammed etc. Unfortunately that happens through all layers of society.  Anyway, this situation shows that it is better to leave that type of remarks out until you know the whole story (it could have been a mistake on another rule, a 'good catch' like this due to mistaken linking (which is by the way already explained in the 'block'-message that you saw twice), or the link could actually have been abused massively by someone (as I said, spam is not just porn and drugs, we have respectable organisations who nonetheless feel the need to 'use' wikipedia to improve their search engine results or other financial goals)).  The content of the site linked to is hardly ever the reason that a site gets blacklisted (malware, phishing and massive copyvio excluded), it is generally merely a factor determining the speed of blacklisting (you need to abuse a site less if the content linked to is complete rubbish anyway).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please accept my apologies if any offense was given. I must confuse to my ignorance of this subject, and thank you for information and help.--A.S. Brown (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

sydney.com.au


aikido-sydney.com.au was blacklisted inadvertently along with sydney.com.au. sydney.com.au does not appear to be spammy either (any longer). Sam Watkins (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that aikido-sydney.com.au was not meant to be blacklisted. However, sydney.com.au was pushed, the 'spammy'ness of the site is not a criterion, it is how it was added to Wikipedia.  I'll add this to the whitelist.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

themeparkincorporated.co.uk


themeparkincorporated was blacklisted for adding the same link over and over again The user who did this in turn will no longer do it and will promise to continue to use Wikipedia appropriately by adding useful edits and useful links. The site it's self is aimed at bringing people the latest news from theme parks around the world and therefore the user was just trying to be helpful by adding useful and relevant links to pages. Please accept my apologizes and my word that I will no longer spam Wikipedia and I will instead help make it an even more useful site. [User talk: 176.10.98.140 ] 22:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.98.140 (talk)
 * If you will not add the link again, then there is also no reason to de-blacklist it. You can perfectly edit without this link - .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk
Not sure why this was blacklisted ? The blocked site is the acedemic page of Bent Flyvbjerg which is part of the Aalborg University web site. Bent Flyvberg is a world-wide acedemic authority on project planning with numerous articles and even has his own Wiki article Bent Flyvbjerg. His groundbreaking article "Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects" is cited in the Wiki article Cost overrun. Even though this article widely cited (it also returns 3,700 hits on Google) the full text is only available from the blocked site so I cannot add a link to it in the Wiki article citation :(

There is no reference to this this site in the Spam Log so I do not know who or why this site was entered onto the list. I do not think this site should be on the Wikipedia spam blacklist Bigglesjames (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because of repeated (self-)promotional spamming/refspamming adding links/reflinks to the site all over the place, promoting Bent Flyvbjerg and his research. See Sockpuppet investigations/Sonderbro/Archive. The latest sock was blocked only a year ago, and I removed spamlinks as late as a month ago. Thomas.W talk 20:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And if you want to read more about Flyvbjerg's selfpromotion, there's also this and this. Thomas.W talk 20:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * and per above. MER-C 04:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I now understand the reason for the site blacklisting. If this was properly documented in the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log it may have saved us both some time.  All I am trying to do was to provide a direct link to his paper "Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects" which is already cited in the relevant wikipedia article (and by research & articles across the world) as the blocked site holds the only authoritative source that provides free access to it.  I could perhaps reload the paper onto another (unblocked) site and link to that but this has issues relating to Wikipedia rules on verifiability and  copyright. Would it be appropriate to request addition of the URL to the paper (flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/JAPAASPUBLISHED.pdf) onto the white list ? Bigglesjames (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, you could request that it be whitelisted, but your request would be declined, because it's a journal article that is available from plenty of sources other than the blacklisted site. The citation you would use is (see this section source for wiki code):
 * And look, the DOI already has a link, which is all you need.
 * Web links are a convenience, not mandatory for citations, and convenience is not a valid reason to de-list or white-list. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I still cannot see the harm that white-listing this important article would have in harming your efforts to stop the sock-puppetry (which I support) of this web site itself. The article should be freely accessible on its own merit.
 * I do find it interesting that Wikipedia, "The Free Encyclopedia", decides that a non-free content link ($US39) to an important article acceptable while, at the same time, denying a link to the free version of the same article. I did think that Wikipedia rated free access to information as more than "a convenience", in fact I thought it was the stated mission of the Wikimedia Foundation . . . but I stand corrected. Bigglesjames (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that you want to use it as a citation - In which case:
 * is already enough for readers to find the article. Having the links there is only a courtesy to the reader.  Wikimedia's mission is to be a free Encyclopedia, not a source of links to free material.  That has nothing to do with the mission of Wikipedia.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * is already enough for readers to find the article. Having the links there is only a courtesy to the reader.  Wikimedia's mission is to be a free Encyclopedia, not a source of links to free material.  That has nothing to do with the mission of Wikipedia.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * is already enough for readers to find the article. Having the links there is only a courtesy to the reader.  Wikimedia's mission is to be a free Encyclopedia, not a source of links to free material.  That has nothing to do with the mission of Wikipedia.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Utility Warehouse
.

I am trying to update the address for the UK's sixth largest energy company, the Utility Warehouse. They are a FTSE listed company. Historically, customers were able to create subdirectories on this site and this led to abuse. This is no longer the case and spam abuse will no longer be an issue. The company's homepage is utilitywarehouse.co.uk. --Sspyrou (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The original report is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1 (with a blacklist because of that). I note that one of the spammers was active here in Jan/Feb 2012 (diff) and in Jan 2013 (diff).  On meta User:Billinghurst has been looking at this in Jun. 2013 (seeing m:User:COIBot/XWiki/we-save.net, which is a redirect site to utilitywarehouse.co.uk).  With 6 years of on-wiki activity, I am uncomfortable removing this, and suggest to whitelist specific links that are neeed.   and .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts as to whether this is a good faith request. Also, you have closed the whitelisting request as defer here so you have a loop. MER-C 11:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Admin Wifione
I understand this revert of the addition of this link was due to the actions of a since-banned admin whose preventing its addition was PAE (paid advocacy editing). Accordingly, all of the user's edits to block URLs merit review. Anyone do that after the ban?--Elvey(t•c) 17:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - that is a revert by XLinkBot, who is standard reverting wordpress.com blog links, as they are very often inappropriate. This has nothing specifically to do with Wifione.  We do not have a process for reviewing edits by now-banned editors, I think that those are part of the 'normal process' that takes place in reviewing such edits.  If Wifione added rules to the spam blacklist, whitelist or XLinkBot's revertlist independently and without review, then those might be worth reviewing (but please not blanket-overruled, please offer proposed removals for a discussion, even if only to have it properly logged).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining, Dirk. I recall reading that he misused his URL blocking powers.  He had the edit filter manager right, and presumably some of those edits are not even viewable by regular users.  He isn't responsible for any current blacklist entries?  (I found none, but perhaps I searched wrong?)--Elvey(t•c) 03:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether they is responsible for any, Elvey. You'd have to go through the diffs of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and User:XLinkBot/RevertList to see what they added, then find whether it was based on an independent request or purely by themselves (IMHO, admins have that authority to just blacklist a link after seeing the abuse, logging it with link to the abuse, no need to go through the discussion page and wait for the bureaucracy to finish (although it is often better, even if only for record keeping)).  The latter cases may be worth looking into for sure, the former a bit dependent on the requests and behaviour that precipitated the original request.  I would suggest to make discussion sections (in the 'removal'-section) for each individual added rule which is questionable and then see .. there may be rules added with a clear COI but which still have merit on themselves (I mean, that they were abusing their powers does not necessarily mean that the 'opposing' parties were not abusing Wikipedia ..).  I guess that this is going to be similar to scrutinizing all the blocks they handed out, or all the edits to edit filters they did.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to do that (go through the diffs automatically). --Elvey(t•c) 21:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant here, go through them 1 by 1 (i.e. 500 by 500 in page histories and see the name of the editor) .. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That was easy ..:
 * Spam blacklist
 * Spam whitelist
 * XlinkBot's revertlist
 * All 0 hits (reference, gives hits, so it works).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That would not have been easy for me; I wasn't aware of the tool you used.  Not to mention it's not working at the moment (500 errors). --Elvey(t•c) 21:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! The tool is linked from the page histories, one of the links at the bottom.  I knew there was a tool like this, but I did not know where it was.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

borntosell.com


Hi, I am posting this proposal here after discussion with administrator Beetstra so that wikipedia community can have their consensus to remove this site from the black list.

