MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2017

upgradedpoints.com



 * Now cleaned but apparent paid editing ring was spamming this into WP - see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrew J.Kurbiko No encyclopedic value that I can see. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

econlib.org
Where is the argument for blacklisting? The only reason tentatively given for blacklisting is the site *might* have been spammed to drive traffic. See recent discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May_2017. Especially the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics part of the site should be unbanned as it contains original copyrighted material by a reasonably wide range of notable economists.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This needs attention. The admin who blocked this site has desysopped himself and is on a Wiki break. He has not responded to requests to deal with this. JzG admitted that part of the ban had to do with the Libertarian affiliation of the source. This is a serious breach of Wikipedia's neutrality position. My personal views are basically the opposite of those represented by Econlib, but sources shouldn't be banned based on the leanings of the site that hosts them. I've found the CEE to be a reliable source with articles by well-known economists of all stripes. JzG has not provided much evidence that this ban is needed to prevent SEO. His edits stripped all references to sites on econlib regardless of whether they were placed there by editors engaged in alleged SEO.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And I pleaded to remove the blacklisting. Econlib is provided by a highly regarded think tank Liberty Fund (rated 75 (of 150) in the UPenn listing of Best Independent Think Tanks world-wide) and it posts original material from noted economists, including Nobel Prize Laureates. – S. Rich (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then they shouldn't have needed to spam, should they? --Calton | Talk 00:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. And your loaded question does not WP:AGF. The links to econlib provide useful and relevant information to the readers. WP:Spam is the content guideline, and it does not mention blacklisting as a remedy. The behavior guideline WP:Spam requires less drastic measures. Indeed, compelling evidence is required before adding links to the blacklist. None of the less drastic steps were taken by the former sysop (who stated he was part of the rouge admin cabal) before blacklisting econlib. The alleged spammers were not blocked, let alone warned. The blacklisting was the just one of a series of irresponsible steps driven by POV. – S. Rich (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Irrespective of the alleged or actual motives behind the blacklisting, is a link to this website needed? The previous discussion implies that the links to this website were redundant to others that don't raise any spam issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the main issue, that there was nothing sourced to the spamming website that could not be sourced elsewhere. Many of the econlib links are to public domain books which can easily found elsewhere, i.e. WikiSource. If there are genuine links in there somewhere, they could always be whitelisted, but I don't see much. Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Econlib has unique, original material, not just books. For example, here is an essay from Noble Prize Laureate George J. Stigler –
 * Monopoly . This piece, one of many, is not available anywhere else. Also, it is wrong to conflate the actions by a limited number of editors (the evil spammers) to the econlib website itself. E.g., the website cannot spam itself. Whitelisting is not a solution. Why? Look at the fact that this discussion has gone on and on over two different threads without result – which admins will be available to "bless" a whitelist request?  Also, putting up the barrier of "Ask for a whitelisting for such-and-such link." is contrary to the notion that WP is a resource that anyone can edit. But, rather than simply complaining about the "blacklisting" here, I will resolve the issue with links to freely available books. A wiki-search for "econlib" comes up with 51 entries. I'm now going through them to remove those links to books.  – S. Rich (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've gone through the list and removed those links which simply went to book titles. I believe each of the 19 remaining articles has a full citation to original articles. Most of them are to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics and they provide (usually biographical) reference material to the particular article subjects. So the beef about econlib being used to "spam" links to books that are available via Google and Amazon and WikiSource is resolved. But 2–3 of the 19 articles have links which are blocked by the black list. These are NOT links to works which are available elsewhere. And the example link to Stigler remains blocked. I think I've done my share, it is time to fix this. – S. Rich (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a listing of the notable economists who contributed to the first edition (1993) of the CEE (see: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/CEEAuthors.html ). Because of the "blacklist" it is impossible to link the particular articles which they wrote for either the first or second editions.


