MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013

= Proposed additions =

mediamass.net


Site seems to solely exist solely to get ad revenue from web searches involving celebrity deaths, pregnancies and scandals using falsely-written boilerplates with personality names Mad Lib-ed in, especially when a person may or may not have died and has never had a true story posted to it (links were propagated tonight socially because of Paul Walker's passing, though not here). Plenty of times these links have been stripped out; I removed ten outbound links tonight from List of premature obituaries, this one proposing an upcoming album, this overheated prose from Vanessa Pose and a boilerplate story falsifying Kelly Rowland's net worth. It was cited a few months back when an editor tried to pass by an Adam Sandler death hoax]. All current links within any en.wikipedia articles have been swept out. Necropedia is also listed for the same reasons; SQL-date updated current false obituaries erroneously used as 'sources' for several articles.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 09:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Both added. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

thesmokersplace.com


Links should (hypothetically) be deleted by now; showing up on user pages as external links offering printable coupons for cigarettes. Risker (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

vogelsafety.com


Company has been spammed by several users, see, , and  for examples. The user(s) are targetting transporation related pages which, from looking at the website, is the industry they target. I could not find any redeeming information on the site. The users have been warned multiple times but have continued to spam the link. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

archive.is
In October there was an RFC in which it was decided that archive.is should be blacklisted. I don't see the site in the list, so I think the decision has not been implemented. The RFC said that "[o]ver 10,000 links to archive.is remain on Wikipedia" but when I checked just now I found 27,309 such links. &mdash; rybec   23:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, new to the blacklist, so sorry if I state the obvious. Per the RFC, the blacklist shouldn't be implemented until most/all of those links are removed.  Doing so would, as I understand it, make it nearly impossible to edit these articles. I've not been tracking bot issue, but I think User:Kww is on it. Hobit (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage anyone who happens to be driving by to read that RFC linked above. Very interesting look at an issue where consensus, if there is one, seems thin. No easy answers for complex issues. Ultimately, monetary donations and volunteers are limited resources, and if those resources are deemed inadequate for the desired preservation of references, then some form of partnership with commercial interests may be desirable if it's done in an acceptable manner. Has WMF given an opinion on these issues? Has The Signpost written about this? If not, they should. These issues need wider exposure than just among the technicians who deal with blocking editors and blacklisting, and they need to be explained so that average non-technical editors understand them. Failure to do so properly risks upsetting regular editors in ways that could exasperate retention issues. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For now,. Although having a blacklisted link on a page does not disable any other editing to the page, in situations where a page is 'broken' by John Doe 1 (for example, but not necessarily through vandalism) resulting in (formal) removal of a link), and John Doe 2 comes by and repairs (but does not rollback, revert or undo!) or does an individual unrelated edit which does not re-instate the link, reverting to the original version is impossible as it would result in the re-addition of the blacklisted link (which would then be blocked by the blacklist). I personally handled such a situation not too long ago, it is quite annoying and needs administrative intervention.  On a small scale of 5-10 remaining links on (then often) low-visibility pages, that is hardly ever an issue, but with 27,378 (!!) links on any possible subject (including highly visible ones like Glee (TV series), Miley Cyrus, and some which are 'vandalism prone': List of bisexual people (A–F), List of vegetarians ('oh, my teacher is bisexual/a vegetarian, lets add her/him, I'll even add a ref to her facebook, though I don't know how the referencing works so I may break the page ...')) that is likely going to aggravate many editors.

First get a bot to replace, remove, or at least disable (comment them out?) ALL the links, and when that task is (nearly) finished, blacklist to avoid re-insertion (sigh, on that scale, that is going to annoy more people when the process of removal is performed, and people will use rollback/revert/undo to revert the bot because they don't agree with the established consensus). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I would argue that the resulting close saying that the site should be blacklisted was a bit of a supervote, since there was no real consensus either way (a lot of non-policy based voting on either side as well), but given that I voted vehemently against that happening, I'm obviously not neutral on this regard. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding that, I assumed here that the RfC was independently closed, and that the closing editor found that the consensus was to blacklist the link (and either way, I am not to decide on that, if the RfC was wrongly closed, get a community decision that that was the case). This is NOT the place to fight or oppose that part of the discussion or of the result, nor complain about how the RfC was closed.  If that RfC was closed, independently, saying that the consensus is to blacklist the link, then that is the decision that would result in an admin carrying out that blacklisting.  I have here now only decided that it is  at this time, since there are too many links left over.  As soon as those links have been removed (as per the closing the RfC, as that was the determined consensus), this link should be blacklisted (as per the closing of the RfC, as that was the determined consensus).  If you want to fight the decision, either before (now) or after the decision has been applied (links have been removed and the site blacklisted), please use the appropriate paths in dispute resolution.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Tournesol.png|43px]] Thank you, Dirk. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Kww, I admire how you took the lead in implementing community consensus on VisualEditor, any don't envy your decision on whether to proceed with removing these links. I've just come to understand the difference between using the Wayback Machine, which I've used often, and using WebCite, which I haven't done yet. It just seems obviously useful to just have a system where, whenever legal, reference links are just automatically archived the moment they are added to Wikipedia. We know the foundation can be aggressive with providing solutions like VisualEditor. This just seems like a problem that's crying out for the foundation to take the lead on providing a solution. Just give us an officially endorsed WebCite-style reference archive solution which makes link-rot a thing of the past. If it's not done in-house then negotiate a contract with a third party that includes terms of use which are mutually beneficial (limited advertising, perhaps, but no trojan horses)... the volunteer community can't do this on its own. Help! please – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See also: Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108 – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Kww just started a new job and is a little swamped. Writing the bot specs for a graceful removal is on his to-do list for the weekend.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