In 2012 my friend (owning borntosell.com) hired someone for online marketing and that person decided to spam wikipedia with their website. It was nothing that could not have been handled by blocking those 3 accounts and the single IP that were spamming but an admin decided to put the website in the blacklist right away. Which is ok but now they have stopped editing wikipedia since 2013 (1.5 years) to prove that they want to abide by the rules. The warning given to them was after adding the site to blacklist and they did not know wikipedia rules about which links were eligible, which is no excuse, but also not fair enough to get blacklisted. It is not an excuse but now they are ready to prove it by wikipedia norms by first stopping like you do in WP:Standard Offer for blocked users. I request that this website be removed from the wikipedia blacklist in exchange for the promise that they will not add it again and keep check on any PR working for them that they do not add links to wikipedia for online marketing. Give 'em enough rope says people should be given a chance and if they do it again, you can add back so is it possible to remove it and see that they are keeping their promise.

Wikipedia does not need their links and they do not want to add as well, the main reasons for the request to get removed from the black list are that some other companies and websites copy and use wikipedia's blacklist as their own which is hurting their website ranking and also their newsletter which goes to spam folder of their subscribers even though it is not spam. They just asked me to explain to you as I regularly read wikipedia. I want to explain that they only want to disappear from your blacklist and they will stop getting involved with link spam. Kindly give your input and make consensus to remove this site from blacklist. --Riven999 (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No objection on this? Can an administrator approve this now? --Riven999 (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the history of the spamming, and the fact that the request is not coming from a regular contributor, believe this request should be Symbol declined.svg Declined. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think wikipedia community should give consensus and a lone administrator should not decline it so I am appealing it at Administrators' noticeboard so that regular contributors can give consensus and your objection is no more. --Riven999 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As per above, this request is . As there is currently an AN discussion regarding this issue, please take any further comments there.  Thanks,  Nakon  06:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

ebooks.abc-clio.com
This site was blacklisted by mistake. One IP editor ( who was only active on one day in 2013) found a useful reference in a serious encyclopedia published by ABC-Clio. He put it in a footnote and added that footnote to about four articles were was relevant. ABC-CLIO is a major publisher that specializes in books for university libraries, such as encyclopedias, and is heavily used by university students in both the print and e-book versions. Rjensen (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This site was refspammed by, at least, 7 IP editors, NOT by one, as I have clearly indicated to you here. Again, this blacklisting is not a mistake (or a blunder), it was to stop the IP hopping spammer to stop his SEO activities (which, obviously, would not be stopped by blocking the editor (simply hopping to another IP) or protecting pages (this was spammed to many pages)).  Per DGG (in the same whitelist request) - if we can safely say that the spamming has stopped, then that would be grounds for de-listing.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that activity stopped more than year ago. Rjensen (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think it stopped, just because it was not added anymore (because it could not be added anymore because it was blacklisted)? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It obviously can't be proven either way while it remains blacklisted  Adding to the blacklist because of one such burst is overkill. If it resumes  it can be dealt with; I've dealt with many such before without blacklisting--I do know how academic publishers work--I even know how to approach the execs when necessary, as it was once--they were truly horrified.      I think we should in general be very reluctant to blacklist a significant publisher, because there are too many valid uses of the links.  I will be watching myself, and I suppose Rjensen will be watching also. I think we should  DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC).
 * I blacklisted it because we do not play whack-a-mole here. When I briefly examined the site before blacklisting, what I saw was basically a platform for selling books, and decidedly not a reference site. If that has changed, I trust DGG's judgment and have no objection if he removes it from the blacklist, but I would prefer that it be added to XLinkBot for monitoring. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed it from the blacklist, and I did add it to xlinkbot's reference section, for now, though I think it unnecessary. Pls check that I did all this right, because I don't often work here.  DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

pickeringchatto.com

 * pickeringchatto.com/titles/1858-9781848935631-collected-poems-of-anna-seward
 * Pickering & Chatto Publishers

Why would this publisher be blocked? Specifically I wanted to refer to the contents page of a forthcoming book on the page dealing with her work - Anna Seward. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I may have put this in the wrong place, so moved it here --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This publisher was blocked because the company found it necessary to relentlessly spam all their sites to Wikipedia (and has been active for a long time since the initial spam. See this report for more information.  If you need a specific link (as your post suggests): .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

=Discussion=

archive.today on wikipedia spam-blacklist: what alternative can handle hashtag in middle of ref URL?


Tried to include an archive.today URL (.today/YHMIR) with edit of Alternative Press Expo, but archive.today on spam-blacklist. Can't use archive.org Wayback NOR Webcitation.org because neither can handle hashtag (#) in middle of URL. QUESTION: What alternative archive website(s) can handle a hashtag in middle of URL? --EarthFurst (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Archive.today is not on the blacklist, it is blocked by an edit filter. Generally, you have to url-encode certain characters in links (I think you can find the data on Character encoding?), maybe the hashtag is also one of those, and then the other sites do work?  Also, is the archive really necessary, is the original likely to 'disappear'?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I give up (I've tried for a month). Which encoding has to be used for URLs? here are some music.cbc.ca links, most of which have # in the middle. --EarthFurst (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @EarthFurst: It's Percent-encoding (# is %23). If you still want this and that is not enough, let me know. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice. You also wrote "If you still want this and that is not enough, let me know." So I've tried percent encoding URLs such as http://music.cbc.ca/#!/Nightstream (changing #! into %23%21), but archive.org won't archive http://music.cbc.ca/%23%21/Nightstream and just attempts to archive http://music.cbc.ca/ instead. --EarthFurst (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about archive services, but I believe you have to enter a URL into a webpage at the archive service, then wait for it to archive the requested page. The URL you enter would be the normal URL that you copied from the browser's address bar. It's only when making a link in wikitext that you need to translate some characters using percent encoding. Hmmm, perhaps you are saying that you have tried to enter the URL into archive.org, but that website misinterprets # and %23 because it thinks the hash is for an anchor (Fragment identifier). The documentation (if any) at archive.org would need to be studied to resolve that. I see that originally this question concerned the spam blacklist, but at this stage the issue is not related to this page. I suggest that you write a new question with a precise statement of what you did (I went to page with URL ... and entered ... but it archived ... instead of the requested webpage). The place for that question would be WP:VPT. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

=Troubleshooting and problems=

cbronline.com
Currently, "cbronline.com" is blacklisted on the English Wikipedia as of late 2013. "Computer Business Review Online" used to be a reasonable news source, but at some point it transitioned to "Your Tech Social Network" and went downhill. All the old URLs stopped working (the ones with the form "?guid=" followed by a long hex string) but can be fixed from the Internet Archive. New URLs have a different syntax. I suggest updating the regular expression on the blacklist to exclude URLs of the old form. They were legitimate links in many articles. In general, blacklisting links from years ago is a bad idea. It damages the encyclopedia. I'm trying to fix the mess Cydebot II created at RegisterFly now. John Nagle (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out Cydebot didn't create a mess it did exactly as was designed to do, flag links that are on the blacklist. This is something the bot nor the operator have control over. However i totally agree this is something that needs sorted to avoid old links being hit unnecessarily, especially when their content was entirely justifiable and useful at the time. Blethering  Scot  23:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, see MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/01, where a bunch of old links to this site were recently batch-whitelisted. Your idea of whitelisting old dead links which can be recovered at Internet Archive is interesting. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As a general reply to this. Look, it is not our fault that a company finds it necessary to optimize their search engine results, or to just generally make sure that their site gets promoted. I agree, sometimes sites are a reasonable source that is reasonably used, but if the amount of spam pushed by this company exceeds that level significantly (a whole long list of sites; a whole list of sock/meatpuppets, reports go back to 2009), then the spam blacklist is designed to just do what it should do: stop the spamming (it was not blacklisted in 2013, it was blacklisted in 2010).