 * Armen Alchian, Jodie Allen, William Baumol, Gary Becker (Nobel Prize), Jagdish Bhagwati, Alan Blinder, Walter Block, George J. Borjas, Mark Casson, Tyler Cowen, Robert Crandall, Clive Crook, Patricia Danzon, Avinash Dixit, Barry Nalebuff, Barry Eichengreen, Robert Eisner, David D. Friedman, George Gilder, Thomas W. Gilligan, Claudia Goldin, Marshall Goldman, John C. Goodman, Arnold Harberger, Garrett Hardin, Thomas Hazlett, Robert Heilbroner, David R. Henderson, Daniel Henninger, Robert Hessen, Paul Heyne, Jack Hirshleifer, Kevin Hoover, Manuel H. Johnson, Alfred E. Kahn, Wolfgang Kasper, Robert King (economist), Laurence Kotlikoff, Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize), Robert Z. Lawrence, Stanley Lebergott, N. Gregory Mankiw, Allan H. Meltzer, Gregory Millman, Geoffrey H. Moore, Barry Nalebuff, William A. Niskanen, Madsen Pirie, David Prychitko, Alan Reynolds, Kenneth Rogoff, Christina Romer, Paul Romer, Murray Rothbard, Robert J. Samuelson, Thomas J. Sargent, Isabel Sawhill, Thomas Schelling (Nobel Prize), Anna Schwartz, Jane S. Shaw, Herbert Stein, George Stigler (Nobel Prize), Joseph Stiglitz, Lawrence Summers, Lester Thurow, James Tobin (Nobel Prize), Robert Tollison, Gordon Tullock, W. Kip Viscusi, E. Roy Weintraub, Lawrence H. White, Aaron Wildavsky, Richard Zeckhauser.