elitetraveler.com



 * Spammers

Three spamruns from this website that I have noticed. The Banner talk 21:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Four spamruns (a small one the last time The Banner talk 18:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on the editors above, but I do want to report that the magazine itself qualifies as a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. WP:RS. Like all glossy magazines IMHO, they do pander to their advertisers to some degree, but it is a real print magazine with reporters, editors and fact checkers.-- Nixie9  ✉  23:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And this and is how they promoted themselves on WP. How it survived the multiple nomination for deletion because of SPAM/promo is a mystery to me. The Banner  talk 00:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no demonstration of preceding procedures per Spam blacklist. No edits from any of the listed contributors for over three months. Liamdavies (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that those are not prerequisites .. merely considerations suggested by a guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but my question stands, have less drastic techniques been implemented? And, does a spam threat still exist? Liamdavies (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * less drastic techniques do not need to be implemented. Your second question is indeed more applicable.  Based on that, and the fact that this is a WP:RS, this is (at least for now) .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your tone suggests that you treat it like an essay rather than a guideline. Guidelines, except for occasional exceptions, should be followed. Why does this particular case merit being treated as an occasional exception? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgot to reply here - no, the tone of the guideline is to consider whether other methods would I did below. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Liamdavies – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying that (I do not accept or decline the opposition, only commenting on it). The tone of the guideline is not 'other methods like xyq have to be used first (with an occasional exception)', the guideline asks to consider whether other methods could be efficient. The question for accepting or declining blacklisting is whether other methods would be deemed effective, and if so, then they should be tried first. Hence, the remark that something else is not tried is not a reason to oppose blacklisting, or, at the very least, the opposition should put forward the suggestion that the other methods, or which other methods, might be effective - if it is just one editor without warnings, then there is no reason to expect socking, and warning/blocking my be effective already, and blacklisting would be a bad solution (and hardly ever implemented). If there are already 10 socks, then likely warnings, or even blocks of them would not hit base (either they see the warning/block and make another sock, or they would not even see it since they are already on another account), and hence that is futile (sometimes XLinkBot is an option to try, hoping they stick long enough on their account to see warnings) - the spam blacklist is there to stop abuse, and if other methods are deemed ineffective (even if they are not tried), then blacklisting is performed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A technique can seen to be ineffective unless tried. In this case, as with many many others, there has been no visible sign of alternative measures. To say you need not try as it will fail is a cop out; sure trying may be the first step towards failure, but it shows due diligence to procure and accountability. Something I see very little of both here and in the whitelisting process. Liamdavies (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a strong accusation, Liamdavies, for which you can not find evidence. Please WP:AGF.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Dirk Beetstra, WP:AAGF. Do not confuse someone's statement with them not assuming good-faith on your part. - Aoidh (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not on my part, it is on the part of the volunteers who are adding items to the blacklist - The remark that they do not do their due diligence is unfounded. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Saying that someone isn't seeing something being done is not the same as saying that they aren't doing anything, though neither would be failing to assume good faith. Please read WP:AGF before you cite it.  If anything is "unfounded", it is your remark that the individual needs to assume good faith when there is no evidence that they have failed to do so.  That kind of remark is less than helpful in a collaborative editing environment; the last sentence of WP:AGF's lede is relevant here. - Aoidh (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Something I see very little of both here and in the whitelisting process." .. I wonder what Liamdavies saw very little of - reading the sentence before, I think it is 'due diligence' .. saying that either means that he thinks that the volunteers here do not show due diligence in their blacklisting, or throws out that sentence without looking whether due diligence is practiced or not. I don't know why people have the idea that blacklisting (or whitelisting, for that matter) is taken lightly or where we give that impression, still I do not like that it is insinuated that I, or other editors here, are not taking due diligence (and unfortunately, it is a repeated suggestion to those who try to keep Wikipedia free of spam - and though we may make mistakes, those are not because we do not take due diligence, blacklisting is hardly ever taken lightly).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also see this (since removed) post to this thread, stating ".. this is only one example of what I'm sure are many to be found in the archives..." - it is assumed, without research (".. I have neither the inclination, time, patience, or desire to sift through for more.. ") that this type of blacklisting is common practice.  The only example however that is given is then a borderline case (editor was warned, warning was read, editor continued to edit war, was warned of that as well, read that warning, and then in the end ran into a block - still they show later the inclination to continue posting their links.  