Per Blethering Scot - Cyberbot II has not created a mess - the mess is completely at the side of the spammers who were the editors responsible for getting the site blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A couple of points I'd like to make here. Their guid URLs may be dead, but you can find the same article on their site is you just google its title. So you don't have to resort to the copyright-questionable copy on archive.org. CBR should have preserved redirects from their the old links when they transitioned to the more google-friendly URLs, but apparently they did not care enough for old citations. (It's not the first publication to make this mistake, I can thing of a few more, like The Register and so forth). I'm not sure how bad the spamming of CBR links was, but it may be worthwhile removing the blacklist and see if there any issues presently. 2010 was a long time ago in wikitime. Anyway, the interim solution is to add specific (and fairly numerous) URLs to the whitelist. A second batch has been proposed by me (the first was one probably the one by User:Wbm1058/User:Qwertyus), and I have a 3rd in preparation given that User:Rilak wrote quite a few articles citing CBR at at time when Google Books didn't offer the full archives of Computerworld and Infoworld. Even with these better-known sources now available, occasionally CBR is useful for citing stuff not (easily) found in the other two. If and when EE Times puts all its archives online (via Google Books or themselves) we might have a better alternative for the chip-oriented stuff, but in the meantime, there isn't another online source for old chip topics that I know of. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, I cannot find a discussion for when cbronline was added to the blacklist. The earliest discussion I can find about it is a complain from 2011 (against its listing) MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2011. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I found the original discussion for the addition: . The number of *-business-review.com sites spammed was indeed impressive (all part of Progressive Media Group), but the actual number of links added to them was not that big and they were in conjunction with out-of-place content so the few spammer accounts were rather easy to spot. Only a small percentage of the links added by the spammer accounts was to cbronline (rather than the other sites). It's probably worth risking to de-blacklist just this one, although if you'd rather process all whitelist requests that Cyberbot II with trigger... Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So what's the proposed solution? Expecting editors to manually fix articles from years ago won't work; many of those editors are long gone. (In fact, for a 'bot to complain about an editor action from the distant past is usually an indication of a bad bot.) John Nagle (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposed solution is as usual, and as suggested the template: evaluate and whitelist the links. You don't really need to fix the articles - if they are good references the articles should remain untouched.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, the bot is not 'complaining about an editor action from the distant past', the bot is signifying a problem that is an issue with the editing of the page: that there is a link that is caught by the blacklist on the page. It does not say that the addition was spam, just that having that blacklisted link is there may result in problems with editing (as already I have found in personal experience - an issue with a blacklisted link which was not whitelisted disabled me reverting vandalism).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the cbronline.com entry from the blacklist. After four years it's probably worth giving this another chance. If the spam problems resume, please feel free to add the site back to the blacklist. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I've also removed a bunch of links to cbronline.com from the spam whitelist, so if you add cbronline.com back to the blacklist, please undo my edit to the whitelist too. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As a note, I strongly disagree with this removal. This was a link in a large, deliberate spam campaign of epic proportions.  Experience has learned (e.g. with a similar company: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Nov 1, blacklisted >5 years ago) that they do not stop, they do continue, they often are still around.  This is exactly what we have a whitelist for, and what the whitelist should resolve.  I would suggest undoing these edits.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've undone the de-whitelisting - having links on the whitelist that are not caught by a blacklist will not influence the loading of the page anyway, and there are quite some which have been 'properly vetted' for addition, we don't want to go through that again if the blacklisting is reverted. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still looking, but I just blocked a spammer who was spamming over the last >6 months '$$$$-technology.com'-website (that looks somewhat familiar, though it looks like it is from a different company than cbronline). However, this particular editor triggered the spam blacklist for an addition of cbronline.com ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

