MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2009

= Proposed Additions =

maltagenealogy.com and saidvassallo.com

 * Related site that the sockpuppet attempted to add.



This link has historically been spammed. We've got a probable sockpuppeteer. I'd like this site blacklisted to take the wind out of his sails. This will save much volunteer time. Jehochman Talk 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also, in the course of looking over the links from the suspect site, discovered User:Vassallo5448, who works with the same site, shares a similar name to Tancarville's (whose real name is Charles Said-Vassallo, the owner of the suspect website), and who started his Wikipedia account in September, within three days of Mobile historian's. The common link of all three editors is in their heavy interest in Maltese aristocracy, in their use of this website, and in the website's promotion on Wikipedia.    RGTraynor  15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * SAID-VASSALLO GROUP PTY LTD
 * Possibly related;
 * (saidvassallo.com/contact.htm {edited}@optusnet.com.au )
 * Vassallo Industries Industrias Vassallo, (zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=778139155 Webmaster)
 * Clear abuse re maltagenealogy.com and saidvassallo.com, spam sock(meat)puppetry--Hu12 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clear abuse re maltagenealogy.com and saidvassallo.com, spam sock(meat)puppetry--Hu12 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clear abuse re maltagenealogy.com and saidvassallo.com, spam sock(meat)puppetry--Hu12 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

signsvisualny.com
-- user has spammed this url to signage unabatedly. semi prot was denied as it was said that the site should be added to the blacklist instead, since it's one spam site and multiple IPs Theserialcomma (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Signs Visual Industries, Inc. /Spammed
 * Related /spammed
 * Accounts
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Related /spammed
 * Accounts
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

earlywarningsys.com
- Various IPs have spammed this site onto the article for Civil defense siren for months, resuming as soon as the various rounds of semi-protection have lapsed. Dayewalker (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts (just a sampling of the IPs)
 * Redirect page
 * Redirect page
 * Redirect page
 * Redirect page
 * Redirect page
 * Redirect page
 * Redirect page


 * More spam IP's
 * More spam IP's


 * Serious spamming including editwarring and bouts of vandalism, thanks for the report --Hu12 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Attempting to curcumvent, spamming text links under;
 * These are the ranges;
 * If disruption continues we can consider range blocking as needed--Hu12 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Back at it;
 * Was spammed previously and is related to current activity; adding youtube.com/watch?v=9JDLl1CMuNs
 * Also range blocked 174.39.192.0/18 for a month--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If disruption continues we can consider range blocking as needed--Hu12 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Back at it;
 * Was spammed previously and is related to current activity; adding youtube.com/watch?v=9JDLl1CMuNs
 * Also range blocked 174.39.192.0/18 for a month--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also range blocked 174.39.192.0/18 for a month--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also range blocked 174.39.192.0/18 for a month--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also range blocked 174.39.192.0/18 for a month--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

worldphototour.org
Persistent spamming over two years. . MER-C 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

triond.com

 * links


 * accounts


 * related report

All listed sites are part of the triond.com network. An account with Triond.com allows a user to upload a story to any of these sites, all of which are within the triond.com network. The network allows anyone to self-publish material, with no editorial oversight. A handful of the articles may have some degree of research - but the authors are unknown, and most appear to be using these sites to publish material that would fail WP:NOR if posted directly to Wikipedia.

From triond.com/info/how-it-works : ""Triond helps showcase your content so your work gets maximum readership and you earn recognition. As soon as your content is published, it begins generating revenue from several income sources, such as display and contextual advertising that appears on the pages of your content. We share with you 50% of the revenue generated by your content.""

Given the content and the "how-it-works" evidence, this site appears to be a variant of the ehow concept. Some links may be reasonable to be white-listed if established editors find quality links to request; but most are simply allow original research to be disguised as a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the indepth report. Additionaly seems theres plenty of Spam evidence (COIBot in links), and would appear the sites are nothing more than vehicles for a pay-per-spam link-building scheme.✅--Hu12 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

whoguideline.blogspot.com
Repeatedly added to multiple articles by many different IPs. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)



Some of the IPs:


 * ✅. good work--Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

brownplanet.com


Actually, having checked the archives, this was blacklisted by Beetstra a day or so ago. However, there are a lot - a lot - of URLs that redirect to brownplanet. They all seem to have been added by the same IP, 76.168.240.25.



I had actually gone through and checked most of the IP's edits, and the vast majority of the URLs a) all redirect to brownplanet, and b) all originate from the same IP (according to WHOIS). I'd almost finished blacklisting them when my computer crashed (grrr) so I'll have to settle for posting this note for now. If anyone wants to take on the task of blacklisting these URLs before I get back to it, that would be great. I've indef-blocked the IP, as they're the only one using it. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  10:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll generate a userreport for you. Top 10: romeoaventura.com (11), luisguzman.com (9), jacquelinebracamontes.com (8),  (7), chicanorap.net (6), rocketeria.com (5), gracielitabeltran.com (5), espinosapaz.com (5), tonydice.com (4), elcompachalino.com (4).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added brownplanet.com also to XLinkBot. The bots do an attempt to see if the site is a redirect site (loading header information), and XLinkBot reverts if a site redirects to a revertlisted site.  This detection is not fail-save (it depends on how the redirect site is working), but it does catch some, and may help in finding more redirect sites.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

www.scribd.com/doc/21733512/Principles-101 and www.manhood101.com
Multiple editors have been spamming these related links, sometimes as "M a n h o o d 1 0 1 . c o m" of a totally non-notable men's rights website. Most of the accounts have been blocked for spamming, but replacements are recreated every few days to continue the edits, as well as making some disputed assertions on the Fort Hood shootings page.



Thanks.--Slp1 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clear abuse and sock-spamming. Both . Thanks for reporting Slp1--Hu12 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the speedy work! --Slp1 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some More (older)
 * Added for th record--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added for th record--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added for th record--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added for th record--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

winkstreaming.com

 * link


 * accounts


 * spam report
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

Edit warring to add link to the Content delivery network article. Attempts have been continuous for more than a year - and escalated to 3RR violations in September. I had originally reported this here in September, but removed it when the spammer finally posted to a talk page. Recently, the linkspamming has resumed, with no further attempt to discuss (the most recent IP has even resorted to vandalism to user pages of those who revert the spam ). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Another (older)
 * Articlespam
 * Looks like page protection and warnings haven't stop it, .--Hu12 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like page protection and warnings haven't stop it, .--Hu12 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like page protection and warnings haven't stop it, .--Hu12 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like page protection and warnings haven't stop it, .--Hu12 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

paperspoint.net

 * link


 * accounts

Paperspoint.net appears to hold pirate copies of exam papers, mark schemes etc (e.g. [http: //www.paperspoint.net/o_level/chem_5070.html CHEMISTERY 5070] [ sic ] has Cambridge University copyright material), so fails the Linking to copyrighted works test.

The link is being added to exam articles, so far by four Worldcall Telecom dynamic IP addresses in Pakistan and a newly registered account (Zrt1992). In each case I've warned with spam1 or spam2. Examples: GCE Ordinary Level (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3), International General Certificate of Secondary Education (diff) and GCE Advanced Level (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). - Pointillist (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC), updated 18:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the domain was created 18-Nov-2009 and all the papers I checked have "© UCLES 2009" (University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES)). No evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers on paperspoint.net, so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright), this is ✅. Thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

10webhostingservices.com

 * link


 * account

Repeated addition of link over past three months. Has continued despite warnings from multiple users and a block for repeatedly adding the link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ro:Special:Contributions/93.114.141.244
 * Re-blocked for a month, came off previous and continued. Old spam case (reference) (for now)--Hu12 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-blocked for a month, came off previous and continued. Old spam case (reference) (for now)--Hu12 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

www-src.nowpublic.com/culture/guy-fawkes-day-november-5-1605
Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this but could someone check out this site? It was used in the Guy Fawkes Night article but Norton Safe Search flags it up as a malaware site. I've removed the link from the article but I'm concerned someone may put it back in. Richerman (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything weird on the page you linked, and Google says they're clean. Probably a false positive! Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK thanks, I'll put it back in the article. Richerman (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Norton and linkscanner claim its safe
 * http://safeweb.norton.com/report/show?url=http%3A%2F%2Flinkscanner.explabs.com%2Flinkscanner%2Fchecksite.aspx%3FNS%3DChkOnly%26SRC%3Dapps.explabs.com%26CS%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww-src.nowpublic.com%2Fculture%2Fguy-fawkes-day-november-5-1605&.x=13&.y=11


 * http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/checksite.aspx?NS=ChkOnly&SRC=apps.explabs.com&CS=http://www-src.nowpublic.com/culture/guy-fawkes-day-november-5-1605
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"mbtmvp.com", "nikecoo.com"
Links to mbtvp.com and nikecoo.com have been appearing on articles relating to footwear. Users have been replacing existing references and links with the business website.


 * Links


 * Users
 * + one other user who was blocked a while ago, but I can't recall the username.
 * + one other user who was blocked a while ago, but I can't recall the username.
 * + one other user who was blocked a while ago, but I can't recall the username.