No research is done to see whether the editor used other accounts (I don't recall finding any either, I agree).  We do get the complaint that whitelisting is slow, but on the other hand are expected to let this editor fulfill their inclination to continue and to clean up after them with the same manpower.  I hope we all have read what Jimbo Wales has said about paid advocacy and about the editors who are saying that it is not such a problem.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was to rash, hence my self revert, and new post below. I still have no inclination to sift through years of archives to find improperly blacklisted sites, but conversely, when a user does request the blacklisting removed I feel it should be approved if the original blacklist was say five years ago. Things may have changed, there is no indication that they will start spamming their site again, and if they do it can simply go back on the blacklist; the process itself fails to WP:AAGF, hence why I am rapidly loosing faith in it.
 * I have a solution, but it is probably too drastic for most users: implement PC protection on all pages across the project with users over 3month with over 500edits autoreviewed and reviewers. It would still allow IP and new users to contribute, but the changes wouldn't show up until vetted, and would therefore act as a disincentive to vandalism, spamming, and general trolling. This however, would not be tolerated by the community, so instead we are stuck with half measures such as this, where the few admins that care get overworked to the point huge backlogs develop; the blacklist is seen as more pressing so gets more attention; the whitelist grows large with long waits, users forget and then get their requests denied months later because they weren't informed, the criteria are absurd, the filter gets used as a RS screen, or they forget. The whole process is broken, it is a bureaucratic mess hugely understaffed and overburdened, and to add to that we now have a bot that will do one of two things, add the the already overstretched burden, or remove decent links with the bad (throwing the baby out with the bath water)./rant Liamdavies (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, it is getting a bit heated here.
 * A solution would be to get more people interested, you say that blacklisting is more popular - compare it to XfD. RfA should be pushed more towards these tasks, and more editors should get involved in this.
 * I am often lenient on long long ago blacklistings (5 years) for simple cases (even on meta for globally blacklisted stuff; diff), but that is a personal thingy. We now do have a bit more insight if spamming might still be a problem (logs), and again, from experience, I have seen sites de-listed and spamming sockfarms re-appear within weeks after that.  As I say often, it pays the spammers bill, if they can, some will restart, it's their job (but hey, if it restarts then, one can always add it again for the next 5 year).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about the flaming, as I said below, it's not personal, just frustration. This has been a thorn in my side since August now, first it was fighting a bot, then this process, and then trying to stop the bot from doing damage. Frustrated by a process that took from 26 August to 6 October to get fixed (full diff history:, , , , not to mention all the chasing after the bot removing about 50 templates on other pages). It was clearly a mistake from the start, and the only other user to do anything about the tag simply removed the link and the tag. There is bugger all I can do to slow down the bot, or making it collect and disseminate info any other way, or process whitelist requests, so I figure I'll try to do my best to make sure that no more mistakes get added; how successful I'll be, or how long I'll last is another thing entirely though, this is growing tiresome, and sapping much joy and enthusiasm I have for the project. Liamdavies (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please, show those cases where sites were blacklisted without editors ('spammers') being warned or blocked. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)'
 * Sure, www.historyandpolicy.org was blacklisted after warnings and blocks had stopped the spammer over three months beforehand. No additional posts were made beyond regarding one page, no discussion about COI spamming; the blacklisting was uncalled for from a preventative perspective, and took over two years to be removed. Liamdavies (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong, editor was warned (they actually read the warning), continued adding the link (edit warring, was warned for that, and they read that warning as well), was blocked. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)  Oops, read wrong.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, there was an editor warned against spamming, they got blocked - that case stopped, but they show the intention to continue (see signpost), and that they see effect of their 'spamming' - at that point it is clear that earlier methods have not stopped the spamming, and that other methods are needed to stop the spam. Maybe an understandable, but not a very good example - clear case of spamming with warnings and blocks and a shown intention to continue.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I totally agree that other methods should be tried first (remember, I am one of the operators of XLinkBot, and all other major spam-fighters have access to it as well). They are sometimes effective (though, experience shows that with spammers the opposite is generally true, especially if there are already many throw-away-accounts ... ). If they are shown not to be effective, then there is a stronger case for blacklisting. And that is the technique that is generally adapted, warnings are issued to all identified spammer-accounts, links are added to XLinkBot, etc. The volunteers here are doing that due diligence .. except for, generally, extreme cases - true, true spam (porn, viagra, referral-spam), or clearly massive cases. Anything, ANYTHING that looks reasonable is generally first attempted to be solved in different ways, and reports here will generally just be a record.