,, in my opinion this removal is long overdue. I have put in hours and hours of my time working to support whitelisting efforts for reference-links to this site (which has been a significant distraction from other projects I've committed to work on). I am willing to put in similar time manually reverting spam-links to this site which might result from this action. Until the time I spend reverting spam-links greatly exceeds the time I've already spent working towards whitelisting, I won't be supporting a re-blacklist of this site. I am still unclear on the best methods for detecting spam-link additions that point to this site. Any advice on how to do that is appreciated. Can an edit filter be created that flags any edits adding the text "cbronline"? If anyone points me to unwanted spam from this site I will work to remove it. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, after consultation with another user, I am reverting this removal. They are still here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Undone de-blacklisting. Now for some more:
 * Triggered the spam blacklist with an attempted addition of ' http://www.cbronline.com on 10:07, 28 February.
 * This editor, over the last six months added:
 * now (in collaboration with MER-C: see User_talk:MER-C:
 * "airforce-technology.com is a product of Kable. Copyright 2014 Kable, a trading division of Kable Intelligence Limited"
 * kable.co.uk:
 * ""©2013 Kable Business Intelligence Limited. John Carpenter House, 7 Carmelite Street, London, EC4Y 0BS
 * cbronline.com/about-us:
 * "© CBR 2013 | Part of Progressive Digital Media Group Plc."
 * progressivedigitalmedia.com:
 * "Progressive Digital Media Group PLC © 2012  |   John Carpenter House, 7 Carmelite Street, London, EC4Y 0BS"
 * In other words, user:115.119.113.194 is spamming on behalf of kable.co.uk, a company that has exactly the same address as the company that owns CBR, and was trying to add cbronline.com as well. I am sorry, I am all for more help at the spam blacklist and spam whitelist - but removals (and additions) do need investigation whether the situation did stop, and like with Agora, spamming pays their bills, they will continue as has once again been shown here.  Currently, WikiMedia is discussing a change in the Terms and Conditions regarding Paid editing, and these two examples show blatantly why paid editing is an issue.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ""©2013 Kable Business Intelligence Limited. John Carpenter House, 7 Carmelite Street, London, EC4Y 0BS
 * cbronline.com/about-us:
 * "© CBR 2013 | Part of Progressive Digital Media Group Plc."
 * progressivedigitalmedia.com:
 * "Progressive Digital Media Group PLC © 2012  |   John Carpenter House, 7 Carmelite Street, London, EC4Y 0BS"
 * In other words, user:115.119.113.194 is spamming on behalf of kable.co.uk, a company that has exactly the same address as the company that owns CBR, and was trying to add cbronline.com as well. I am sorry, I am all for more help at the spam blacklist and spam whitelist - but removals (and additions) do need investigation whether the situation did stop, and like with Agora, spamming pays their bills, they will continue as has once again been shown here.  Currently, WikiMedia is discussing a change in the Terms and Conditions regarding Paid editing, and these two examples show blatantly why paid editing is an issue.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the site back to the list. If the spammers are still active, then I of course agree that that's the right thing to do. I see that I have been guilty of Administrative Action While Clueless here - I didn't even know that we had a log of attempted link additions until about an hour ago. I was assuming that the situation was more or less equivalent to vandalism and page protection, i.e. that you have to unprotect for a little while to see if the vandalism continues, but now I see that I was wrong. And now I see that we have Spam-blacklisting, which I somehow managed to miss when I read the top of the page last time. Sorry for acting out of process - I think I need to make a few requests before I attempt the admin side of things again. Speaking of which, there are some cbronline links at RS/6000 that will need to be whitelisted. I'll make that report when I have a spare moment, if no-one else gets to it first. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries - I am glad you are willing to participate and hopefully learn, there is an obvious and huge backlog on all sides. Note also that I am all for trying to remove old items and monitor them - unless the spamming is still known to be active.  I am a bit worried that I did not see these earlier, I did look before whether CBRonline was still active in spamming, but totally missed these spammers (maybe they did not try cbronline.com itself earlier ..).  Guess this will grow again into a huge list of to-be-blacklisted links.  Hope to see you around.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I find this all very frustrating. The cited IP has made all of 27 edits over a span of seven months, keeping such a low profile that even Dirk did not immediately notice their edits. This one made just 27 edits, but I know this editing activity is not likely limited to just a single IP. There may be dozens (hundreds?) (thousands?) of other IP editors with similar editing activity. So, 27 edits is not that many that we can't take a close look at all of them, or all of their edits that have not been deleted. As I'm not an admin, I don't know how many deleted edits that they may have made.
 * The first two "test" edits to Chandra Sekhar Yeleti, an Indian film director, changed a birth year and quickly reverted that change; imply that the editor is likely Indian and perhaps based in India.
 * Next we get to their first "spam link" addition. An external link to Indianapolis International Airport. As external links go, this one doesn't seem that bad; it is on-topic, seems professionally written and potentially could be used as a reference. Nonetheless, it was reverted one minute later by User:XLinkBot for reasons that were posted to the editor's talk page. As I see that the code is maintained by User:Beetstra perhaps you can explain the logic that flagged this edit for reversion. The link seems to "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", per WP:EL.
 * The next edit was a similar external link addition, to Boeing X-51 (airforce-technology rather than airport-technology); again this was on-topic. For some unknown reason, this one was never reverted and is still on the article, along with other "spam" links to a couple of youtube videos, one from Fox News.
 * Next, a link on Fresno Yosemite International Airport, which, as with the Indy airport, was reverted a minute later by XLinkBot. Out of curiosity I added this link back to the article, to see if the bot would revert me, but, so far the link has been allowed to stay. It appears to me that this bot is implementing some sort of "back-door bot-enabled blacklisting of sites" and thus avoiding the scrutiny of a front-door blacklisting request.
 * The next edit, months later, was a good-faith, good edit to correct a link on Vizianagaram district—which supports my theory that this IP is India-based. Indeed, I just made a who-is lookup and found that the IP belongs to TATA Communications, based in Hyderabad. So their interest in editing articles about American airports is suspect.
 * Next we have an addition to List of countries by gold production, another on-topic link, this one to mining-technology; it's not been removed, and could serve as a reference for the article.
 * Then another mining-technology link on Mir mine. The link is still there, and this source directly contradicts the article, so the article should be scrutinized for accuracy. The article says "The Mir mine was permanently closed in 2011", while this external link says "The mine produced 497,000 tonnes of ore in 2012."
 * Next Wind farm links to power-technology. Again, an on-topic link which has not been reverted and seems to add value to the encyclopedia.
 * OK, that's enough for now, I'll stop here. While unreferenced tags some 219,000 articles lacking sources and refimprove tags another 228,000 articles needing additional references, I wonder if it's counterproductive to discourage the addition of (potentially) useful links that other editors might cite. I disagree with the idea that these examples show blatantly why paid editing is an issue. I think we may have too broad a definition of spam, if these links are considered spam.
 * Sorry, I don't see any log of attempted link additions. All I see is "Permission error". That's why I was asking about an edit filter for "cbronline". I think I would be allowed to see that. Why couldn't cbronline just get the "softer scrutiny" of XLinkBot, allowing good-faith editors to override the bot? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And here we have a proposal, if I'm reading it right, that would effectively remove "grandfathered" blacklisted links from Wikipedia very promptly, effectively sending them to Wikipedia's "gas chamber" long before the glacial whitelisting process ever saves them, to ensure the "cultural purity" of the encyclopedia is maintained. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you realize that this was not the only editor spamming these sites, User:Wbm1058, I already caught a second one who is indefinitely blocked now, and the set of links is growing as well. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note, that it is in the spammers interest to stay under the radar - it pays their bills. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You may want to see this in the light of m:Talk:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment - this is likely SEO spamming (as the contributions seem to originate from India), someone pays someone else to spam their sites to Wikipedia. That it is helpful does not make the principle of spamming right
 * To take your last example, Wind farm in the article names 13 'largest onshore wind farms', and we have 2 articles listing wind farms. How does that link to power-technology about 'Biggest Wind Farms in the World', listing a mere 10 (!) ADD anything extra to Wikipedia (the lists largely overlap).  That link blatantly fails our external links guideline - and that is the whole problem here, these paid editors link because it fits their goals, not necessarily because it adds anything.  If there is anything interesting there, go to the talkpage and discuss, as our conflict of interest guideline suggests.  This is plainly spamming.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't waded through all of m:Talk:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment—sorry, TLDR—but this quote I spotted there sums my view up nicely: A case of trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. Clearly the goal here is to put Progressive Digital Media Group out of business. We won't be satisfied until that organisation shuts down all its sites and turns off the lights. They are an evil organisation that needs to be banished from the face of the earth and we will do whatever it takes to deny them all sources of revenue. Yeah, we begrudgingly whitelist those old cbronline cites after making the requesters jump through lots of hoops and show a lot of patience, but we really want editors to just remove those links. Removing those links is easy and is the best and recommended way to get rid of that annoyingly helpful banner template our bot puts on those pages. Hey, I've identified another spammer. Google is spamming links to Wikipedia all over its search engine results. They need to stop that. Readers should just find Wikipedia articles by searching Wikipedia. We don't want or need Google's help to pay our bills, thank you. We need to blacklist Google until they stop spamming their search results with links to Wikipedia. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Clearly the goal here is to put Progressive Digital Media Group out of business.". What a ridiculous accusation, as is the rest of your remarks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Going on - cbronline.com

 * links:
 * users:
 * (in progress) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * users:
 * (in progress) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * users:
 * (in progress) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * users:
 * (in progress) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * users:
 * (in progress) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * users:
 * (in progress) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (in progress) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (in progress) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (in progress) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (in progress) --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I added this on another page, but it is more appropriated to add it here. Please see my findings below.

Less used, from the same group:


 * Spammers


 * Explanation

I could identify only some spammers, as apparently they have been active since 2006 at least. All those domains appear to be part of the same farm and have about 2k links combined. They are all part of Kable.

Some sites appear to have actual content, many links are just dropped on the "external links" section.