- Reconsider !  03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Other accounts
 * Spam Articles
 * Continuing
 * Sock spamming with a considerable ammount of link vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Spam Articles
 * Continuing
 * Sock spamming with a considerable ammount of link vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Spam Articles
 * Continuing
 * Sock spamming with a considerable ammount of link vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing
 * Sock spamming with a considerable ammount of link vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing
 * Sock spamming with a considerable ammount of link vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing
 * Sock spamming with a considerable ammount of link vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sock spamming with a considerable ammount of link vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sock spamming with a considerable ammount of link vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

justtollywood.com


Use of frames for spamdexing. I'm sick of cleaning this up. MER-C 09:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Spammers
 * Spammer replaced existing links.
 * Spammer replaced existing links.
 * Spammer replaced existing links.
 * Spammer replaced existing links.


 * Pretending to remove spam is never a sign of good faith.
 * Pretending to remove spam is never a sign of good faith.
 * Pretending to remove spam is never a sign of good faith.
 * Pretending to remove spam is never a sign of good faith.


 * Spammer removed other links.
 * Spammer replaced existing links.
 * Spammer replaced existing links.


 * Spammer removed other links.
 * Spammer removed other links.


 * Appears to be a genuine contributor, but shares above patterns including iframe redirect abuse.
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Some older IP's not mentioned;
 * , thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the report--Hu12 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)



Some more frame redirect sites. MER-C 03:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * See also
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Iam.spark55
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

save-ee.com
A gaming fansite which has members of it spamming the Empire Earth article for over a year now. Also has illegal pirated copies of the game which it instructs its visitors to download. Piracy page at http://save-ee.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1572 Discussion of them spamming the article at http://save-ee.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&p=9893 Needs to be added.--Thearmed1 (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Section blanked this report --Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By .--Thearmed1 (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IP blanke this report again.--Hu12 (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

cinegemini.com
IP hopping block evading spammer(s). MER-C 11:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

cais-soas.com
This site (CAIS-SPAS) was apparently added a couple of years ago due to somewhat dubious reasons. It is an important and credible reference site for Iranian archeological sites as well as related publications.--Mehrshad123 (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not dubious. This site was blocked at Meta after being identified as carrying images and content in violation of copyrights . This site violates WP:Copyrights, Linking to copyrighted works. --Hu12 (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference in question is a massive web site maintained by dozens of scholars from the University of London. There may be unresolved issues with a small number of the articles, (as is also the case with Wikipedia and many other large sites) but this is not a valid reason for blanket blocking of the entire site - especially one that is a major source of credible research and reference materials. In any case, the article that I wanted to include as a reference does not have any copyright issues. It can be found here: cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/anahita.htm I strongly suggest that the material form CAIS be treated on a case by case basis rather than blanket removal of the entire site. —Preceding .--Mehrshad123 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Has the requested reference link been evaluated yet?--Mehrshad123 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you may want to consider internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time, or search google, which may have sites (such as http://flh.tmu.ac.ir/hoseini/prehist/200.htm ) that would be of interest to you.


 * In any case, cais-soas.com is known for carrying a works in violation of the creator's copyright. Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ).. Additionaly wikipedias servers are located in the United States, it's of no benefit, nor in wikipedias intrest to link this site. Closing as .--Hu12 (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

associatedcontent.com
Here: Here: Why is this site blocked? Argues spam. Please remove this site of the blacklist. Associated content is a site recognized. Thanks! (Mago266 (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Not a valid reason for D-Listing the domain. Having an article on wikipedia does not make for an exception when Significant long term history of abuse and major breaches of official Wikipedia policy. Aditionaly, associated content fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source (in an appropriate context) when there are no other reasonable alternatives available. --Hu12 (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

HU12, thanks for attention, but I need very much this source.(Mago266 (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Why? For what article, and what link are you proposing is a reliable source?  Kuru  talk  14:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Art rock article, but no longer need because they are not considering the article. If I need, then I ask here. Thank's (Mago266 (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Stifle (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

fiero.nl
For some reason this site is listed here and blocked as spam. I can see no reason why this site is blocked as it has a large archive of useful information on the Fiero... from maintenance information on stock engines to build-up threads for engine swaps and body modifications. The userbase is extremely knowledgeable and, for the most part, quite friendly. If you would, please remove this site from the blacklist so that others interested in learning more about this car can do so.

Thanks. 76.114.90.132 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)skuzzboomer


 * This appears to simply be yet another fan forum related to the car; those links are often removed from the Fiero article. There is nothing there that can be used as a reliable source.  The site was added when it was repeatedly spammed in 2006, see here.  At any rate, this is not blacklisted here on the english wikipedia, but on the meta spam list which stretches across all languages.  You'll need to go there, but I would not expect action.  Kuru  talk  14:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

www.army-guide.com
>> NOTE: I'm adding this again because the site is still blacklisted even though it was decided in the discussion below to unblacklist it. << - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The barmy-quide blocks it though. Flayer (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite, it's blocked because of spamming. Can you explain why we should not expect this to restart if we deblacklist the site? Stifle (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... No. But I've been reading this site for a while lately and everything was fine. Flayer (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in here, but I'm not sure why this site is blacklisted for spam. I reviewed the requirements for listing it as spam, and it doesn't seem to meet any.  It was posted frequently in external links, but this appears to have been done by one or two 'enthusiastic' users with 'good intentions' (providing additional sources on the topic), which perhaps triggered the initial fear that this was a spam link.  If you look at the links posted, they were all relevant to the page that they were posted in.  If you look at the contributions of the people who posted them, they're on a wide variety of topics, not just one's associated with the site in question... so it doesn't appear to be for the sake of advertising or a bot (really, what could an 'army guide' have to do with wrestling?).  Finally, yes, this site was posted frequently, but it's an extensive site, so it can be realistically associated with many articles here at Wikipedia. -Jonathon A H (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if it were unblacklisted, what pages from the site would you add, and to what articles? Stifle (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm currently working on BTR-60 article so unblacklisting BTR-60 and TAB-71 articles on the site would be very helpful. The site is a normal site about military vehicles with some very interesting and useful information so it doesn't make sense to blacklist it. Pages for various other weapon systems should also be unblacklisted or even better the whole site should be unblacklisted. There's nothing harmful in that site. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to deblacklist the site and will do so in a week or so if I don't see any further reason to change my mind. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't cut and pase archived discussions, linking to it is sufficient. Ie MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2009.

Since the site is still blacklisted, it appears removal has not been decided. A concern here is, that after the initial blacklisting the spamming spread to other language projects. I'm not confident the spamming won't restart if removed, nor can you guaranty against its return. There doesn't appear to be any pressing need for its removal, nor am I convinced wikipedia benifits from the whole domain being delisted. However if a specific link is needed, feel free to request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where a url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wide spread spam and abuse (Spam case)


 * As I already stated in the archived discussion: There's nothing harmful on this website. The "spamming" resulted from the fact that there is a lot of useful information on that webiste. Have you even looked through it? Articles about military hardware could benefit greatly from this source. Also you justify keeping it on the blacklist by saying "nor am I convinced wikipedia benifits from the whole domain being delisted". As I already stated Wikipedia would benefit from this domain being unlisted. Also if the criteria to not be on the blacklist is to be beneficial to Wikipedia than you could blacklist 90% of all websites and that would take too much work to be worth it. You also speak of "spamming spreading to other language projects". If a source is being used for an article about a certain subject does it mean that articles about the exactly the same subject but in different languages are prohibited from using that source?


 * Oh and you say that "Since the site is still blacklisted, it appears removal has not been decided." Well a user named Stifle stated on 14:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC), in the end of the archived discussion: "I'm inclined to deblacklist the site and will do so in a week or so if I don't see any further reason to change my mind." Well if he found a reason to change his mind why didn't he say anything about it? I've waited for weeks for that site to delisted and then I saw that it was pushed into the archives making all of the progress made in that discussion irrelevant. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the discussion hasn't continued for a long time I propose removing this website from the blacklist. As I already proven the website isn't harmful and is in fact beneficial to Wikipedia. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm again requesting this site to unblacklisted. There's nothing harmful on it, it has information that would beneficial to Wikipedia and there's no reason to keep it on the blacklist. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you try the initial suggestion first, which was to request whitelisting of specific links. If that process demonstrates that the site has useful links, you could then apply for a broader delisting. --Ckatz chat spy  22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly reposting archived requests, while ignoring suggestions is disruptive. Closed--Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay then, here are my suggestions: Unblacklist pages about BTR-60, TAB-71, BTR-40, BMP-1, BMP-2, T-55, BRDM-1, T-62 and BRDM-2. All of them are beneficial to Wikipedia. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been a week since I've given my suggestions for the parts of the website to be unblacklisted. And apparently people who took part in this discussion decided to ignore them. Well I didn't and that's why I'm repeating them: Unblacklist pages about BTR-60, TAB-71, BTR-40, BMP-1, BMP-2, T-55, BRDM-1, T-62 and BRDM-2. Also I've come up with a few new suggestions as well: TR-580, TR-85, TR-85M1 Bizon, BRM-1K, PT-76, T-72, BTR-70, BTR-80, BMD-1 and BMD-2 All of them are beneficial to Wikipedia. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To request specific pages to whitelist, use WT:WHITELIST. That page allows specific links, while this page is only for the full domain only - which is likely why the request wasn't acted upon here.
 * Also, at that page, be sure to provide enough information to allow whitelisting. Just saying which subject won't work.  See other requests on that page for examples. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay than I'll post my suggestions there while here I once again would like to say that I don't see why this site should be blacklisted. The sites on the blacklist either have malware on them or are being used for spamming which on Wikipedia would mean adding links or references to articles even though they don't have any useful information on them. www.army-guide.com doesn't fall into either category. There's no malware on the site and the information on it is very useful for writing articles about AFVs.
 * The original reason for blacklisting it was because it was thought to be used for spamming. But I'm willing to bet that the "spamming" happened because the site hosted a lot of useful information about various AFVs (mostly about their operators as well as numbers in service). To this day you can find the remnants of this "spamming" in the lists of operators of various AFVs.
 * By using the same reasoning you could say that I'm spamming the link to SIPRI Arms Tranfers Database. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