But again, the tone of the guideline is that those methods generally should be tried (again, they generally are!), but not that it is a must, and that is, in itself, not a reason to decline. Due diligence is to attempt now to communicate with the editor(s). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the guideline:


 * 'does protection of a page solve it': no, it is multiple pages (both here and for historyandpolicy);
 * 'will blocking a single editor solve it': for historyandpolicy, likely (well, it was done - their inclination to continue does not give hope), for this request, already 3 accounts need to be blocked;
 * 'will blocking editors for a short time help conversation': here, maybe, for historyandpolicy, the editor kept reverting, edit warring, not much inclination to conversation;
 * 'Can XLinkBot help': for historyandpolicy, the editor reverted other editors, so is likely also going to revert/ignore XLinkBot, here, maybe (though removed entries were re-added later),
 * 'would the edit filter work better': here unlikely, 3 totally different accounts on multiple pages (too heavy on the server), with historyandpolicy.org, maybe, if they stick to the same account one could consider to disallow them posting the links to mainspace - though that is a single case solution (other spammers could use the same treatment which in the end would result in many filters with much server load - typically this is only done for spammers of 'extremely good sites'

This is the continuous consideration for each case - but editors ('spammers') often show persistence, as I've said more often, it pays their bills.

And do note, IP editors and new editors do get pointed to our external links policies before they are able to save an edit - that 'warning' has already been ignored by all. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There was still no spam activity shown, only an intention, I believe more could have been done to deal with the problem short of a blacklisting, especially when the site is with out a doubt a RS. I would also have far less problem with the blacklisting if the whitelisting where far far quicker and easier. Why should any established user have to prove the link or their motives; a long term editors with thousands of edits should have a whitelist request approved almost automatically (I'm not including clearly dubious sites or redirects). It just seems far far too easy to get a site blacklisted with far too little effort, and far far too hard a page whitelisted, with much time and effort; the stick is bent too far in one direction. Either blacklisting needs the same if not more hoops jumped through that whitelisting, or whitelisting needs to be as easy as blacklisting. Liamdavies (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I agree that this is an inbetween case - if spamming was shown and intention is there then is sometimes enough - especially for spam sites. Maybe this one was too fast, I can agree on that (mistakes are made - and I am sure that there are more mistakes on the list).
 * Regarding waiting that they spam again - you say that whitelisting is slow, it is slow due to not enough manpower. Unfortunately, that is also true on the other side.  There is no manpower to go after spammers, paid advocacy is plainly ignored as not a big problem.  If we then also have to wait until an intended spammer is doing it again, cleanup sometimes numerous edits (35 edits in 75 minutes for this case, cleaned up months later because it was not noticed earlier, so most edits could not be reverted easily, a lot of work) ..  Also, do note that this case was posted on August 13, 2013.  The spammers were active in September 2, 2013 - 3 weeks after this site was reported, readding links that were previously removed (using slightly different text ..).  What indeed should have happened is that the reporting editor here should have left warnings on the three accounts on the 13th of August, and see if that would have helped.  Someone should have replied that in the first three weeks after the initial request.  Whitelisting is too slow, here blacklisting (or alternatives) could be argued to be too slow as well (and it is ..).
 * I say, over and over, that blacklisting generally is a considered case (though sometimes mistakes are made), as is whitelisting. On both sides (non-)admins are welcome to help and evaluate - we hardly ever see 'hey, hurry, this needs to be blacklisted since it still gets spammed' (sorry, no manpower), but for whitelisting we do see that after a couple of days - numerous complaints that editors are still waiting.  I agree, whitelisting should be faster (as should spam detection and blacklisting should be).  I have been asking for manpower over and over, anyone can help in independently reviewing the requests on both the white and blacklist, give hints and/or help, ask questions to help the admins to evaluate - just like on an XfD anyone can (and there: will) comment and a consensus can be reached.  Here, requests for blacklisting stay open for months without any discussion, and you are surprised that sometimes the very few admins here then, maybe boldly, execute the blacklisting.  And the whitelist needs another approach, that should be even faster for regular editors?  You already clearly indicated that you do not have the inclination, time, patience or desire to sift for more - that is unfortunately true for most whitelist requests - often alternatives exist (the plethora of examiner.com requests), the spamming was so bad that they pose a problem and should be approached with care, but it is us who have to find the time, patience and desire to sift through old reports to find why something was blacklisted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * First off, I know there is not enough person-power here, and you do not deserve my vitriol, it is not aimed at you, I apologise if you are taking it personally, it is just general frustration with the process. I have outlined what I think the (unrealistic) path is to prevent people taking advantage of this project for commercial gain. But short of that, why must a seasoned lay (or experienced) editor wait so long for simple whitelisting request? A request from a user of three years with almost 20,000 edits and no blocks such as this: MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist should be processed quickly and almost automatically, it has been over two weeks without any response (yet again, not aimed at you, just frustrated). There are currently 39 requests, sure most are probably not valid, but there are a handful, that like the one I just pointed out, should not have to wait very long. Now, if we say that of the odd 3500 pages identified by Cyberbot in Category:Pages containing blacklisted links 5% are fine, that leaves us with 175 links of which a whitelist is warranted. At current rates of 50 additions to the whitelist in the last year, it will take three and a half years, however, there will still be the same requests coming in. In the last year 258 additions have been made to the blacklist, with about 45 removed ; there is just far more attention being given to blacklisting sites than helping good faith editors use RS in articles, and with the process already overwhelmed there is no scope to add to the problem. The solution is to either be stricter about blacklisting, therefore catching fewer accidentals, or be softer on whitelisting, make the process not awful. I am sure that editors are simply removing links rather than request a whitelist because it is too hard, too complicated, and too slow. Yet again, not aimed at you, but the process. Liamdavies (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