Legionarius (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * All these are currently being . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will admit that there are a non-trivial number of external link injection edits to these sites. They do have reliable info on them (they are essentially industrial news aggregator sites), and are legitimately used as sources in a lot of articles. IMO this was overkill. Dave (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a gray area between curbing behavior issues and causing damage to the project. These links do contain legitimate content. I added one of these links myself and am not a spammer. -- Green  C  17:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you guys and bots are having fun but the bot is tagging hundreds of articles related to the aviation project, including official sites of Airbus like www.airbusmilitary.com, appreciate you are trying to stop spammers but you need to appreciate the chaos out in the real world. I presume it will be left to others like the aviation project to sort this out. Oh and why does the bot put a message on the article and the talk page, is is that bad that the article needs to be marked (and more stuff to tidy up). MilborneOne (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Airbusmilitary is clearly a false positive - no idea how anyone came to the conclusion it's part of the spammed-for sites. It needs to be removed from the spamlist ASAP. I don't think the other sites offer anything of value, a quick check of Airbus aircraft pages there does not really reveal useful information. Parts of the information seem to be taken from multiple sources including Wiki. Could not even be used as reference for anything. --Denniss (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I came across this recent bot edit to [Nakhoda Ragam-class corvette] effectively undermining some cited specification information added more than five years ago with .  It seems that a very large number of bot-flagged blacklisted links associated with this case were legitimate citations. --Rumping (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Links to Foo-Technology.com are not legitimate citations; they are either unreliable sources (and thus acceptable collateral damage, at worst) or spam masquerading as references (hiding a spam link as a legitimate citation happens distressingly often). Airbusmilitary does need to be removed from the blacklist though, that was a mistake. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Today, when I first saw my watchlist clogged with the bot flagging these for blacklisted links I was inclined to believe this was a gross overreaction. However, your point is valid and I'm re-thinking this. After reviewing some of the citations and these cites, the "about us" page for these does not inspire confidence, and while the text seems reliable, it appears to have been scraped from somewhere else. I did find this humorous instance http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/i-15-core-utah-county/ of an article about a major construction project in Utah, where the text seems reliable and matches what other reliable websites have said, but the pictures for the article are clearly taken in the San Diego, California area, not Utah. Sigh, collateral damage it is.Dave (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My watchlist notified me of the drive-by tagging of Brehon B. Somervell. The link in question was to ***** which I added myself some years ago. It's about a class of warships, and I took it from the eponymous warship's page. It is a useful resource and carries no advertising. I did not see any debate about its reliability, so we cannot declare it an unreliable source. I guess we have to have some form of censorship.  Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for this bot to place its notice on the talk page of articles but not in the articles themselves? There are a large number of articles which cite railway-technology.com as a reliable source, and in many cases there is no easy alternative source for the cited facts. At the moment, with so many legitimate links being flagged (in the articles and not just talk pages) this bot is damaging Wikipedia. Hallucegenia (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I share the same concerns with water-technology.net and requested a removal from the blacklist above. It is generally a reliable source and valuable to the project. There must be some other solution other than blacklisting the site.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I question whether User:Innomad is a spammer as described above. I may be wrong of course, but permanently blocking a user without warning whose only ever made 20 edits and whose last edit was in 2009 seems to me to be an abuse of administrators' privileges. Hallucegenia (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User Innomad ONLY added external links, just like the previous spammers related to CBROnline - at best a sock/meatpuppet of other users. This is obvious a spammer related to the case, and they, seen the earlier cases, should have known better.  I am not here to play a game of whack-a-mole - Spammers out of the same campaign get blocked without warning - they can consider themselves already to have been warned.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why using the swat a fly with a sledgehammer approach on only a few users identified as spammers? We want to penalize the spammers but it seems like we are penalizing hard-working editors who want to keep articles clean. Please rethink this again and weight the benefits before making a massive change to tons of existing articles. If you think that ???-technology.com are not reliable sources, please provide evidences of such. I could have theorized that the spammers are Kable's competitors who know the loophole that if someone spams enough on Wikipedia, those web sites will be put on the Wikipedia's blacklist. The approach to deal with spammers is to deal directly with spammers. If the web sites are obvious product advertisement, okay fine, it may be legitimate to put on the blacklist. But when the sites associated with suspected spammers are reliable sources providing good contents, we should not address it this way. We could have been manipulated by the spammers to do this because we actually don't know to true intention of spammers and the true connection between the spammers and the sites. Like I said the spammers could have been their competitors, or some crazy people just having fun seeing us hammering ourselves. Even more to this, it appears that one of the alleged spammers who "is actively spamming" made the total of 27 edits in the last 6 months, and our action is to ban legitimate sites??? Z22 (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A few, CBROnline was on it with a large number of editors. The approach to deal with spammers is to make sure they stop - blocking does not make them stop, you already see a number of different Single Purpose Accounts here - blocking one will likely result in others coming up.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed airbusmilitary.com. MER-C 13:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I recently looked at a page for the Boeing 737 Next Generation (and, related, the Boeing 737 root page which also mentions the 737NG), and I saw the site aerospace-technology.com on the blacklist. This, with other previously posted examples in this section, I've seen that these appear at first glance to be valid references. However, I haven't had the chance (and won't have the time) to scrutinize the site; all I'm saying is that I think that some people need to go through all the sites made by these posters, to check their accuracy, and, if necessary, change the links, whitelist the links, or even remove the sites from the blacklist. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the time commitment necessary to do that massive task; only just to add the Boeing 737NG link issue to your attention.
 * Further Review Requested

In my personal opinion, though it does come off as spammy in the way it was posted, and even if the person posting the links may be paid to do it (proof permitting; after all, it could be someone who -really- likes cbronline.com as a reference), if the sources are valid (unless it's against Wikipedia policy), as long as they are accurate, why not leave them as is and keep them off the blacklist? But again, that's just me. :)

From what I've seen, all the External Links shown seem to directly relate to the content, so there's no question on whether it's on the wrong page or not, and it does help explain the content similar to a reference. I see it in similar vein to a link to almost any movie's wikipedia page, that almost always has a metacritic.com, rottentomatoes.com, and/or some other review site page on it, even though they are all ultimately business sites, similar to cbonline.com. But again, I'm not educated on this particular website host, so if I'm mistaken, feel free to let me know. The Legacy (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC) (Edited The Legacy (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

I've just seen dozens of railway related articles tagged by the bot because they contain links from railway-technology. Most of these links contain legitimate information and are being used as citations in many articles. I added some of them myself. And I'm certainly not a spammer. This has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Trains. This bot is causing more havoc to the wikipedia than any spammer could, and I rather resent this taking up time which I could better put to something useful! G-13114 (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Railway-Technology.com

All what was said about Railway-Technology.com applies also to Power-Technology.com and Offshore-Technology.com. The first one is included in more than 150 articles and the second one is included in more than 130 articles. Most of these links contain legitimate information and are being used as citations. And as the previous editor, also I may say that a number of these links were added by me and I am not a spammer. It is also unacceptable that that kind of mass listings are made without prior notification of affected Wikiprojects (concerning these two sites it is mainly WP:Energy but also WP:Geology, WP:Dams and some others). Beagel (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Power-Technology.com
 * Offshore-Technology.com

The first is used in over 300 articles, the second over 200. These links contain legitimate information and are being used as citations. It seems that the blacklist is a bigger menace to the integrity of the wikipedia that any spammer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * naval-technology.com
 * army-technology.com