The first edition is available on-line. Some print editions are still available, but difficult to find. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the whole of the CEE is copyrighted. See, for example, (replace the $ with an e).  Therefore, to use econlib, any quotations from it would have to comply with our non-free policies.  This would not be the case if quoting directly from the book.  Therefore, anyone using the content should be using the book as the source, not the website. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Two points. Their copyright is not a justification for blacklisting. (Use of copyrighted material in WP is of concern whether the material is in print on or online.) But more importantly, econlib says "You may quote selections from the page or print a personal copy, in accordance with Fair Use under U.S. copyright laws." (See: http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/copyright.pl .) Because their output is online, the term "page" refers to their webpages. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I just said. Anything from the CEE should be quoted as (cite book) with the original book page.  If you quote econlib, you are increasing the amount of non-free material; you should be minimising this, per WP:5P.  This is not a difficult concept, all we need is an editor with a copy of the book. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand the point, or how it might justify the blacklisting. Copyrights protect material that is on-line and in-print. Indeed, we use material from purely web-based sources all of the time. The key term is "Fair use", and Econlib has granted permission to "quote selections...." If there were problems with using Econlib material the place to solve them is WP:CP in accordance with WP:CV. – S. Rich (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it's anything to do with the original reason for the blacklisting, but it is a good reason not to use econlib for this particular publication. We are supposed to minimise non-free content whether it's "fair use" or not. If we are pointing people towards a non-free source (econlib) rather than the original source then we're not doing that.  Free content should be hosted at Wikisource; this isn't free content, so we shouldn't be advertising a website that is using copyrighted content for free. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * By your logic virtually everything WP uses as a source would be eliminated. The NYT, WP, MSNBC, FOX, etc copyright everything they put out. That does not mean we can't use portions of the material. Nor would we blacklist these sources. WP:NFCCP has 10 criteria by which we make editing judgments about what to add. I think, and would ensure, that all 10 criteria would be met by responsible editing in accordance with NFCCP when applying fair use the the CEE sources. Besides, NFCCP is not a factor to consider when blacklisting. NFCCP has an important Rationale: we can use non-free content "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." We are not "advertising" CEE. And consider what happens when we use Special Booksources with ISBNs. We get links to Google, Amazon, and a whole lot more. – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you're missing the point. Yes, news services copyright what they put out, but they're primary sources.  We quote directly from them. Here, the copyrighted primary source is being hosted by another website on a "fair-use" basis - so not only is it non-free, but we're directly advertising econlib, which I suspect was the whole point in the first place, and why it ended up on the spam blacklist. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * News services are not WP:PRIMARY sources, they are secondary. E.g., the news reporters writing Post or Times articles are describing the events and are not directly involved with the events. (The CEE, as an encyclopedia, is more of a tertiary source.) Even so, WP does allow usage from primary sources "with care". Again, there is no WP policy or guideline that even suggests using the blacklist as a means of controlling copyright violations. This CEE article http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/ExchangeRates.html (1st edition) by Paul Krugman is an acceptable secondary source about the topic of Exchange rates, but the blacklist prevents us from using it. And please note that this WP article has primary (www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk), secondary (www-econ.stanford.edu), and tertiary (investment_terms.enacademic.com) sources. We are not "advertising" these sources by citing them. – S. Rich (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I now have a printed copy of the CEE (ISBN 978-0-86597-666-5 paperback). So now, by your arguments (above), I can add material from the CEE, providing short quotes from the articles I find, as long as I cite the CEE as the source. But, why can't I also provide links to the same on-line CEE articles? IOW, what is the difference between citing a particular page in the printed book and citing the same pages/material from the on-line version? After all, citing on-line source makes the material accessible to the readers. To provide another (unrelated) WP example I hope you will look at the refs for False equivalence. We have a book, newspaper, magazine, and website. Each is under copyright. (And each link "steers" or "advertises" the source being cited.) But WP copyright/citation policy allows us to cite these different sources under the Fair Use doctrine. All I am asking is that WP contributors be free to cite econlib in the same manner -- without having to beg for white-list permission. Again, please remove econlib from the blacklist. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we please have CEE unblacklisted already? By the admission of the person who first globally blacklisted the site, the problem was not with spamming CEE articles. And per Srich, we can cite CEE articles from the book as a printed source. By what reasoning is it forbidden to provide a helpful link to the same article made available online by the publisher, so that the source can be checked by people who do not own a print copy? And please don't use the "It is forbidden until it can be proven that we need it" argument. This is not Soviet Russia. The burden of proof should be on the people who wish to blacklist a source. Can someone who has access please whitelist "www.econlib.org/library/Enc*" so that the encyclopeida articles can be linked to? Thank you. --LK (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just for reference Network for Pluralist Economics, a heterdox organisation, has cited Econlib. https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/orientation/neoclassical-economics/ Jonpatterns (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Process