directory.tradeford.com
— rybec   18:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Who were the spammers? Are they still active? And, have other techniques to prevent spamming been actioned? Liamdavies (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Does not seem to have spammed after warning.  for now.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

riocodes.com
— rybec   18:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Who were the spammers? Are they still active? And, have other techniques to prevent spamming been actioned? Liamdavies (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Does not seem to have spammed after warning - for now.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

marketsandmarkets.com
--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no effort per Spam blacklist has been made to stop spamming, no notice placed on user page of Patyoshida85. Liamdavies (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Who is/are/was/were the spammer(s), if any? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you mentioned
 * Looking. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are more SPAs. Lets see if it continues.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the links removed by Dennis Bratland were by:
 * Special:Contributions/49.248.140.98 (banned)
 * Special:Contributions/114.143.243.84 (not active for a month and a half/talk page notice)
 * Special:Contributions/114.143.243.83 (not active since August/only five edits/no notice)
 * Special:Contributions/Ahousden (no notice)
 * Special:Contributions/Atul.RA (not active since August/only two edits/no notice)
 * Special:Contributions/ConsultCRyan (added through the AFC process)
 * Special:Contributions/Briannabesch (with this edit over two years ago)
 * Is a blacklist really needed when at least one of these additions was not spam, one was through the AFC process, few notices have been placed, and there is no shown evidence of ongoing spamming? Liamdavies (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is a blacklist really needed when at least one of these additions was not spam, one was through the AFC process, few notices have been placed, and there is no shown evidence of ongoing spamming? Liamdavies (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per User:Liamdavies. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This has been ongoing for quite some time, but seems to have stopped now since a couple of weeks - warnings have been issued/blocks handed out - lets see if they were heeded. As I said above, lets see if it continues.   for now (maybe use XLinkBot to hand out more warnings?).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k

 * The site is not reliable and should not be used in Article space per WP:CIRCULAR. This is clone of Wikipedia ( every real page there says "The article content of this page came from Wikipedia and is governed by CC-BY-SA." ). Some wikipedia editors may think that site is good as RS (it is in google's top and the domain is .edu), but it isn't and there should be some way to say that the link is not correct to be added to the Wiki.
 * Recent example: diff


 * Currently there are 76 links to the site, some are from Article space: :
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/1924_Summer_Olympics.html is linked from Albert Séguin
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/2D_computer_graphics.html is linked from 2D computer graphics
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Abba_Eban.html is linked from Abba Eban
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Adair_County,_Missouri.html is linked from Grand River (Missouri)
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Area_rule.html is linked from Sears–Haack body
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Banba.html is linked from LÉ Banba (CM11)
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Ben_Bova.html is linked from Ben Bova
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Bhavani.html is linked from Bhavani Peth
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Biface.html is linked from Hand axe
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Brightness_temperature.html is linked from Brightness temperature
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Bushyhead,_Oklahoma.html is linked from Dennis Bushyhead
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Byng,_Oklahoma.html is linked from Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/CDC_6600.html is linked from CDC 6600
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Camel_(band).html is linked from Camel (band)
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Camel_(band).html is linked from The Snow Goose (album)
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Critical_theory.html is linked from Critical theory
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Ctesiphon.html is linked from Iwan
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Du_hast.html is linked from Burkenburg
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Francesco_Redi.html is linked from Francesco Redi
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Jean_le_Rond_d_Alembert.html is linked from Louis-Camus Destouches
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Lagari_Hasan_%C3%87elebi.html is linked from Lagâri Hasan Çelebi
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Language_game.html is linked from Language game
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Local_Government_Areas_of_Australia.html is linked from Local Government Area
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Lord_Peter_Wimsey.html is linked from Lord Peter Wimsey
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Mohammed_Deif.html is linked from Mohammed Deif
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Mystic_Records.html is linked from Mystic Records
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Noise_weighting.html is linked from Psophometric weighting
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Phonograph_cylinder.html is linked from Early classical guitar recordings
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Pimsleur_language_learning_system.html is linked from Pimsleur method
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Pope_John_XXI.html is linked from History of Roman Catholicism in Portugal
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/QuarkXPress.html is linked from QuarkXPress
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Reconquista.html is linked from History of Roman Catholicism in Portugal
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Record_producer.html is linked from Executive producer
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Sacraments_of_the_Catholic_Church.html is linked from Catholic Church
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Simpson_s_paradox.html is linked from Edward H. Simpson
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Smokey_Robinson.html is linked from North End, Detroit
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Sunk_costs.html is linked from Sunk costs
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/The_Chemical_Brothers.html is linked from Alleyn's School
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Transport_in_Barbados.htm is linked from Transport in Barbados
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Tsui_Hark.html/ is linked from List of University of Texas at Austin alumni
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Wall.html is linked from Wall
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Warren,_Arkansas.html is linked from Warren, Arkansas
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Wis%C5%82awa_Szymborska.html is linked from Ironic precision
 * www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Yom_Kippur_War.html is linked from United Nations Security Council Resolution 338