 * I do see that someone else brought up that these are not reliable sources anyway, and I found this diff informative regarding that as well. It starts to seem that most of these are replaceable by better, reliable sources, others can plainly be deleted as the information is not notable enough to be mentioned, and then the rest can be handled by whitelisting.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and find alternative sources for the hundreds upon hundreds of articles which use these then! Cause I'm bloody well not doing it!! G-13114 (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody asks you to do it - and as argued below and above, this may not be the reliable source one takes it for (funny, that happened as well with a whole other set of CBROnline references - deemed unreliable and scraped), so it can just go without going through the effort of looking for the reliable sources. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, you might want to direct your anger at CBROnline/Kable for continuously violating our core policies - and by the looks of it the violation of what is soon going to be our new Terms of Use (though that is still under debate). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'd rather direct my anger at the black list. That's what is really in violation of our values. There's been no argument presented that the sites are replaceable or unreliable in any way. No editor should be allowed to place an article on the blacklist if they are not prepared to go and fix it personally. We block vandals for much less. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No argument, but several people have commented that the info is better sourced from other sites in the several threads here (e.g. "Links to Foo-Technology.com are not legitimate citations; they are either unreliable sources (and thus acceptable collateral damage, at worst) or spam masquerading as references (hiding a spam link as a legitimate citation happens distressingly often)" by The Bushranger above; "given its just being used to cite basic facts those should be easily found in better sources." by Werieth below). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Going on - part 2
I have for now commented out the blacklisting, though I will encourage further discussion (and I will undo this if I find ongoing abuse or see that the scale is bigger than expected - we have a blacklist and whitelist for a reason). There is to me NO question that CBROnline and Kable are spamming Wikipedia using multiple Single Purpose Accounts, and that they have been doing this for many, many years now. Although regulars have been using this site, I know that spammers have engaged in 'reference spamming' as well as plain external link spamming. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, as this (the spamming) goes straight against our core policies and guidelines. I am also worried by several (knowledgeable) voices saying that either the information they provide is replaceable, or is used to support not-notable information. Editors may want to start and look into those issues. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Just noting, that I do not have any problem if another admin disagrees with my (temporary) removal of the blacklisting and reverts that removal. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Taking account the impact this listing has and the ongoing discussion, this blacklisting should be a community-based decision, not a decision of a single admin. Beagel (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to say but you just deny the problem. Nobody says that spamming is not a problem, but the real problem here is not spamming but the fact that thousands of valid references are being outlawed. Even if we assume that there are replacement for all these references (but there is not, at least not for all), it is a large workload for fellow editors to do that. We are not paid for editing here, so some respect for others work and time is appreciated. You says that these references may not to be reliable but a number of people being active in different Wikiprojects say that these references are reliable (at least in most of cases) and have added-value to quality of articles. And knowing some of them by their excellent work in Wikipedia, I would say that they are also "knowledgeable voices". Also, recalling some earlier cases, it seems that in some cases the blaclisting really is not preventive but punitive. And the big problem is that nobody notifies affected/relevant Wikiprojects prior any action taken. Getting to know that something is going on when bot messes-up your watchlist or when the project clean-up listing has hundreds new entries, is not the way how thing should be done. Beagel (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I am not denying that - and that is why I commented out the blacklisting. More research on the scale of things needs to be done here.  The links are not outlawed - we do have a whitelist for a reason.
 * I am not sure if it is punitive - this really prevents editors from editing, this is not more punitive than blocking the individual spammers - it prevents spammers from adding, it does not punish them (having your links blacklisted does not significantly affect your search ranking, unlike the nofollow that Wikipedia implemented years ago).
 * I am sorry, it is just impossible to notify wikiprojects affected - there is no way of detecting that, scale the necessity, etc. The notification of the bot that an article needs to be looked at is the closest one can get to notifying editors.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re@prventive v. punitive. I am not talking about spammers. I personally think that every spammer should be blocked. But the blackslisting of websites should be the last resort because of its side-effects, mainly taking away information resources from editors. And it is punitive - mainly against our regular editors who have to deal with the mess created with backlisting like in this case (but definately this is not the only one).
 * Re@notification. It is hard, I agree, but it is possible, if there is a goodwill for this. If you have the website you would like to blacklist, you have to check which/how many articles uses that website. This is not a rocket science. And if you know which articles use this website, it is easy to check which Wikiprojects are involved. It is even possible to create a special bot task for this which helps to deliver notifications imminently after the blacklisting proposal is made. And websites like aerospace-technology.com or power-technology.com give a clear indication which Wikiprojects could be interested about this, so the argument of impossibility is not valid one. But as I said, it needs some extra work. However, I think that some extra work by blacklisters are justified if this helps avoid even more extra work by our regular editors. It can't be accepted if blacklister decrease their workload by increasing workload of other editors. A change of attitude in this respect would be useful to achieve the common goals of Wikipedia.
 * Beagel (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Punitive against regular editors .. what is blacklisting punishing them for? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It was said several times by several editors, but lets me repeat what TheOtherEvilTwin said: "Banning a site which is legitimately linked by hundreds of wiki pages means imposing hundreds of hours of work on the Wikipedia community to either find alternate sources or to remove now-unsourced material. Requiring the community to waste that much time on busywork instead of spending it on more productive edits just because a site was spam promoted is unreasonable. Anti-spam work is supposed to reduce others' opportunity costs, not increase them." If this additional workload for community is not a punishment, what it is then? If you can't predict what are the consequences of blacklisting certain websites, it shows that something is wrong with the whole procedure. So, if the bot already looks for links in the articles (at the moment after blacklisting), lets program it to do this imminently when the proposal to blacklist any webiste is submitted (that means before any action is taken). Bot could make the list of affected articles, it could make the list of affected Wikiprojects based on WP banners on the articles' talk pages and it could notify affected WPs (it could be that there are some misplaced banners but lets say if the certain WP has more than 10 (or 20 or what ever we agree) hits, it should be notified). And if there are hundreds or thousands articles linked to the certain website, it is a clear signal that the issue needs a careful analysis. If we don't have that kind of analysis, we would repeat these mistakes what happened now.


 * And also, putting every website related to the person who was stupid enough to spam, into the indef. blacklist is punitive, not preventive. I think that the first time blaclisting should not exceed one year (exception, of course, should be websites promoting hate, violence, child pornography etc). Beagel (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, so we don't blacklist and let the few editors who care work their hours to remove the spam - that is more important than the 100 editors who spend some time pruning (removing/whitelisting) the sites that are of interest. I totally agree.
 * Blacklisting is not indef - if the threat has stopped and when editors request removal then they get removed - however experience shows that de-listing does result in the spammers to return (in fact, cbronline.com was being attempted to be added despite that it is years that the site was blacklisted). The blacklist prevents addition of sites that are spammed in the same way that a block prevents an editor from vandalising Wikipedia.  If the company stops with spamming, the site can be removed, if the editor stops vandalising the editor can be unblocked.  CBROnline, obviously, did not stop spamming.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether it is a justified method of stopping the spammers, I'm going to put that aside for now. My point is more on how the bot adds a mess to tons of good quality articles. Maybe putting a site on the blacklist for future edits and force editors to look for alternatives or request a particular page to be put on the whitelist may not be as bad. But putting a hat tag on every single articles with a blacklist link is very counter productive. If the bot has to do anything, another approach may need to be implemented. For example, the bot would not put a hat tag on the article. It would put a new section on the talk page of each article and list out which links are from the blacklist sites. Then be clear to editors that having a site on blacklist does not automatically mean that the references and the associated contents are questionable. The message should be clearly conveyed that editors should use discretion to inspect each of those links and confirm that whether they are legitimate. If legitimate, no action is needed. If not so, find alternative sources. Z22 (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That boat has sailed a long time ago. If you have a problem with the bot, take it up with the bot operator. MER-C 04:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop giving these editors the run-around. The bot editor will just refer you back to here. The only justification for that bot was a bot request with minimal participation. Somehow things have been warped to where any source may be deemed an unreliable source if someone is thought to be creating "spam" links to that source. It's high time for a bot that has the widespread impact that this bot has to justify its existence with consensus for its operation at Village pump (proposals). Don't be surprised if, as with this discussion about orphans, consensus turns out to be that the bot's "big", "ugly", "defacing", "distracting" and "grotesque" message should be moved to talk pages. – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, the bot is causing far more damage to wikipedia than any spammer could ever dream of! Like 99.9% of editors, I had absolutely no idea that this bot existed until I saw the havoc it was wreaking across hundreds of articles. So saying that it was approved when hardly anyone knew about it is a touch disingenuous! Had I known I might have participated. G-13114 (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The bot is not giving any more damage than the unreferenced which is also everywhere on top of pages (as are many of those maintenance templates). I still have NO clue how that template is causing damage to Wikipedia.  And the argument for orphan is the only one that managed to get moved (logically, it does not signify a problem with the page, as unreferenced does) - you've tried that argument before and it does not sail.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is just giving us the run around again. As has already been explained to you. What is causing the damage, is that many hundreds of articles are having otherwise perfectly good references outlawed for no good reason. And necessitating enormous time wastage on behalf of the (volunteer) editors to find replacements, which may or may not be as good. The template is a nuisance though. G-13114 (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And that was explained as well - they are not outlawed - if they are perfectly fine than they are suitable for whitelisting. And again, removing the spam is also a 'necessitating enormous time wastage on behalf of the (volunteer <- yes, I am a volunteer as well) editors to remove.  The template is not more of a nuisance than unreferenced, cleanup, primarysources, and, as opposed to unreferenced, cleanup and primarysources, it in fact points to a problem with the page that should (generally by whitelisting) be solved as it may interfere with the editing process.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Moreover, the solving of the problems on the hundreds of pages can be performed by the hundreds of editors who have each some of the pages on the talkpage, unlike the spam issue, which (just like that you did not know about the existence of the bot and the template) was completely missed by you and all those volunteers that have the pages in these subjects on their watchlists, and has to be solved by the few volunteers that are active there. I am actually wondering why I am wasting my time fighting spam, maybe we should remove those guidelines, and scrap WP:NOTSOAPBOX from WP:NOT, as it can be completely ignored.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Are these sites on XLinkBot? MER-C 07:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Blanketed, but I am going to adapt that now. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rules adapted, sites spammed here are there (if there are other Kable links still missing, I would suggest to add those as well). There is still a lot of cleanup to do, the editor mentioned below from 2009 is hardly reverted, e.g. (and that is true for recent editors as well).  I am questioning how many of the hundreds of links that are there were originally spammed, spammers here have sometimes more than 50 additions on their name.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Going on - Part 3