colombopro. com
This site is in the spam list for some reason. Actually doesn't know why this is in there. I'm admin and I haven't engage with Wikipedia before.

I suggest this site to be included in the section of Google wave. because this site giving Google Wave Invites to people: colombopro[.]com/12/01/google-wave-invites/. Site is even not containing any ads or materials that are inappropriate. I'm proposing you to remove the site from blacklist and enlist it in the section of Google Wave, because many people be able to get Google Wave Invites. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickumsiha (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems there was considerable amount of site related spamming, See report. It does appear you are the same as this previous account, which was involved in adding these links. This is your first edit on your new account and as the Admin you have a conflict of interest. Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to site admins or those who where involved in spamming them. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source. --Hu12 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com
Seems strange that we would have this site on the blacklist when we have an article about it. I've used it as a source in a few articles, so this must be a fairly recent addition. I noticed this when I was editing Boo Boo Stewart to re-include a source that was in an older revision, only to get a note from the filter. In any case, unless there's been misusage of the links somehow, I'd like to request a removal. Glass  Cobra  20:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For reference, here's the log related to the blacklisting of the url: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2009.
 * In the case of the specific link you're wanting to restore ... it appears to be a story that consolidates news from other sites/articles. To me, I think the source articles would better serve as reliable sources, as well as being more genuine as to the actual source of the material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. So when we add a link to the blacklist, do we not check to see if any articles link to it? Glass  Cobra  20:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly the Twilight Examiner site content you previously added (which also was previously spammed over multiple articles) appears to be scraped content from a reliabe source, Summit Entertainment, the film studio. Here is a reliable, verifiable link you might be interested in; http://www.summit-ent.com/news.php?news_id=122. --Hu12 (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * GlassCobra: we do, and we would look to remove them in due course. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com.au
I have seen the block page a few times. It bothers me how poorly explained it is, and how it is not linked to a suitable explanation for the block. Editors can and do use webcitation and other backup services to avoid these restrictions, if it were properly explained we might be less inclined to route around this damage.

We could get into a whole other discussion about the quality and credibility of news sources, there are definitely some good articles on Examiner.com and blocking it doesn't seem like the right solution to improving article quality or encouraging editors to go to the real source.

Personally I try to avoid linking to sites that have content that is likely to disappear behind a paywall or have a noarchive/norobots policy since they are a severe detriment to easy WP:Verifiability and a cause of excessive link rot.

Despite those flaws in the blocklist there is a much bigger flaw, examiner.com.au a Tasmanian newspaper and a site not affiliated with the Examiner.com network has been blocked and is flagged by the blocklist. This block needs to be lifted as soon as possible and frankly the whole block on Examiner.com should be lifted if it cannot be done properly. -- Horkana (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is indeed a mistake, the .com.au should not be blocked. I will whitelist it shortly.
 * examiner.com, however, is not behind a paywall, there is not a noarchive or norobots policy, the problem is that examiner.com is basically a free web host, providing a pay-per-view service. That is why it is on there.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I get that. Journals, blogs and sites with largely user published content (like IMDB) aren't considered good sources but are often used for lack of better sources.
 * This large scale block of Examiner.com seems inappropriate, but if it were a warning encouraging editors to find a better source I'd be okay with it. My point was not that Examiner.com is Paywalled but that sites which are more harm and harder to spot than poorly written news sites trying to drive up traffic and they are something I'd really appreciate automated warnings to help me avoiding them. -- Horkana (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Theoretically, an edit filter in warn mode could be written to warn editors that they are including a site which is not a reliable source. Problem is that such a filter is likely to be very heavy on the servers.  And again, it is not that they are badly written (there is good information on it), a bigger problem is the pay-per-view, which is a huge incentive to spam (it is a way for the man in the street to earn some money).  The good faith but misplaced use of some (most?) of these documents as a reference is a lesser problem, and the good documents which need to be used are now a problem because of the spam.
 * The warning that the spam filter gives is a text we can adapt. If you think that it can be improved, then we should try.  It should however also not be a huge wall of text.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot, I already whitelisted examiner.com.au. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

So I had a look at the error message and now that I'm not just being annoyed and blocked from making the edit I wanted to make I can see the error message is not so bad for what it is.

Unfortunately the error message is far too generic, it explains only that a site might be banned without giving any reason why. I'm supposed to take your word for it? In all other things I'm supposed to be skeptical and expect references and the people who have blocked this site have failed to provide an adequate relevant explanation in context. If this was an article it would be rejected so fast it would have skid marks.

I do sincerely appreciate Dirk Beetstra taking the time to explain why the site was banned but it is not something he should have to do, and it is not something I should have to come here and ask about to find out about either. When a site is blocked the reason for it being blocked and necessary context should be linked/referenced and directly included in the relevant context of the error message. Page deletions include a message to the deletion discussion and blacklisting should be just as transparent.

This will hopefully be my last comment on the issue, I much prefer to be adding and editing. -- Horkana (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The message can't know why a site is being blocked, that would be difficult to implement.
 * The only thing indeed is take our word for it that it has been abused (or that there is an error, like here, which may be a too wide filter). I am afraid that the only two things that you can do are looking in the logs (the most efficient is to look for fragments of the domain name, as that is generally the thing that is blocked), or ask here.  In principle the log should link to discussions why a site is banned so we don't have to explain, sometimes the log is a bit less useful, or discussions are less useful (some things get abused in such a bad way, that one editor manages to get things on there, and other methods are just ignored, though that does not happen too often.  Sometimes there is a bit of WP:BEANS or protection of people involved as well).  Maybe the block-message should link to the log, that at least may lead faster to block-reasons.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Horkana there is a discussion regarding this at Requests_for_comment/Reliability_of_sources_and_spam_blacklist. Gigs (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

UNONIC.com
I don't know why this is on the blacklist, but I am writing an article about it, so I am requesting it be removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninlyoko (talk • contribs)
 * Its a domain registrar for URL shortening/redirection sites. If an article is writen which passes inclusion criteria, perhaps we can reconsider this request for use in that article only. For now this is --Hu12 (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

zunzun.com

 * The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

This site has been blacklisted from inclusion in the curve fitting article, the only page where it's applicable as far as I am aware. The only purpose of this site is to provide an open source online tool for curve and surface fitting. It provides, without question, the most comprehensive library of equations and visualization options compared to any other tool, and it is certainly one of the most well-known among those who have a use for this software.