 * Also, this site should be not checked for Suspected copyright violations as Wiki's clone `a5b (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * PS Actually, there are another runs of "tmve/wiki100k" on different sites (google for "tmve/wiki100k" site:wikipedia.org), e.g. http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/ajb/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Bavarii.html http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/ajb/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Potentiometer.html and they are not only in en-wiki (move to meta spam list or create some filters for wiki100k?) `a5b (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know where the links came from but that site is benign -- it's an experiment being done by a grad student at Princeton. For more information, see these web pages:
 * http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~achaney/
 * http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/browse/topic-presence.html
 * http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~achaney/papers/ChaneyBlei2012.pdf
 * I suggest emailing her at http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~achaney/email.html before any blacklisting to give her a heads up.


 * Her work could be very useful to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation in the long-term.


 * That said, we don't need any of these links since they circle back to our own content.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest she get in touch with WikiProject Research
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That Wikiproject looks moribund when I look at it closer. It looks like there's very active support and discussion of various research projects on Meta-Wiki at meta:Research:Index. I'd hate to see a diligent researcher run afoul of what might look BITE-y to an outsider.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A. B., the main problem with this site is that: it takes texts from Wikipedia and republish them. This is allowed to copy text from wiki, but what is not allowed (per WP:CIRCULAR) - is to used wikipedia texts as references (wikipedia is not Reliable source, so does any copy of wikipedia). E.g. If there is link to http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Pope_John_XXI.html in some article, we should replace it with Pope_John_XXI; and if such link is in we should replace this link with  . I propose to add this site to spam list only to limit the efforts of replacing links to the princeton with  . With site included to spam list, there will be no new links to the site added by good faith users who may think that something from `.edu` is always reliable..... Ok, there is actually no need to include her site into spam-list, but we should delete all links to her site and periodically recheck the Linksearch. `a5b (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As the creator of these problematic pages, I'm sorry--I just became aware that this is an issue. Please let me know what I can do to help fix it or prevent bad citations in the future.  I won't be following the discussion here, but please email me if you'd like me involved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absonant (talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To fix it, stop using these links for citations, period. As A5b noted, "wikipedia is not Reliable source, so does any copy of wikipedia." Better yet, clean up the mess by replacing all of those links with, or even better, find a source that meets WP:RS to do so. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, but can an edit filter be used instead? This would explain to contributors why the links cannot be used. Liamdavies (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User seems to be willing to discuss - I would not blacklist unless this continues.  - please do not add the links yourself, but suggest them on talkpages of pages where you think they are applicable.  However, the links will be blacklisted if this continues.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

programarexcel.com
Several inclusions on Oct 9, 2013 on Microsoft Excel to this site, which is of dubious value and pops open full screen ads.
 * Oppose: no edits for three months; no other preventative actions taken; no active spam threat.
 * Note - someone found it necessary to specifically blank this report. It seems someone is aware that their additions were not wanted.
 * This is, for now, - Maybe XLinkBot would be a solution.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

mobiles.sulekha.com
A welter of spam links to this site today alone. It may be worth investigating the entire domain too  Fiddle   Faddle  10:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide diffs or say who the offending contributor was? If not, oppose: no active spam threat demonstrated. Liamdavies (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to be one editor, though with edits with many links per edit, though just one day, seems to have stopped since (there are a couple more of these links still around ..). XLinkBot?   for now.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Several "Gentaur" related websites added in past months

 * Saw that IP 94.26.80.83 added apoptosises.com to Apoptosis, clicked it, and saw a long list of "Buy Now" buttons for pharmaceuticals on a shoddy website. Sites host barebones (almost certainly copy/paste jobs) medical articles, with tons of links to buy its products. Also reporting the IP as those are all it has ever added in the period since February 2013. Undid all of his/her past additions, but these should probably be blacklisted. --Rhododendrites (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 94.26.80.83 hasn't been active since October; is this threat still active? Have other measure been undertaken to prevent spamming? If not, oppose. Liamdavies (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The spammer has been active from February till October, and has been warned on the last day - this is a case for a firm warning (spam4im) on the next occurance (maybe with the help of XLinkBot) and a following block if they chose to ignore for a prolonged time (active from Feb-Oct - 8 months - so at least a 6 month block as they are static enough).  for now, though we may see this one returning (and linking to 'Buy now'-pages is useless enough to just blacklist to avoid future abuse - we can't keep cleaning up).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