What is the process for deciding whether or not a page should be removed from blacklist? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The process is here. But the question that is being evaded here is: do additions of this source need to be controlled.  The reason this got blacklisted is that we had significant spamming by Vipul (Vipul Naik according to his Wikipage) and his (openly declared) paid editing ring.
 * Moreover, there is a clear connection between Vipul Naik and Bryan Caplan (e.g., they co authored a book chapter together), who is connected to the EconLog. That article (now deleted) was created and heavily edited by Vipul, and the EconLog is hosted by Econlib.  Vipul is in number the third editor to add econlib.org (Vipul: 62; Cluebot NG reverting-back-in (463), and another editor (84), who has about 100 edits in the last 2.5 years on this Wikipedia, and has never added econlib.org on this Wikipedia), numbers 4 and 5 are IPs (50 and 48).  The IP on 4 spammed a long list of references, including econlib, to what I guess are 50 different wikis (article Marxism; cross-wiki - I could make a case for cross-wiki spamming of this site), the second IP has not added the link to en.wikipedia (other wiki).
 * Seen the connection between Vipul and paid editing, Vipul's paid editors and SEO behaviour, Vipul and Bryan Caplan, Vipul and EconLog, Vipul and econlib.org, I do think that there is also a link between EconLog and SEO activities .. in short: spam (in Wikipedia terms).
 * WP:INVOLVED note: I have now several times pointed to the whitelist, where there is clear process, and heavily commented on this. I personally will therefore not pull the trigger on the removal of econlib.org.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While you have explained how Econlib got listed (by the Rogue Admin), you have not explained why it should remain on the list. The spamming by Vipul and the SEOs ended long ago, and several editors have provided solid rationale as to why the site should be de-listed. I've gone through all of the links where Econlib was linked as a reference for works available in the Commons and other sources (such as WorldCat) and I will continue to monitor Econlib-links for future possible abuse. I believe you pulled the trigger a few months ago by de-listing it, but you are the only Admin taking an on-going interest in maintaining this list. (Please note that I tried to get another Admin to come in, but that effort failed when s/he could not get over mistaken non-policy based concerns about copyright and fair-use.) The Whitelist is a poor substitute in that contributors must beg for white-listing, while a simple de-listing from the Blacklist is the best solution. The material from Econlib is worthwhile, reliable, useful, helpful, etc. Please pull the trigger. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, let's unblock all of Grawp's accounts, shall we, and remove all edit filters that block him. User:Srich32977 - do you know what SEO is?  Do you realize that I am already since 2011 busy convincing the people involved with a piece of software that we don't want their links or spam here, or since 2010 to keep a review site of off Wikipedia, or since 2008 that a movie review site does not pass our inclusion standards (upon which their 'fans' recently contemplated to add links).  SEO is not some person who has a dislike of the Wikipedia, SEO makes money.  (and how do you know it stopped?).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please! I have no idea who Grawp is. (Some straw man?) We are only asking that Econlib be de-listed. Nothing more. – S. Rich (talk)
 * Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis ... one of the Long Term Abuse cases. Have a look at what they did to be able to vandalise Wikipedia, or some of the other LTA cases.  Add onto that that for SEO people make money with making sure that they are linked properly.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are enabling spammers and fighting those who oppose them. Life is not always easy, so please accommodate the fact that Wikipedia has to have strong defenses. Johnuniq (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a record of the spamming complaint in relation to Econlib? Previously it was suggested that, Vipul Naik?, had spammed other sites but not Econlib.Jonpatterns (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, his contributions (including the deleted ones). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If User Vipul is a spammer then why isn't he blocked? (He is editing to this day.) Indeed, his talk page has but one section that mentions spam. And how does adding a reference and link to an article written by a notable author (or Nobel Prize winner) constitute vandalism? I am just dumbfounded. According to WP:WPSPAM the problem with SEOs was solved 10 years ago. ("Those promoting sites by linking to them from [WP] formerly saw major...SEO benefits, due to [WP]'s popularity. The ability to promote a site's appearance in search engine results was considered too great an incentive for people to add extraneous links to articles. So in February 2007, the English Wikipedia instituted a policy that tags external links "NOFOLLOW." This means that major search engines like Google no longer index these links.") And, according to WPSPAM, adding particular websites to the blacklist is done when "... an active spammer continues adding links after a warning, report the user to the administrators at the intervention against vandalism page. If blocks fail to stop the problem, or if the spammer is using multiple accounts and IPs, the case can be reported to the Spam blacklist." Bottom line, there is no WP policy or guideline that supports keeping Econlib on the blacklist! Doing so does not fight vandalism or spamming. It only inhibits dedicated WP editors from making contributions.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a bloody editing ring - multiple editors. I am not here to play whack-a-mole, if I am presented with a group of editors abusing their editing rights, then I choose the tool that is the most suited to stop that abuse.  If there is sockpuppetry (or editing rings) involved, then blocking does often not stop the spam/vandalism.  I have better things to do than block all those editors.  We block the additions, and then we remove their added rubbish.  