The user MrOllie, and only this user, had been trying to prevent the addition of this specific site to the article for several months, while leaving links to all other sites both commercial and non-commercial. He has provided no explanation, and no means of contact as his talk page doesn't appear to be editable. Unless he has a good reason for wanting this site removed, and I can't imagine what it would be, I'm requesting that this page be removed from the blacklist. Thank you. 130.49.26.66 (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source.--Hu12 (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please check again. I only added the link to this article a total of two times, this is hardly "spamming," and Sir, I am offended that you would consider it as such. For someone with such high standards for editors, as it seems you only consider those with a high volume of contributions to the site, I'm also offended that you would refuse to consider this on a case-by-case basis and simply send a 'form letter' response apparently without any research whatsoever as to the encyclopedic value of the site, when I have taken the time to make an appropriate request as I believe it is useful and adds value to the article. Perhaps you should consider an atypical response in this case and research the site on your own to verify my claims, or refer me elsewhere, instead of rudely dismissing my request simply because I am an IP user. Alternatively, If you are asking me to make a request on the whitelist instead, please say so. Such an inconsiderate response is hardly appropriate otherwise. 130.49.26.66 (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I have one more question. Why do you not consider it spam if an editor's single purpose, as in the case of MrOllie, is to remove other editors' contributions to the site? He has made far more edits to the article concerning this specific link than anyone else, yet I am the one who is labelled a spammer? I understand your reluctance to consider the concerns of IP users, but you may verify my IP address and find that is is part of an academic network. 130.49.26.66 (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Please check again. I only added the link to this article a total of two times, this is hardly "spamming," and Sir, I am offended that you would consider it as such."
 * OK:
 * by
 * (9 additions)
 * (5 additions)
 * (3 additions)
 * (2 additions)
 * (1 additions)
 * (1 additions)
 * (1 additions)
 * Indeed, your IP has only two additions, but the other 6 IPs mentioned here have quite a significant higher number, I see a total of 9 warnings on these 7 accounts, persistent undoing of edits by some despite warnings. I agree, you were not spamming, but the other accounts persistently did, and as warning and removing did not help, I agree that blacklisting is a, if not the only, solution.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in case, MrOllie indeed removed the link over and over as it fails our external links guideline. You might want to read Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which shows you that we are writing an encyclopedia here, and not a linkfarm.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These are not my IP addresses, I only edit from the 130.49.0.0 address range yet my IP is currently static. Also, I have read the entire page concerning the external links guideline, and I fail to see anywhere where the guideline is not satisfied. Indeed, by only comparing this link to the other links that are *already present* in the article, and noting that this site is far more relevant, well-known and comprehensive and certainly makes the article more useful for practitioners of this type of applied mathematics, any reasonable person would conclude that this link has a place in the article alongside the others. That's what makes it so unusual that MrOllie continues to remove this link only while leaving all others. Since he apparently refuses to discuss his reasons for wanting the link removed but successfully convinced one of you (administrators?) to add it to the blocklist, there is hardly a consensus. Unless it can be shown that this link does not meet the external links guideline in some particular manner, I think this merits further discussion. 130.49.26.66 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (1 additions)
 * (1 additions)
 * (1 additions)
 * Indeed, your IP has only two additions, but the other 6 IPs mentioned here have quite a significant higher number, I see a total of 9 warnings on these 7 accounts, persistent undoing of edits by some despite warnings. I agree, you were not spamming, but the other accounts persistently did, and as warning and removing did not help, I agree that blacklisting is a, if not the only, solution.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in case, MrOllie indeed removed the link over and over as it fails our external links guideline. You might want to read Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which shows you that we are writing an encyclopedia here, and not a linkfarm.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These are not my IP addresses, I only edit from the 130.49.0.0 address range yet my IP is currently static. Also, I have read the entire page concerning the external links guideline, and I fail to see anywhere where the guideline is not satisfied. Indeed, by only comparing this link to the other links that are *already present* in the article, and noting that this site is far more relevant, well-known and comprehensive and certainly makes the article more useful for practitioners of this type of applied mathematics, any reasonable person would conclude that this link has a place in the article alongside the others. That's what makes it so unusual that MrOllie continues to remove this link only while leaving all others. Since he apparently refuses to discuss his reasons for wanting the link removed but successfully convinced one of you (administrators?) to add it to the blocklist, there is hardly a consensus. Unless it can be shown that this link does not meet the external links guideline in some particular manner, I think this merits further discussion. 130.49.26.66 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and in case, MrOllie indeed removed the link over and over as it fails our external links guideline. You might want to read Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which shows you that we are writing an encyclopedia here, and not a linkfarm.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These are not my IP addresses, I only edit from the 130.49.0.0 address range yet my IP is currently static. Also, I have read the entire page concerning the external links guideline, and I fail to see anywhere where the guideline is not satisfied. Indeed, by only comparing this link to the other links that are *already present* in the article, and noting that this site is far more relevant, well-known and comprehensive and certainly makes the article more useful for practitioners of this type of applied mathematics, any reasonable person would conclude that this link has a place in the article alongside the others. That's what makes it so unusual that MrOllie continues to remove this link only while leaving all others. Since he apparently refuses to discuss his reasons for wanting the link removed but successfully convinced one of you (administrators?) to add it to the blocklist, there is hardly a consensus. Unless it can be shown that this link does not meet the external links guideline in some particular manner, I think this merits further discussion. 130.49.26.66 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, WP:OTHERLINKS. And fact remains, that zunzun.com was pushed, pushed quite hard, actually.  Further discussion is fine, but that is not something any of these accounts attempted at first, multiple warnings (did I see one of the IPs being blocked for these additions?) were simply ignored (and see WP:EL: "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.").  MrOllie did not see a justification, he removed it at first, but it came back without discussion.  It may have a place alongside the others (though "... it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic"), but that can be discussed on the talkpage, or with an appropriate WikiProject.  I am sorry, but you will now have to convince some wikipedians who are knowledgeable about the subject whether this links merits linking, and show their consent here in a next de-listing request.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed other links from that page as well, here is one example. The zunzun link was very often reinserted, so you may have missed those other link removals in all the volume. To my knowledge this is the first discussion of this link on the wiki (aside from my various talk page warnings, some of which you chose to blank without response), so I don't believe I've refused to discuss anything. - MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the consensus is clear that this is ; closing. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

www.wsraf.co.cc
This is the official website for a Royal Air Force section that is higly relevant to the article Wellingborough School CCF. Please whitelist the link. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0o-JayParmar-o0 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not even close, the website does not exist. .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably meant ws-raf.co.cc, which is a redirect to http://ws-raf.66ghz.com/ (which is not blacklisted). Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I would suggest to use the non-redirect per our external link guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

kitchen-gadgets.suite101.com
There is a useful page on this site which describes the types of Instant hot water dispenser available (the article originally described only one type); the page has useful factual information although it also displays advertisements. The specific http is kitchen-gadgets.suite101.com/article.cfm/home_electric_instant_hot_water_dispensers. I would suggest that this site, or at least this page, be unblocked, or alternatively that a page with equivalent content be found. I couldn't find either "gadgets" or "suite101" on the local or global spam blacklists, but that may be because I'm not familiar with spam filtering on Wikipedia. I have put a reference to the page (without leading "http://") in the article for now. Pol098 (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Suite101 and a number of similar sites are blacklisted at Spam blacklist. In general, most such pages are not considered quality references, and higher-quality alternatives should be sought unless the page is written by a recognized expert (which is rare). Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I'd say it's not bad enough to blacklist; certainly the simple non-ad comparison of different types of instant water heater is useful, though ads are displayed. I don't claim any expertise on this subject in particular, so will let matters lie and the article develop as it may. I'd suggest a link to the meta:Spam blacklist be added to the "blacklisted page" message (unless it's there and I missed it). Thanks Pol098 (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Suite101.com is bad enough to blacklist globally, most of the information on the site is unreliable, and has been spammed widely by many editors to many wikis (often by editors with a conflict of interest). However, there are single documents left and right which are of interest, and I would like to ask you to request specific whitelisting on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist.  Hence,  and .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have done as you suggest: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. Pol098 (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

grangehotels.com
Appears to be a legit hotel group, and owns a five star hotel, Grange City Hotel which would normally have a link to the hotel website, e.g. to www.grangehotels.com/hotels-london/grange-city-hotel/grange-city-hotel.aspx?int=1

I don't know why it's on the blacklist. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's your reason. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stifle. I vaguely understand from that that some SEO creep has in the past spammed the link. Where does that leave us now that we have an article about the hotel, which would like a link to the hotel website? (I'm not at all familiar with this area of wikipedia, and, come to that, don't even care much about the hotel article. If someone could give me a clue about a route forward, that would be great.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can request one or a few links from a site to be permitted over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

merchantcashadvances.org
This website provides merchants with information regarding merchant cash advances. It discusses the entire lending process, and what merchants should be looking for when taking out a merchant cash advance. Many merchants don't know about this relatively new form of funding and this site provides them with answers to many questions they may have. Why is this site on the black list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merchantcashadvances (talk • contribs) 02:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:EL additionaly Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". --Hu12 (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:EL additionaly Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". --Hu12 (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

internetreviewofbooks.com
I'm the webmaster of the Internet Review of Books, which has been blacklisted for spamming. Apparently some of our team attempted to post too many references to our website on various other Wikipedia articles. Although I was not part of the ensuing email exchange, I understand from our editor that he promised a Wikipedia administrator that he would stop the offending practice. He did so.

Please allow me to explain ourselves, so that at least you know our offense was unintentional. We are a book-review website that publishes approximately 20 or so reviews each month. If permissible by the rules of Wikipedia, we would from time to time look for Wiki articles about the authors of books featured on our site, and add a link to our review of the person's book. Our intent has never been to blanket Wikipedia with references to the Internet Review of Books; indeed, those references would only be to the pages of authors whose work has been reviewed by our reviewers.

We are in our third year of continuous operation and are slowly building a faithful readership. Meanwhile, our reputation is important to us, so news of a blacklist is painful. Would you please either remove us from the blacklist or explain the steps we must take for you to remove us?