tefl-online-courses.com
Being spammed to multiple articles by multiple IPs. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, warnings seem to have stop the contributors (unless of course it is persistent with new IPs). Liamdavies (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It did continue with new IPs - it is part of the editors who evaluate that to check that.
 * . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

nationalforum.com
Regular spam of this site, and also the author (and blacklist candidate string) "William Allan Kritsonis" across a range of often bizarrely unrelated articles, from a number of IPs. See  and  for examples. Blocking is likely to be ineffective, as some are just commonplace AT&T IPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this spam threat still active? Or has the ban worked? I see no active (fresh) links. Liamdavies (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Liam, this editor was active in October, was warned several times in December for spamming and continued until a block was implied. 5 1/2 days after the last spam run (and the block) you ask if the threat is still active while you know that there are other IPs doing the same.  5 1/2 days, even 3 weeks of not seeing the link being added does not show whether the threat is still active (it may even have happened but reverted without further notice).  Part of the task of editors evaluating requests is to do that extra research as well.
 * Lets ask a return question: do we want editors to spend time on reverting, maybe getting frustrated by having to fight spammers, and do we want readers to have to read spammy Wikipedia pages?
 * Upon further research - there is an earlier block of an account regarding these spam issues, and this is now the second. Good example of persistence, the spammer has been active since 2006 (and did not get the message then).  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: editor was active in 2006, blocked, editor returned in 2007, blocked and unblocked (after apparently promising to adapt - though no further edits). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

= Proposed removals =

tanners-wines.co.uk
Why has this site been blacklisted? I've looked through WikiProject Spam and the blacklist and couldn't find a reason as to why it has been blocked. This is a pretty reputable retailer with good online customer reviews- could you please enlighten me as to why it was blocked in February 2008?
 * It was spammed along with numerous other sites. ❌, as there is no compelling reason to remove it at this time. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

gannettblog.blogspot.com
This site appears to have been blocked before 2009 by an IP-address user with an IP that matches USA Today and Gannett_Company. It is a reputable blog in U.S. journalism circles, albeit one critical of Gannett, a major U.S. publisher and broadcaster. I tried to cite it today on a reference to Ken Paulson, The Newseum and The Freedom Forum but had to use a press release instead, which didn't analyze the move at all. The reason given for blacklistingg is linkspamming from May 2008, when several Gannett properties' entries were linked to it. Given the the fact that the person who reported it might have very well had a vested interest in blocking it, I move that Gannett Blog be removed from the ban list.Kazari (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * IP users cannot block sites, so I'm not sure what are you talking about with your Joe Job accusation. You'll also need to provide more evidence that it is a "reputable blog in U.S. journalism circles."  It just looks like an attack block to me. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the opportunity. I apologize for my ignorance. I hope that won't prevent my suggestion from being considered.


 * Gannett Blog is a go-to site for information about Gannett. It covers earnings gannettblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/urgent-q2-financial-results-are.html, news about Gannett gannettblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/urgent-indy-star-confirms-launch-of.html, and insider information about Gannett executives gannettblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/document-gci-to-pay-dubow-59m-cash-in.html.


 * It is cited in reputable online sources about journalism, including Jim Romenesko's journalism blog, the Poynter Institute and the Columbia Journalism Review . It is also cited in more traditional news outlets, including the Phoenix Business Journal , the Wisconsin State Journal , the International  Business Times , Forbes , and The Associated Press.


 * It is not just an attack blog.


 * I recommend lifting the block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazari (talk • contribs) 00:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat included to remove this from the blacklist; the explanation of why it was blacklisted (by was simply a link to edits from a Gannet-IP (which was blocked several times for spamming USA Today).  Let me do a little more research first. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for outlining your rationale in detail. Mark this date in your calendar; first time I've ever removed a blacklist entry. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you!Kazari (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

altafsir.com
Hello, I see that our article Al-Ala has some warnings about altafsir.com/ but this specific site is a good reference sources for surah related articles. here is its log https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2012#April_2012

The site is a reference tool containing many reference books in both English and Arabic. Could the site please be added to the whitelist. The site is run on these domains altafsir.com altafseer.com altafseer.org and altafsir.org.