 * Clear SPA - practically every edit include addition of links to Kable websites. Both External links-spam as well as reference spam - makes you wonder how many of the references are not actually spam by themselves.
 * Clear SPA, solely editing to add the links from Kable.
 * The last edit of this editor was made more than four years ago. How it is relevant in this context? And why s/he was not blocked in the first place? Beagel (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'how is it relevant': this is long term abuse of Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This first user (Dee82) last edited in January 2010. The first edit by the second user (Veronicawilson235) was in March 2013 or more than three years later. There is no proof that they are even the same person. Blocking seems to be a right decision here; however, blacklisting was clearly an overkill and, based on this provided information, is not justified. Beagel (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Beagel, they are working for the same organisation, this is WP:DUCK, they may not be the same person, but meatpuppetry is the same. Moreover, you forgot the other 5 or 6 accounts that were active, showing that blocking them does not solve the problem, there are 7 or 8 editors spamming (and their MO is practically always the same, many cases just external links, sometimes a bit of low-relevance reference spamming).  That there is a gap between Dee82 and Veronicawilson235 (or even, if we see all accounts) may just mean that there were more links being spammed.  Lets turn it around - how many edits can you show me by regulars using this site, for me, it seems to be easier to find the spammers.  Top level article in the field of naval-technology.com would be Navy, the link was not added by a regular, but by a spammer.  And naval-technology.com is not the official recognised reporter on Navy, is it?  Is that link appropriate?  And that is my conclusion in many cases for this link: the fast majority should plainly go.  Blacklisting is justified, this is spam.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re@how many edits can you show me by regulars using this site. I myself at least 50 (am really not able to recall all my 78,000 edits made over 8 years), mainly offshore-technology.com and power-technology-com but probbaly few of other technology pages. I think that you got similar figures from NortyNort or Dormskirk. Do not know so well other editors commented here but certainly also they have used these websites. I would be very careful calling any of them spammers. Beagel (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'I would be very careful calling any of them spammers.' .... you really got a wrong impression of me. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a quick glance at the additions of those two you mentioned - I did not see any additions of you over the last handful of months, I do find more possible spammers though. I will look further into the past.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'I would be very careful calling any of them spammers.' .... you really got a wrong impression of me. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a quick glance at the additions of those two you mentioned - I did not see any additions of you over the last handful of months, I do find more possible spammers though. I will look further into the past.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)