Kind regards, Organmountains (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Bob Sanchez


 * This was only a few months ago, The links were spammed under multiple accounts, despite multiple warnings to stop, these were ignored and spamming continued. see Spam case. Contradictory to your claim, the Spamming was clearly intentional, as stated by one of the staff accounts spamming these links;


 * "We had intended to put links from all our reviews (about twenty a month) wherever appropriate--on author pages, or on pages devoted to some subject the author covers, and would like to be permitted to continue that project. " Carter Jefferson, editor The Internet Review of Books


 * Additionaly, You state "We are a book-review website that publishes approximately 20 or so reviews each month., and would appear that is in line with wanting to continue to add All of your sites review links to Wikipedia. As was explained previously, and I'll repeat, Wikipedia is NOT' a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote internetreviewofbooks.com


 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-administrators' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your blacklisted links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered . --Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

nariphaltan.org

 * This ought be to included in Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute as the institute's official site. - Eastmain (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of fairly recent abuses and spam I'm reluctent to whitelist the entire domain. However because this is the official site of Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute ... I've whitelisted the main page, " " for use in that article only. ✅. Be sure to use the link exactly as presented, variations of that format will not work.--Hu12 (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mapsofworld.com
I feel this listing is inappropriate. Is it because it is a commerical website? Because it contains an high amount of valid information about cities, I came across it when expanding the Kathmandu article. Even if not accepted as a reference believe it is a very good resource to link to related pages as an external link. For instance google Kathmandu education and it has a lot of info about all aspects of cities. Please remove from the blacklist. Hell, I fail to understand how if fallingrain.com can be accepted and not this site!!! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear to be a valid reason for d-listing. As for the site, "fallingrain.com", please read WP:OTHERLINKS.
 * Background and Previous incidents;
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2007
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Aug
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2009
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/mapsofworld.com
 * Suspected sock puppets/59.144.165.88
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Aug
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2007
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2007
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2007
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct 2
 * Seems the listing is appropriate per abuse and multiple discussions. If there is a specific Link you wish to use as a citation, --Hu12 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know what point you are trying to make about telling me to reach OTHERLINKS (as if I havne't read it before). Fallingrain is known by many of us, Darwinek, myself and many pthers to contain false information about population and altitude yet is used in thousands of articles, particularly developing world to reference articles. That is more damaging to the encyclopedia. The fact that you allow lesser informed individuals to think it reliable. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about MapsofWorld, but I would support a complete ban on all links to fallingrain.com, which not only contains incorrect info on existing villages, but also reports on incorrect spellings, streets, trailer parks, ... as if they were actual villages, distorting our coverage. Blacklisting, edit filter, any solution would do... Fram (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fallingrain is currently proposed for black listing at the bottom of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist...I couldn't agree more. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is evidence of spamming and abuse with fallingrain.com (as is the case of MapsofWorld), it should be reported and considered for blacklisting also. No report (that I'm aware of) has been made on fallingrain.com.--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Redtube.com
I'm posting this here because I'm not sure whether unlisting this subject is appropriate. There's been an article about for a few weeks, but I notice the site itself is blacklisted. As the article contains independent references which verify a certain degree of notability, I'm wondering whether it might be useful to be able to include a link to the site itself. Having said that, I have heard of problems involving this stie in the past, one being that clicking on some of the links can result in the user receiving unwanted pop up windows requesting bill payments, which are locked for a certain amount of time. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is best to have only a link to e.g. main index.htm or about.htm whitelisted, leaving the complete rest of the site impossible to link.  ??  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * . dealt with on whitelist--Hu12 (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Lulu.com
This is the website of a self-publishing company with ties to the open-source software community which I believe was added to the blacklist in error. At the time when associatedcontent.com was requested to the blacklist, a number of other sites were piggybacked onto the block request. However, there was no convincing argument that Lulu was a problem. While the other sites were described as paying editors for link hits, and that there was a flood of hundreds of users and articles involved, Lulu sells books and not web articles, and the justification was about one user adding one link to one particular page(!) I came across this when working on our page about Lulu Enterprises a while back, and would like to fix a nontrivial amount of broken references to its policies and procedures. As this is an less likely target of abuse, and it appeared to be added in haste, I feel that it is appropriate to remove this publisher's website from the blacklist. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Background and Previous incidents;
 * WikiProject_Spam/LinkSearch/lulu.com (note: User and User_talk (tagged by XLinkBot)
 * WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/lulu.com
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jan
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_1
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Oct
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/11
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/06
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/09
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/04
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2008


 * I'm reluctent to whitelist the entire domain based on past issues. However I've whitelisted the main page some time back and see no reason not to whitelist links you wish to fix (broken references, ect) for use in for use in the Lulu (company) article.


 * Current broken references (now whitelisted) that reside in the article;
 * http://www.lulu.com/about/member_agreement.php
 * http://lulupresscenter.com/uploads/assets//Lulu_June_Press_Kit.pdf
 * http://www.lulu.com/static/pr/09_20_04.php
 * http://www.lulu.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=83496
 * http://www.lulu.com/en/help/index.php?fSymbol=distro_service&fLangCode=EN
 * http://www.lulu.com/en/help/publishing_faq
 * Above link replaces → lulu com/help/index.php?fSymbol=pbl_agreement
 * http://www.lulu.com/en/help/index.php?fSymbol=license_what_kinds


 * These should be in the order of "use" in the Lulu article. Be sure to use the link exactly as presented, variations of that format will not work. If additional are needed for the article, please let me know. thanks✅--Hu12 (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've studied the discussions you've provided. From that linksearch that the spam team did around the time Lulu was being debated, only about 75 of those were from article space.  That doesn't seem too bad to me.  However, I could live with limiting the blacklist to lulu.com/content/* and lulu.com/product/*, which encompasses pretty much everything editors have questioned on the noticeboards.  This still leaves us able to link to the "about", "help", and other administrative content on the site.  I appreciate the whitelisting of the broken links, but it's likely when copyediting that article I'll want to vary some of the help pages cited, and don't want to create a long, cumbersome whitelist. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, Ive also whitelisted the "/en/help/" subdirectory;
 * http://www.lulu.com/en/help/
 * Seems the only thing under the "/about/" is member_agreement.php, which I've changed to allow for subsection linking (such as #legalAgreement, #international ect..) ✅Thanks --Hu12 (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =

examiner.com redux
It was proposed for removal above and then withdrawn, but I'd like to reopen it. I agree that it's not a particularly reliable source. If someone used it to back up a dubious fact or to establish notability, I'd challenge them on it. But sources of questionable reliability are not blanket banned using technical means; there's no community consensus for that (that I'm aware of). Our reliable source guidelines say that articles should primarily rely on reliable sources, but as with all our guidelines, it's subject to discretion and exception. I believe that using the spam blacklist in this way exceeds the scope of what it's supposed to be for, and that this case is gray enough that it shouldn't be listed. As well, I don't believe that examiner.com has any unique conflicts of interest in terms of the author's compensation... I can't imagine many web sites where a goal isn't to drive traffic. Anyway in summary, I agree that it's "blog like"... I agree that it should be used with caution, but I disagree that it should be blanket banned using the blunt instrument of the spamlist. Gigs (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I poked around to see if there was a standing community consensus on this, I didn't find one, but I did find this arbcom finding that says specifically that "Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions." Gigs (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Gigs, that was quite a blanket statement, which I don't think is a reason to de-blacklist (basically, all blacklisted items are content decisions saying 'we don't want this content here'; and you seem to assume that it was blacklisted because we want to keep out the content, maybe it was just plainly spammed?)
 * Regarding the examiner.com, there are several discussions stating it is not a reliable source: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_38Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39, Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive_21, Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive_21. Basically, no editorial oversight, self published sources
 * Regarding spamming, I found at least one editor who was spamming their own work, Special:Contributions/Thetwilightexaminer, unfortunately too many records, I may be able to examine more of this. Maybe the MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist can be of assistance here?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were spammed in a widespread manner that something lesser like XLinkBot can't handle then that's fine. But the main reason given for its initial and continued listing seems to be that it's not a particularly reliable source, which is something I don't agree with and I don't believe there's community consensus for.  The reliability of a source should have no bearing whatsoever on a blacklist listing.  The same goes with the discussions above regarding ehow.com, associated content, etc.   Yes, I could probably get the specific link I wanted whitelisted, but I guess I'm concerned about the larger issue here of black and white listing decisions being driven by WP:RS instead of actual spam concerns.  Maybe we should transplant this to the discussion section below, and we can hold this request pending the outcome of that larger discussion? Gigs (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As shown above there infact has been spamming and abuse, additionaly community consensus is rooted in Wikipedia policies of whats acceptable for inclusion, and in this case of Examiner.com links;
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * 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. "
 * Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * As shown by community discussion and consensus, the reliability of a source has a determining factor on what is or is not removed or whitelisted. On that basis this request is . However, If a specific link is needed as a citation, as suggested, it can be requested on the MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a reliable source. The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate to this are: Verifiability and No original research. For questions and discussions debating the reliability of sources, the appropriate place for discussion is at the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. thanks. --Hu12 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * moved --Hu12 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the community discussion and consensus regarding using WP:RS to determine what to list on the spam blacklist? I couldn't find it.  Quite the opposite, I found several comments against using it in that way, including that arbcom finding. Gigs (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Gigs, the fact that "Examiners" are paid a very competitive rate based on standard Internet variables including page views, unique visitors, session length, and advertising performance. " is a HUGE spam incentive, and many, even SINGLE additions are basically spam, not edits to improve the Wikipedia. The existence of that incentive also results in some cases in violation of WP:ELNO #2, and moreover it fails WP:RS where most of the documents simply can NOT be used as a reference.  Simply, in by far the most cases this site should not be linked to, it has been abused, and hence it is blacklisted with the clear possibility to whitelist individual pages on this site.
 * You would have a case if it was solely blacklisted for violation of WP:RS, but that is not the case. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Every site has employees or authors that, if they were to add links to said site, it would represent a conflict of interest (and probably should be reverted). Most sites make money through traffic.  If we block sites on the grounds that they make money from traffic, then we'll need to block most of the Internet.  As for WP:ELNO #2, obviously it is not examiner's goal to mislead people through incorrect information.  That clause seems directed more at hoax sites.  And again, I don't see why the editorial decision over whether a site is a reliable source for a certain fact or not should be dictated through the administrative means of a black list.  I don't see why the reliability or lack thereof should even be a factor here at all.  I doubt many editors are aware that the black list is being used in this way.  It may be useful to open an RFC to see where the consensus is. Gigs (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I didn't notice this discussion here before making my request for an unlisting yesterday; however, it seems to me that Gigs in correct in saying that this is at least worth some wider discussion, perhaps at WP:RS/N. Glass  Cobra  14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Before we take this to a wider audience, I'd like to at least get some more or less neutral questions agreed upon. To me, the main questions are:
 * Should the reliability of a source be a determining factor on what is blacklisted or whitelisted?
 * Should we blacklist sites based on their business model of paying authors based on ad revenue?