Do you really expect me to just block the editor, and while I am cleaning up some spam to have to go hunt another sock and block him, and have more spam to cleanup (ad infinitum).  The spam blacklist stops the disruption.  Again, do you really think that blocking a spammer will stop the disruption?  It is how they make money.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking that any editors be blocked. My point is that the preferred solution, per the Guidance posted, is to block offending editors. (And you are required to use the tool in accordance with the Guidance.) In this case, with this particular website, the Blacklisting has nothing to do with spamming. (And all of the objections about econlib have been solved or answered.) The website is a valuable one and should be accessible. And this is the WP:CONSENSUS of the editors who have commented here and in the previous thread. – S. Rich (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am using the tool in accordance to the rules - we consider whether other solutions will help or not. We have multiple editors, we could block all of them but would that stop it (they do work together, what is the guarantee that not more appear).  XLinkBot does not help, as all are established editors (and it can be reverted anyway).  I have extensively made a link above between editors with SEO behaviour, editors with a strong link to the subject, and additions of the links by said editors.  That is within our scope of WP:SPAM.  And then there is passed experience - most SEO-type of spam does not stop by just blocking the editor.  SEO spam is done because the physical person behind the link needs the exposure.  There are cases that span 10 years and a massive number of sockpuppets.  I am not here to keep mopping - I close the tap.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, Dirk Beetstra, you are wrong. You point to a general problem with spammers and then refuse to look at a specific instance where legitimate editors (non-spammers) insist that this legitimate and valuable website (Econlib) be taken off the blacklist. Your concerns about "editors with SEO behavious .... " as to this particular website is completely unfounded. And you are wrong because you cannot point to any WP guidance or policy that justifies any insistence that this particular website remain on the blacklist. Please, please, acknowledge that this request for blacklist-removal is legitimate. Doing so will not detract from your efforts to combat spam on WP, but will re-enforce your status as an ADMIN who will consider the evidence and the comments of concerned and established WP contributors.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We've gone through this discussion for months, IMO, the consensus is clearly to whitelist the articles in CEE, but for some reason, admins have refused to budge. I'm starting a RfC to make clear what community consensus is. LK (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also for months said to whitelist what you need. That has however not happened.  There is not a SINGLE request for whitelisting.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the request for whitelisting. We want the CEE whitelisted. It is ridiculous to expect the economics community on WIkipedia, many of who are busy with the own research, to request whitelisting for CEE articles, one by one. --LK (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is a de-listing request, which is something different. I have, regularly in these discussions used: '' - we can whitelist whole trees, but we need a paper trail for administrative actions, make a request on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" be blacklisted or whitelisted?
The "Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" (CEE) is a collection of encyclopedic economics articles, largely written by economists who are well-respected in their fields (including several Nobel prize laureates). The CEE is available in print (ISBN 978-0-86597-666-5); the CEE articles are also made available for free on the Library of Economics and Liberty website, at www.econlib.org/library/CEE.html. Unfortunately, the Library of Economics and Liberty website has been blacklisted because of problems in the past. There is a proposal (see above) that the CEE be whitelisted, so that citations on WIkipedia to articles in the CEE can contain working links to those articles, allowing readers to easily check the references. The question for this RfC is: Should the CEE be whitelisted, or should it continue to be blacklisted? LK (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Whitelist To repeat my views from above, i) according to the person who instituted the original blacklist, the problem with spamming was unrelated to CEE articles, ii) the articles are reliable sources and are useful to cite in economics articles, iii) it would be helpful for our readers to have to link available rather then expecting them to track down a print copy, iv) there is no reason to black list those articles and we should not be blacklisting for no reason. LK (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * for the specific links that are needed for the encyclopedia. This RfC can be moot in an hour or so if someone is asking for whitelisting with sufficient data (I do have a concern, but lets discuss that).  I have overall shown more than willing to pull a whitelisting trigger - I am however NOT going to pull the trigger on de-blacklisting, it was blacklisted as an administrative action, there is ample evidence that the editor(s) involved are engaging in SEO activities ánd have a direct-indirect relation to the site - hence I agree that the additions of the site must be controlled, through whitelisting.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The economists here are not requesting global de-blacklisting of the Library of Economics and Liberty website, rather, specific whitelisting of the CEE articles. I.e., those links starting with www.econlib.org/library/Enc* should be whitelisted. LK (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * then request that on MediaWiki talk:spam-whitelist. If we are going to do whitelisting requests from here the paper trail is going to be utterly confusing for someone wanting to follow said trail.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just posted a request on the whitelist page. You could have saved the economics community a lot of grief if this had been clearly spelled out earlier. I'm going to put this RfC on hold for now. LK (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I did: diff, diff, diff. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