...this is one for long-term abuse. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * S/he is blocked now. Did not this solve a problem? Beagel (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure I see what the problem is here. All of those links as far as I can see are relevant to the articles they have been put in, so I'm not sure how this is detrimental to the wikipedia. If they were putting in links to websites that were selling viagra or something then that would be different! G-13114 (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @User:Beagel: until another sockpuppet comes up. We have 5 who have been active in the last months, and 2 or 3 from before, and those are only the ones identified.  Do you believe that this solved the problem?  Did all the editors from the CBROnline spam of a couple of years ago who got blocked convey the message that it stops?  Do you understand why people spam?  It pays their bills.  They do not stop (obviously) when just blocked, they will just make a new account.
 * @User:G-13114: It is a community consensus that we are NOT writing a linkfarm here but an encyclopedia. These additions, simply, fail our external links guideline, others fail our reliable sources guideline (when used as a source), and the editors are, plainly, violating WP:SPAM.  These editors are violation our core policies and guidelines, our pillars.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Beetstra here. Not blacklisting these links sets a dangerous precedence that would allow any site that could meet WP:RS to abusively spam Wikipedia. Yes, it's a pain to replace those links, but it's not as if one person has to do it all.  I'd be happy to help.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Until now, most of the links I encountered I simply removed, haven't found anything that needed replacement yet. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the provided information my understanding is that blaclisting was an overkill. However, I do not want to underestimate the spamming problem and I think that solution could be some kind of "greylist". Websites in this list are not blacklisted but they have a history of spamming. We should designate a bot to check and list every day articles where these "greylisted" links were added. Having that kind of list (including the name of users who added these links) it would be quite easy to discover any pattern of spamming and it would be easy to catch these spammers. It would be more editors-friendly solution than blacklisting websites that qualifies as RS. Of course, we will still have a blacklist for special cases. Beagel (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * re: "greylist" – see Edit filter. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit Filter is, with some exceptions, not capable of handling this - overloads the server. Greylist here is more User:XLinkBot - the links (with thinking forward) are there.  However, accounts (established accounts) are easy to get, most of these accounts have been active for several months and have >50 edits - way over the 'autoconfirmed' limit that is used by XLinkBot and MediaWiki.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposal was not meant to prevent somebody, but to get a better analysis to detect potential spammers more easy way and without damaging work of regulars. Beagel (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I find the idea that Progressive Digital Media is not operating reliable sources to be dubious. Assume in good faith that they are trying to be reliable. Even major news outlets occasionally make errors and have to later publish corrections. Perhaps this organisation, which may be running on shoestring resources, makes more errors than larger, better endowed media, but they are trying to be reliable and usually are. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Dirk Beetstra, would you like to explain why you say that the X-technology links are not reliable sources? I have to say that in my experience they are accurate and professionally written, I have put in a few railway-technology links myself as cites, I would not have done this if I did not believe they were accurate and reliable. I see a lot of people have said the same thing. G-13114 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that is the wrong way of asking, G-13114. A site is hardly even not an RS at all.  But a lot of the material that Wikipedia is currently referencing to these sites is either not notable, or this is not the optimal source, or it is, for that fact, not a reliable source.  Being reliable does not make you a reliable source either.  Wikipedia is often reliable, it is not a reliable source.  Fact however is, that even plain spam, utter useless for the majority of Wikipedia, where the majority of the site can be replaced with easy to find better sources, material where you would not have a doubt for blacklisting seen the abuse, are sometimes reliable sources for something.
 * I am not saying, and I have never said, that this site should never be used by regulars, that this site should be banished from the face of the earth. I said that the scale of the spamming of the editors is a problem that can not be solved by blocking the editors, that can not be solved by protecting the pages, and seen the persistence over the years (this is a problem for many, many years) it is also not a problem that XLinkBot can solve - the spamming can only be stopped by blacklisting the site.  The main argument that is thrown at me is that by blacklisting a site it outlaws it, that regulars are not allowed to use it, that the material on the site is bad, that I damage Wikipedia.  That is a logical fallacy - it is not true.  I do however say that a) many, many (if not all) of the links in external links sections currently there are inappropriate and can go without damaging Wikipedia; b) that many, many of the references there are either trivial information, some of the information should actually be primary sourced (and not from aggregator), c) and that the links that are detrimental should be whitelisted.  For what I have seen, the hundreds and hundreds of additions by identified spammers and I hardly ever encounter an addition by a regular (some IPs with 1 or 2 edits, not sure if they are spammers, hence not reported; some editors with 20 edits editing only in a very small subset; some vandalism reverts where the link was re-added after a vandal).  I have yet to encounter the edits by you, G-13114 and Beagle and others.  You all say 'I've used this site', but if I find the spammers adding hundreds, and you guys are talking about 'a few' - does that mean that all the regulars have added maybe up to 25 of the current links to all these sites (by now several hundreds), and the spammers the rest.  To me it looks this way.
 * These sites are being spammed on a large scale, SEO exists for a reason. This is likely not one editor, but a concerted effort.  These sites should be blacklisted, and pruned.  Material should be replaced where possible and then the rest should be whitelisted.  Not blacklisting sites that are spammed on a large scale is setting a bad precedent, especially in the light of the drive of WMF against paid editing.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RS clearly says: The reliability of a source depends on context. That mean the some source should be in some context reliable and in the other context unreliable. Every source (and that means reference, not the website in whole) should be considered individually. Saying that all these sites are unreliable is a non-starter. Concerning whitelisting, well, this is not a suitable if we talking a mass blacklisting. I have an experience when I some years ago asked to whitelist one site. The first time the request was ignored, the second time the answer was quite arrogant recommending to look for another source. All in all, I spent more than month for nothing. This is clearly not the way forward for regulars. Concerning outlawing, well, you could it how you like but de facto these sites a outlawed in practice.Beagel (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what I said - there are however sites where the information is generally unreliable, and/or where they can be replaced with more reliable sites in general - aggregator type information is not 'reliable', they copy without scrutiny what others say, that does not make it reliable (it is probably true, but that is something else). It were however not my words (it was mentioned by others) and it has NOT been a large factor in my decision to blacklist.  Somewhere else there is the suggestion to have more manpower - I would be all for having more manpower on the whitelist as well .. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting at the heart of the issue with sites like cbronline
This issue has been building for some time; see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013 for an earlier thread. Extracting some comments from that:
 * Q: Wikipedia has a "massive" number of links to The New York Times, but their massiveness doesn't make them spam. The Times does still make real money from selling subscriptions, but even they are becoming more dependent on online ads. What if some anonymous editors "help" the Times by focusing their editing on clearing the Category:Articles with unsourced statements backlog by inserting mostly helpful citations to Times articles, but get somewhat over-enthusiastic about the project and also add some dubious (external) Times links that are not strictly required for confirmation of article statements of fact. Would we then be forced to blacklist the Times?
 * A: A journal like the Times does not need spam to get their links out (so that says something about companies that do spam), moreover, if a site like that would engage in a massive spamming campaign, we would indeed have a nice problem, which likely would be handled through the legal department of Wikimedia (we have had congressman or their representatives spam Wikipedia - besides blocking, they have to be reported to the Foundation). I would however not exclude that if such a site would engage in such massive spamming, that blacklisting (though more likely an edit filter) may be needed to mitigate the problem - and it has happened for sites like that.

We have something of on an ongoing crisis in journalism, as traditional print newspapers have become more and more scarce, and those that survive have shrinking resources and content. If all we have left are a handful of sources who can afford not spamming Wikipedia to build their audience, then the only remaining available media may be that provided by a handful of major corporations who will have a de facto oligopoly on the news. Why should we give the Times or any other major media special treatment? Shouldn't Progressive Digital Media be given equal treatment? Has Wikimedia's legal department been made aware of this situation? Why haven't we used an edit filter to deal with this problem, as would "more likely" be done to fight Times spam? A cynic—and make no mistake, in my earlier post that was dismissed as "ridiculous", I was in cynic or devil's advocate mode—might think that the problem was that Progressive Digital Media wasn't generous enough with contributions to the Foundation, and that the Foundation favors organisations that are generous towards it. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Giving grants does not make your links magically appear here. That would be completely against our core policies and guidelines, editors would never allow that.
 * Point is, we are not giving one site a special treatment. If a site gets spammed (which I have never observed for the Times) it is up for blacklisting.  Whether it is CNN or whether it is your regular Taladafil site.  Now, blackisting ALWAYS has collateral damage - but I think that the collateral damage here is minor, really there are only a few additions by regulars in comparison to hundreds of additions by spammers, for CNN that would be different.  If a huge site would massively spam Wikipedia with multiple accounts, all across, then the only problem to mitigate it at some point may be a blacklist entry.  Unless you want that company to overtake the editing in Wikipedia and make sure that they proclaim what Wikipedia is reporting and finds important, because that is the consequence, that is what you are advocating here and in above threads: by not blacklisting and allowing this to continue you endorse those hundreds of spammed links to the -technology.com websites, letting them decide what is important, and letting them decide how things are being sourced.  On top of that, there are a few links added outside of that effort, which may have been 'an easy to find source' (hey, easy to find: their spamming works?) and replaceable as well, or up for whitelisting.  They are now being allowed to violate our pillars WP:NOT, WP:NPOV), so you can follow yours (WP:V, WP:ENC).  Who wins: the big company?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Giving grants does not make your links magically appear here". Sometimes it does. It's an historical case, but a well known one. Check out and the talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think you really understand. The sites listed above, are not usable as sources. They are mainly made up from recycled press releases - nothing on any of those sites amounts to a reliable independent source since there is no editorial review (unlike the Times, which has a reputation to maintain). So, as an encyclopaedia, we lose nothing by blacklisting those sites.
 * The evidence of long-term spamming is compelling. I'm surprised these have not been blacklisted at Meta, in fact, since I bet the abuse spans multiple projects.
 * So, a years-long spamming campaign puts them in the sights for blacklisting or other measures to control the abuse, we then assess their potential value to the project, note that it is roughly zero, and thus a decision is made to blacklist.
 * This happens all the time. Guy (Help!) 16:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

IPv4 addresses are currently not disallowed
The blacklist contains the following entry: \b^\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\b As far as I can tell, the intent is to block IPv4 addresses – but that entry contains a caret (just after the first "\b") which prevents this rule from actually working. You can paste this anywhere, and it will just work: foo --Gutza T T+ 07:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

TinyURL.com
I want to add the full URL for TinyURL.com in the infobox for the article about that website: TinyURL. I cannot save that change because TinyURL.com is on the spam blacklist. Is there a way to do this? I am a long-confirmed registered Wikipedian, I have no connection to this company, and hate spam at least as much as anybody. However, it is standard practice to include a working (i.e., clickable) hyperlink in an article about a company or website.—Finell 05:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whitelist (and link to) the About page. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * URL shorteners are (usually) controlled by meta blacklist, so . &mdash; regards, <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi 03:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)