In taking this to the community, I would want to remind people that we do have XLinkBot as well for doing reversible reverting of possibly ill-advised links that can be undone by established editors, so that people are aware that we do have tools other than the blacklist for this sort of thing. Gigs (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry Gigs, but I am afraid that you look at it from the wrong end.
 * a) reliability can be a secondary factor, until now I have not seen any which have been solely decided on 'not being a reliable source'.
 * b) No, we don't do that, and that is also not what I said, nor what I believe is done here.
 * Of course, all sites have people working for them, who have a conflict of interest. They are not disallowed to add their site, as long as the information is to the point, reliable, etc. etc.
 * People who work for, say, the American Chemical Society can link to documents on their site, that would indeed give some revenue to the organisation, and if that would be the incentive, then we would revert. We don't blacklist, as it is a reliable source, it is needed.
 * People who make their own website on a server like the old geocities don't get any money for people who visit their site. They still have a conflict of interest if they add a link to their site to Wikipedia.  Geocities makes (made) money from that, as all those free web hosts do.  If the links were added by a person who works for Geocities, then scenario 1 is in place.  Sites like these tend to fail WP:RS.  Do we blacklist, generally not.
 * Now we have sites like examiner.com. You can write your own website on there, just like on Geocities, but it has as an added bonus, that if you then link to your page, and people follow that link, that you actually get paid for that.  The data is, generally again, not a WP:RS, one has a conflict of interest when adding a link to an own document.  Still not really dissimilar from either 1 or 2 .. do we blacklist immediately, no.
 * But, if documents on sites like 3 are more often added in an inappropriate manner (and I already gave an example of one spammer, I don't recall if I blacklisted or someone else, but I did not review the case in detail now), then an evaluation can be made, and these pay per view sites are then earlier eligible than geocities. Note that geocities has been on XLinkBot's revertlist for a long, long time, and that many, many additions of said site were inappropriate as they are (generally) unsuitable external links (and probably also generally unsuitable as references).
 * So basically, this site is not blacklisted on grounds that it makes money from traffic (all do), this site is not blacklisted on grounds that it is not a reliable source (basically, then we should shut down linking to all free web hosts, social networking sites, blogs, image and video sharing sites, etc. etc.), but it is, in beginning, blacklisted because it was abused, and being a pay-per-view site makes the incentive for editors who have a page on such a site to link inappropriately bigger. Some of the early and bigger examples of such pay-per-view sites have been massively abused/spammed just for that reason (e.g. associatedcontent.com).
 * Does this mean that we should not use this site, no. If you need documents which are not replaceable, and which are a unique/reliable source, then that document could/should be whitelisted, and if you make such a request with a bit of reasoning, it will be handled swiftly.  I am afraid that removing this site from the blacklist will result in a new influx of such spammy additions, while in the end there will not be many which are really to improve.  I am sure you are here for one or two specific documents, and there may have been a couple more requests, but sites like associatedcontent.com, which are here already for a long time, only get a request for whitelisting every now and then, while the spamming before blacklisting was severe.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)  (adapted, I meant associatedcontent.com --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I am not sure what to say. What you have said here directly contradicts what Hu12 has said and also what is being practiced on this page and on the whitelist page.  Hu12 said that "As shown by community discussion and consensus, the reliability of a source has a determining factor on what is or is not removed or whitelisted."  I believe this to be false, I have found no such community consensus for using the reliability of a source as a determining factor.  You say it's a "secondary factor", and yet I see many decisions here and on the whitelist page being primarily based on a WP:RS rationale for not removing a blacklist or adding a whitelist entry.  I have gone back over the last couple months of archives, and here are all decisions that have been primarily based on the site being unlikely to meet WP:RS:
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2009 - Similar to examiner
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2009 - Social Networking hosting site, geocities style, blanket blacklist of every social network hosted there was added because just one subdomain was being spammed.
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2009 - Forum site
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2009 - Of course
 * I don't think there is community consensus for this kind of administrative and technically enforced decision about the suitability of sites as reliable sources. You suggest that I could get a link whitelisted; I'm sure I can. But the problem here isn't the link I want to use, it's the systematic problem that I discovered when I tried to use the link. I would rather get that corrected than get the band-aid of a whitelist entry.  As you point out, there probably is consensus for adding these kinds of sites to XLinkBot, since that's been done for years, but that's not what's happening here.  They are being hardblocked with the blacklist instead of XLinkBot. Gigs (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction I think you're missing. Sites aren't placed on the blacklist because they aren't reliable, they're placed on the blacklist because someone was spamming them. Fast forward to when somebody wants to whitelist (or unblacklist) a link to use in an article. At that point it's worth considering if using the site as the requester suggests would meet with policy - if it doesn't there's no good reason to grant that particular request.
 * If the reliability of the source were the primary criterion, unreliable sites would be proactively blacklisted before anyone came along to spam them, but that doesn't happen. - MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Gigs, sites are blacklisted because of abuse. I think you've got the cart before the horse. Guidelines such as WP:RS inherantly reflect community consensus, because they are community created and accepted standards.
 * The reliability of Examiner.com as a source has been determined by the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, as not reliable;
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_38
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39
 * The reliability of Examiner.com as a source has been determined on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources, as not reliable;
 * Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive_21
 * Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive_21
 * So yes, "the reliability of a source has a determining factor on what is or is not removed or whitelisted". Understand that when considering a removal, One must also consider the probability of reoccuring/future spamming and abuse. The fact that; →"Examiners" are paid a very competitive rate based on standard Internet variables including page views, unique visitors, session length, and advertising performance. ←,  works against Examiner.com. The potential for continued spamming is a likely problem, as the incentive to do so is extremely high. Unfortunatly we have learned this in past pay-per-spam type cases.--Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition to this, XLinkBot was not set up (until just a couple of days ago, and it has not been tested yet) to revert references. And for associatedcontent, ehow, and examiner, it is not just an unreliable source, you seem to 'ignore' the fact of the pay-per-view incentive.  You say for ning.com that it was blacklisted just one subdomain was spammed, did you investigate all the others, and what the incentive there is (is ning.com also a pay-per-view site?)?  It is fine to say, that sites should not be blacklisted because they are deemed not to be a reliable source, and if you put an request for comment on that fact only I am sure that it will not pass (I am with you there, though I can see the benefits of it, it has huge drawbacks, we do link to unreliable sources for other reasons, and sometimes it is a matter of what conclusion you want to draw whether it is unreliable or not).  But these are not just sites which are containing a lot of unreliable material, and I don't think that that request for comment (on WP:RS basis only) will give results which are portable onto these sites, one would then need a second for pay-per-view sites which are also unreliable sources.
 * Let me give an example, some time ago we had an editor who begged us to leave his referral link for a week, because they needed the money. The lengths this editor went through to get their referrals linked, there are a handful of links on the blacklist  These sites give essentially the same problem.  I can write a story on these sites about some mainstream subject, and link it from Wikipedia, so I earn some extra money.  My story can be completely crap .. it will work.  This is not just a site where the information is unreliable, where other editors are adding links to the unreliable information in good faith, this is not just a site where some information is fine, and some is not, no, this is a site where it pays to write absolute crap and link it from as many places as possible in order to get you some extra money.  You used the argument that most sites get money from somewhere, yes, true, but I don't think that many websites will go through the effort of just filling pages with information and linking them throughout the web to get people on their sites (well, you see it in the Sildenafil corner of the web ..).
 * And as I said, most of them were abused in one form or another, I recall that I, when I examined one of these sites some time ago, there were quite some single or not-so-wide-scale additions, which were not really improving the encyclopedia we are writing here, all where the username on both sides was the same or very similar. This does not necessary go by big numbers .. yes, you are right, they contain good stuff, but I am not sure it is worth the effort.  Yes, they can go onto XLinkBot (I think associatedcontent.com was there for some time), but this incentive of being payed for linking defies XLinkBot (especially if you put it into reference; and the incentive just makes people revert XLinkBot).  Spamming != vandalism.  It generally does not pay to vandalise, while it seldomly does not pay to spam .. please do not ignore that pay-per-view incentive on these generally unreliable sources.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been watching this for a while and would agree with the status quo (whitelisting on request only). There is far too much potential for misuse. I would most like to do it by way of an edit filter (which could permit editors with over a certain level of contributions to add the links on the assumption that they're reliable), but that doesn't support the fine granularity that we need. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding ning.com, the blacklist is now blocking thousands of sites on the grounds that just one of them was spammed. It is like IP blocking all of Russia because we had a single Russian vandal!  This sort of prior restraint goes against the foundation of Wikipedia, and every wiki in general.  It strikes at WP:BOLD and turns it into WP:ASKFIRST. Gigs (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find a log entry for ning.com, I see that Hu12 blacklisted a subdomain, but I can't find who added the whole domain. This one seems a bit odd.  Is there a valid reason why the whole domain is blacklisted?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fist Russia is not blocked. Secondly the domain ning.com is not blocked. One subdomain (addisethio.ning.com) is blocked as was requested. Thirdly, its an Ethiopian social network sub-site in which multiple "sub-group" links were spammed, including multiple instances of link vandalism . I'm a bit confused by what gigs posted. Even the IP isnt russian.--Hu12 (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, my mistake (I did not look carefully), but still. There is a rule '\ning\.com\b' (which IIRC is not a correct regex, \n does not exist.  We can still link to http://beetstra.ning.com, http://beetstra.ing.com (just testing) I think.  That regex is, again if I see it correctly, not properly logged, and if it is really not working, it should go.