gullsmed1.com

 * Spamming by multiple single-purpose accounts, e.g.://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byzantine_chain&diff=prev&oldid=794405966, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Fook_Holdings&diff=794248150&oldid=701173601, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Jewellery_Museum&diff=794401934&oldid=731446291, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspial_Corporation&diff=794403957&oldid=589356499. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * MER-C 04:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

xn--strmtest-74a.no

 * Spamming by multiple single-purpose accounts, e.g.: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arc_fault&diff=788854766&oldid=592334308, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multipoint_ground&diff=788847334&oldid=529842815, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electron_spectrometer&diff=prev&oldid=794413083, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knot_energy&diff=prev&oldid=794412045, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volta_potential&diff=prev&oldid=794408348, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alaska_Electric_Light_%26_Power&diff=prev&oldid=794405401. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * MER-C 03:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

bizsite40.com

 * Inserting spam links on USA Network 209.249.5.130 (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Page on website primature.gov.ml


-- M2545 (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * primature.gov.ml/index.php/2016-06-14-09-46-57/188-primature-2015/contenu-du-site/services/11316-direction-nationale-des-archives-du-mali


 * , for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

couponstan.com

 * Spamming for Indian coupon site by:


 * Continued after "only warning" by - and ongoing. GermanJoe (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Also:
 * MER-C 11:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * MER-C 11:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * MER-C 11:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * MER-C 11:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

x2.tv-muse.ltd

 * Spammed by SPA spam accounts:, , , , , , . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * MER-C 12:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

DramasRack.com


Hello, Kindly unban my website i apologize for all the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.77.235 (talk) (1 August 2017)


 * (Moved and fixed a malformatted IP request from the top of this section - just to get it processed. GermanJoe (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC))

resoluteinnovation.com


None now, but getting spammed by IP hoppers. No encyclopedic value to this site. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There are more SPAs, and many httpS links left (all added by the SPAs).  to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh! This tool wikipediatools.appspot.com is much more sensitive than the first "en" link.  I got the rest of them.  Thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

drsocial.org


Spammed to multiple articles by multiple accounts/IPs since last year. It seems unlikely to stop without blacklisting. Deli nk (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

evasion 1


Evading ... —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

firmex.com


Persistent spam to Data room and Virtual data room by multiple single-purpose accounts. diff1,diff2, diff3, diff4. No encyclopedic value. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Aariya rafi. -- Finngall  talk  18:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

pv-magazine.com


I have no idea, why a photovoltaics magazine with serious journalism is blacklisted.... --Metrancya (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

edu-onlineschool.blogspot.ae
IP's adding to multiple articles (see Distance education Florida State University College of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Bachelor of Criminal Justice). Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

hiddenservice.net


.onion evader. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I circumvented the onion blacklist to link Daily Stormer
I was just looking at the archives about why the ".onion" blacklist and I think I may have done something naughty. Namely I wanted to get The Daily Stormer darkweb site linked on its article, and so I modified Onion link to produce the following result (subst'd): dstormer6em3i4km.onion (proxy access --- NB LINK REMOVED). The template will successfully link to any onion site through the "hiddenservice.net" proxy. Now I am reading the original reasons for the .onion ban and I'm wondering whether you guys might also want to blacklist hiddenservice.net as well?

Anyway if you do blacklist it, I'd appreciate if dstormer6em3i4km.onion got whitelisted in return. It is notable, and for sure the official site, according to the editor's Gab bio. In addition, I'd like to have a direct link through a proxy be working, one of: dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link, dstormer6em3i4km.hiddenservice.net, dstormer6em3i4km.onion.cab.

Cheers, --22:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ve indeed blacklisted the link. Can you do a proper whitelist request, as you would need to indicate why the link is of use, proper, reliable, etc.  —Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

themagzone.com

 * Blog references added by multiple single-purpose accounts over the past few days, e.g.://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cricket_World_Cup&diff=prev&oldid=797320007, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lilly_Singh&diff=prev&oldid=797320437, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Haryana_riots&diff=797316293&oldid=797315779, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uttarakhand&diff=797315490&oldid=797096156, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assumption_Island&diff=796539734&oldid=790651199, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Triple_talaq_in_India&diff=797316688&oldid=797275007, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_in_Asia&diff=796574295&oldid=788547350, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libaas&diff=796539483&oldid=786567904, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Android_Oreo&diff=796546597&oldid=796513257, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Haryana_riots&diff=797315779&oldid=797313518. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

ddasmartcities.com
See these IPs who have been adding this link. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)