 * Gigs, if you see only the proof presented of one subdomain, then that is not a reason to think that it are not multiple subdomains. Sometimes it is just one particularly bad example (but a look at e.g. a User:COIBot-report shows that the rest of the site was not used in a particularly helpful way either), sometimes an evaluation is made on the major site.  Please ask whether there is enough evidence, don't say 'the blacklisting was not done on enough evidence'.  User:Japanhero is giving us a hard time, using multiple sockpuppets to add links where the subdomain on the free web server is changing upon blacklisting of every other one.  We are running behind the facts, and there is hardly anything we can do.  Sometimes then we have to make the evaluation, 'what if we blacklist the whole domain, do we lose much?'.  Yes, it becomes a bit difficult to add the good stuff (one has to go through whitelisting), but, well, the man in the street does not see how much effort it sometimes takes to keep spammers out.  Again, spammers earn money from spamming!  It is not just school boys and girls adding bad words to pages which you can block.  They go through great lengths.  But I presume that 'the editors' don't like the 'administrative decision' that Wikipedia is not supposed to end in a site where one can promote themselves or a site which can be used to improve their own revenues.  The blacklist is a last resort, surely, but believe us, you don't want us to fully protect ALL drug pages (Sildenafil, etc.; yes, it takes 4 days and 10 innocent edits to become autoconfirmed, socks are easily made, so you can still spam your links to semiprotected pages, so semi is NOT enough), we can't block the whole of Russia (unfortunately some countries have a high influx of certain forms of spam, and some ranges easily change IP, and accounts are easily made), XLinkBot only reverts, and is easily reverted (and XLinkBot does not revert again .. it notifies editors, and those who follow XLinkBot will see when it is reverted; but it does not STOP spammers, it slows them only down and makes them visible), and ning.com/webs.com/&c. subdomains are easily made.  Spammers know the holes, and they will use them.  IT PAYS, (AND/OR) IT IS THEIR JOB!  So, Gigs, are you going to help us checking and removing all the crap that will come from examiner, just because some of the documents are suitable and therefore the whole domain can't be blacklisted?  Again, this site is not blacklisted solely because it is not a reliable source, it is blacklisted because it is not a reliable source ánd a pay-per-spam site.  Thát is the problem.  Blacklisting a non-reliable source solely on the fact that it is not a non-reliable source is never done, there is always more, either it has been abused; used e.g. to systematically 'source' wikipedia documents in a way which is neglecting our core policies, or plainly spammed, or to gain money, or even just to attract people to the site.
 * To all, please stop suggesting that we 'blacklist maintainers' (well, all you admins are blacklist maintainers) make it impossible for editors to work, to reference material or to add helpful external links, we may make mistakes, but blacklisting is seldomly done without proof, and once a site starts being spammed, then you know more is going to follow. Sites like Associated content, examiner.com, ehow.com give a great incentive, and don't even think that blacklisting one subdomain will stop the spam.  My suggestion below to block such sites on sight, or even pre-emptive is harsh and hard .. believe me, it is not worth the cleaning up.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pre-emptive blacklisting of Pay-per-view sites
I actually would like to turn this discussion around. We have until now only few cases of link-types which go onto this blacklist without discussion, and sometimes even without abuse, or even without any additions to Wikipedia (redirect sites like tinyurl.com are one, sites which are installing malicious software another, referral links are sometimes also blacklisted very fast without widescale abuse). I'd like to hear some community input on what to do with these 'free web hosts which offer money to the creator of documents on a pay-per-view basis' (like associatedcontent, ehow, examiner). IMHO, such sites should not be linked to, except after careful examination of specific documents and whitelisting of such documents on a need-to-link-to basis, and that such sites can actually be blacklisted to avoid abuse. Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Community practice isn't really consistent on this. On the one hand we have those three blacklisted, on the other another such site is not blacklisted and is still extensively linked on Wikipedia (About.com). - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, About.com states "Contributing Writers go through a training program, in which they submit writing samples to an About.com editor. After the editor's suggestions have been incorporated, the articles will be re-evaluated and a hiring decision made. You can read more about the training process for Contributing Writers here.". You can then indeed earn money, but it's setup is different from the other three I mention here, where you can just join and write.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking further, examiner.com does a check ("Once you click the submit button on your application, it goes to a member of the content channel team for which you have applied (Business & Finance, Sports, Pets, etc). They will assess writing style, voice and tone, knowledge within the topic, experience, etc., as well as technical factors such as grammar, spelling and punctuation. Every application is reviewed, though sometimes it can take up to two weeks due to the volume of applicants." and "Authorization to conduct criminal history background check and identity verification. We do not check credit history or contact former employers."), but not a training (like about.com: "Contributing Writers go through a training program, in which they submit writing samples to an About.com editor. After the editor's suggestions have been incorporated, the articles will be re-evaluated and a hiring decision made."). Associated content even states "The sign-up process is easy, and you can start submitting content immediately.", similarly, Ehow.com states "Just sign in to your eHow account, and from your profile page, click on the "Write Now" button. From there eHow's publishing wizard will guide you through the publishing steps.".  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Examiner does seem to go farther than the others mentioned, with the claim to assess; "writing style, voice and tone, knowledge within the topic, experience, etc., as well as technical factors such as grammar, spelling and punctuation." in the examinerfaq. Unfortunatly it (as with the others) falls short of editorial fact checking. This seems verified in their actual Terms of Use, Under section 8. User-Submitted Content... states "Since Examiner.com does not control the User Content posted on the Site, it cannot and does not warrant and/or guarantee the truthfulness, integrity, suitability, or quality of that User Content...". That seems to the nature of social media self-publishing. The policy on sourcing in this case; ”Self-published sources (online and paper)” (see Verifiability).--Hu12 (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The suitability of a link or a reference is not an administrative decision, it's an editorial one that is considered on a case by case basis, generally on talk pages and through our normal editing processes. I object to this entire discussion as invalid on the grounds that it attempts to usurp editorial discretion and put it in the hands of a small group of blacklist maintainers.  If you hadn't noticed, this is the thrust to all my objections.  Gigs (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * heh, indeed! Editors have decided what WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:SPAM look like, and editors have also decided that redirect sites are not to be used on Wikipedia, that commercial spam can result in blacklisting, and editors can also decide that pay-per-view sites are generally not to be used, and can be pre-emptively blacklisted, and that then on a case-by-case basis some documents can be whitelisted.  Blacklisting a site is not an administrative decision, it is an administrative action, backed up by our (editor supported) policies and guidelines.  Now we have never discussed whether such sites should be blacklisted, but we have already decided that certain content shall not be linked to (heh, that is why we have this blacklist).  I am here now asking our editors, whether administrators can perform the action of blacklisting pay-per-view sites just by nature.  It may be that the editors disagree with that proposal (believe me, I know the pro's and con's), but there is no administrative decision here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you truely want community consensus on this, then we need to expand the solicitation past just this page. Since this issue has community-wide implications, we should advertise it community wide.  I'm not sure how to go about this yet, but it looks like the discussion is narrowing down into a few questions. Gigs (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I mainly am looking for thoughts for now. If we really want to push it to pre-emptive blacklisting (I am happy enough with the 'as soon as a pay-per-view sites are being abused, the domain goes on the blacklist'), then we should indeed move on to write this into policy somewhere.  But its a bit too early for that, I think that there is more consensus for the current case of 'abuse => blacklist'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not know if pre-emptive blacklisting of pay-per-view sites is warranted, but once such sites have started being spammed here (particularly when even a small number of external links or REFSPAM is added by SPA accounts), I support blacklisting the site. That is, block the site early; do not wait to reach that common-sense conclusion after a lot of effort reverting spam and conducting a pointless debate (would people really get multiple Wikipedia accounts just to add links in the hope of earning money? – yes). It is impractical to debate the pros and cons of every link to a large site where people have an incentive to spam (such debate would often have to cover many hundreds of links). What we know is that it pays people to spam links to examiner.com, it has been spammed, and it is blacklisted – that is as it should be. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC ?
See: Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist for further discussion. Gigs (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's my attempt at a neutral summary: User:Gigs/blacklistRfC. It's not live yet so don't start commenting there, but I'd appreciate editing of the "Arguments" section, especially if anyone thinks I have mischaracterized a position. Gigs (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take care, it looks like you are mixing up things, and though neutrality is fine, it does not characterise the positions properly. Blacklist reasons are not the same as de-blacklist reasons or whitelist reasons, and the criteria are different.
 * Blacklisting is because of abuse, of course, as soon as the blacklisting is in place, there is no abuse anymore.
 * De-blacklisting then questions whether the abuse will continue, and whether the site will be of use anyway (as a whole!). If there is a significant risk that the site will be abused again, then de-blacklisting is not a good solution.  It can NOT be replaced with XLinkBot, or monitoring.  Again, JapanHero is making it not easy, how many subdomains and sock accounts are needed?
 * Whitelist requests often get the question back 'is it reliable', you in the RFC now state that that is an administrative decision, no it is a legitimate question. The site does not have to be whitelisted to be discussed on its merits.  The onus of the proof is on the person wanting to include it, that proof can be provided before whitelisting is performed.  Or do you want to blindly whitelist (or de-blacklist), and see the editor actually abuse it, and 10 reverts and a block later it gets de-whitelisted again?  There are here regular requests from the spammer to have their domain de-blacklisted .. do you really believe that those are requests so the editor can discuss, or go into a BRD cycle?  As Johnuniq says below, 'would people really get multiple Wikipedia accounts just to add links in the hope of earning money?' ...  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also responded there, given comments and expanded it. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 00:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A few comments on this whole topic. Blacklisting is evidence-based and isnt used Pre-emptively (With exception to malware/exploits). Removal requests are treated on a case by case basis where outcomes are based on community established policies and guidelines, which carry community-wide consensus. These core principles are agreed by all here, except for Gigs who is alone in opposing these priciples. Additionaly, the discussion of Pre-emption started by Beetstra appears clearly intended to get thoughts and ideas on a hypothetical, and does not seem to be a proposal, nor does it attempt to trump current practice. So them, Why a Rfc? The RfC wholey miscaracterizes the purpose, intent and actual practice of blacklisting and appears to be an attempt by its creator to usurp discussion, further a viewpoint, and to imply that the MediaWiki:blacklist is somehow being improprly used.--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I object to this entire discussion as invalid on the grounds that it attempts to usurp editorial discretion and put it in the hands of a small group of blacklist maintainers" --Gigs (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "All here" is a pretty biased audience of what, 3 or 4 people that have commented and are mostly also active in blacklist administration? Hence the RfC to widen the audience. Gigs (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the RfC has nothing to do with pre-emption as Beetstra has proposed; it is only about current practices of blanket blacklisting entire pay-per sites when initial spamming is detected, and the second section is about using reliability as a factor in making black/whitelist decisions. Gigs (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gigs, one of the feelings I tried to get into the RfC yesterday evening was a reflection of what is actually behind blacklisting.

For these sites like examiner.com, there are billions of pages possible, all of them possible spam targets, what, even likely ones. Associatedcontent.com made it a long, long time without being fully blacklisted. And you don't want to know how much work has been behind it to keep up with spammers coming up with new stuff. There are a couple of whitelisting requests (for specific documents) a month, and some get declined as useless anyway. Yes, a couple. Those documents are really not worth the effort that would be behind cleaning up behind the spammers.

Is it bad that the whole site is blacklisted, from a sourcing point of view, YES. It hampers referencing the good stuff, it hampers in editing, it implies bad faith on those editors who contribute to these sites without having as primary target 'making money'. You say, there are here 3 or 4 people that have commented and who are mostly also active in blacklist administration (maybe a bad faith assumption, but there are only a few who understand what the problem actually is). Thát is the problem, and if the RfC does get more active in actually keeping up with the spam, then it is fine. But a likely outcome is the conclusion that many will say 'those sites should not be blanket blacklisted', the spam hence increases, but those who then have it made possible will not be the ones to help cleaning it up. Your remark '"All here" is a pretty biased audience' is not going to alleviate the already existing frustration (actually, it is in part the basis of this rant). Systematically fighting spam comes down to a handful of editors and admins, we all engage in fighting vandalism (even brand-new editors fight vandalism). Let me try again: Spam != vandalism. Vandals don't earn money from what they do. Spammers earn money from what they do, for some it is their job, companies run on spamming, what, even not-for-profit organisations hire SEOs to make sure they get linked in as many as possible places, because more links = more people know you = more people donating money to your good cause. Spam is not just the Sildenafil mails you get in your inbox. Spam is a more persistent problem than vandalism. Only few vandals go through the systematic effort of creating socks, finding ways to circumvent anti-vandalism bots or edit filters. A lot of spammers however do. It's their job. And sites like ehow, associatedcontent and examiner put that same power into the hands of the man in the street.

I am sorry, I don't think that the RfC will in any form be able to convey the significance and the size of the problem, I can however see other outcomes. And I don't think that is the feeling that I, nor you, can get into the RfC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are basically arguing here is: "Spam fighting is complicated, and spam fighters are hard to come by, so we should just avoid soliciting community consensus for what we are doing to fight spam". If what you were doing were uncontroversial, then maybe I'd say there's no reason to get a wider consensus.  But it is clear that there are a number of editors coming here to challenge this every month, with requests that are denied on grounds that I'm not sure reflect wider community values.  It's not a large number, but for every one that comes here, I'm sure there are more that get the nasty red box that never come to complain about it.   How many good faith editors are getting stopped by the blacklist... I don't know.  But I do feel like we have an obligation to follow up on this.


 * If I don't do it now, it may come up later in a much nastier and more personal context when a less sympathetic experienced editor gets offended by it. If we do establish a community consensus, or if we at least have the discussion, then there can't be accusations that this was going on in a manner to avoid community consensus.  You and Stifle have made constructive contributions to the RfC... I suggest that you try to integrate more changes into it to educate the readers about what you are doing here if you are still concerned that people will vote from a position of ignorance about spam efforts.  I'm giving you this opportunity to help frame the issue instead of slapping an RfC out quickly there because I do know that there is a risk here of hampering spam fighting more than necessary. Gigs (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm .. no, that is not what I mean. It's more that I would like more people to actually get involved in the topic. And I have already seen the much nastier and more personal contexts of it (both from spammers and from experienced editors, both on spam topics and on other topics). It is not my first reaction, this is my second or third rant of this type regarding the more liberal use of sites which impose massive problems. I am sorry that I react this way, but you (and others) place the same common remarks which are made over and over (my apologies to you, Gigs, for the words, it is a reaction to the triggering of just the frustrations by (again, I am sorry) someone who is ignorant about spam efforts and spam problems, again the same remarks/arguments as we hear so often), which exactly describe the problem, but which are not a solution.

Of course I see utility in community consensus, and I am trying in the RfC, but I don't think that the RfC can express the problem, without going into extensive detail (and even then). I'll have a bit more of a go. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "If I don't do it now, it may come up later ..." Pre-emptive RfC? ;)--Hu12 (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyways, Clarified it a bit, see my summaries. Lets remember, the draft RfC is for the funtion and practice of MediaWiki blacklist, this is not the whitelist, MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, or Xlink bot. Draft seperate RfC's on those respective pages if needed. --Hu12 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Note; Moved the draft out of the MediaWiki namespace to User:Gigs/blacklistRfC. This provides an appropriate development ground with corresponding talkpage, unlike interface pages. Feel free to continue discussions there. --Hu12 (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have completely hacked it up, biased the facts section, and moved it to my userspace.  Your edits are not constructive.  Stop. Gigs (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to retain as much as I could of your edits, while restoring the neutral facts that Beetstra and Strife and I collaborated on. I have made the RFC live, so please just add your position into the discussion section, since it's at a point where I don't think we can go any further without actually beginning comment. Gigs (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)