'''Can it be whitelisted? Thanks''' Astro relic (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This site was spammed, and when the first site was blacklisted, spamming continued using the alternatives. De-listing from meta (where it was first) resulted in continued spamming, and requests involving think-tanks to get it removed.  So for that,, we are not going to remove this.  You can whitelist specific links at the whitelist where they are unique, non-replaceable etc.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

StatSheet.com
This is a repeated request from past years. The statsheet sites are valid sources for college basketball tenures and statistics. A couple of years ago, there were incidents of someone affiliated with the site spamming content on WP (See original blacklist discussion) so there probably was at that time good reason to blacklist. I would like to strongly encourage admins to "un-blacklist" the site. Many sports editors (including me) use this site because it is perhaps the best and most accessible site for college basketball statistics and other data (such as national rankings, etc) back to 1996. I understand the reasons for the original blacklist, but would ask that this be re-considered given that the activity seems to be contained to one user (who is probably long gone) and the site is otherwise useful. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur that I think this website should be un-blacklisted. I understand why it was originally; that one overzealous promoter "ruined it for the rest of us," but the fact is these websites are great resources. I've used information I've found in them without citing them because of this blacklist. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I also meant to add that I don't think the blocked user will be back; this issue was from years ago and I doubt he still cares anymore. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal to remove statsheet.com from the black list. I am not familiar with the original reason for banning, but the information from that site has a lot of relatively historical basketball statistics that are not available on any other sports web site (ESPN, Yahoo!, CBS, etc.). I cannot post links to sample statsheet.com pages, but see 1997–98 Western Michigan Broncos men's basketball team for usage. Looking at the statsheet pages, there is not any extravagant advertising nor is there any malware. – X96lee15 (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we get a ruling on this? - Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The ruling is going to be the same as some time ago, as Amutalic (discussion) put it there "Considering the over-the-top abuse involving hundreds of domains associated with statsheet, I vehemently oppose removing from the blacklist.". Moreover, per Hu12 (discussion): "Aggrogates all of its info and data from the Sports Network site.", the info is available from original sites. Similar points were brought forward in other requests. I am ruling the same: - just whitelist the links that are really needed, but if this is an aggregate site, most of this can be replaced with other sources, for the rest,  for specific documents on the site, not the whole domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this as you cannot get all the data from the Sports Network site that is presented on statsheet.com. For whatever reason, those older stats are not available. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say that you can get all the data from there, I said that most of this can be replaced with other. There is no need to open the door to this spam again, better to control and to use alternatives where they exist (maybe the older info is not available from Sports Network, but from other sources).  Therefore, I suggest to whitelist only the ones which are really needed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

dyingscene.com


I'd like to reinforce the view others have expressed in a recent discussion: this site has become a major news source in the punk scene during the past few years, and as they promised to discontinue spamming, they should be whitelisted. See previous discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2013#dyingscene.com

Strummer25 (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what, the fourth blacklist removal request (which is not the same as whitelisting)? Why are they so eager to get off the blacklist if they're not going to spam?  Why can't selective whitelisting for individual links (which I'm not opposed to) suffice?  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Today they're a major punk news source, clearly No.2. after punknews.org, and they are catching up, just check the trending on Alexa. It means that their articles would be used as references for about every punk band's Wikipedia page by editors.

Strummer25 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced that selective whitelisting is not more appropriate given that at least four different accounts were spamming this link, including a "role" account operated by the website. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The selective whitelisting process is far too slow and cumbersome.

Strummer25 (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Strummer25, there are no deadlines here, and hence that is never a reason to de-blacklist over other processes (also, it appears that you did not even try to get specific links whitelisted and see whether those documents pass the bar). I further agree with Ohnoitsjamie's assessment (and earlier assessments) - it is not always the only source, and it got spammed by IPs and role accounts, and the promise to not do it again .. I've seen that before, still I'd like to see whether the community, at large, finds individual links useful (and it appears that in the last years there is exactly one whitelisting request for one link (open at the moment), and no requests by regulars) - .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I've requested two links that I need as references to be whitelisted.

Strummer25 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

bodybuilding.com
I just noticed this has been blacklisted on Tommi Thorvildsen and Geir Borgan Paulsen, which are on my watchlist; doubtless it is on many other WikiProject Bodybuilding articles also, apparently for having "six pack abs" and "secret" and other phrases typical of that sport/industry on it, but this is not part of the massive spam campaign by a certain someone that shows up all over youtube and, well, nearly everywhere. Bodybuilding.com is a mainstream bodybuilding site and in this case its biographies are what the citation is about; it also has content listings. It should not have been blacklisted, even if some of its articles are about the secret to six pack abs (diet, diet, diet) or because it carries advertising; so do flexmagazine.com musclemaginternational.com and other magazines that are central to the bobybuilding industry. I do not have the time to dig through the blacklisting log to find out who blacklisted this and why, but it should not have been blacklisted. Reliable sources for this sport that do not mention "six pack abs" and "training secrets" simply do not exist.Skookum1 (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Generally, sites here get only blacklisted when someone was spamming them to Wikipedia, so my first assumption would be that that is also the case here (I did not look into this specific case, which may be different, but unfortunately respectable organisations do spam ..). Anyway, this is blacklisted on meta, so delisting either needs to be requested there  or whitelisting should be requested locally .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bodybuilding.com is well-known enough in the bodybuilding world to not spam itself to Wikipedia, which is scarcely a site full of bodybuilding wannabes who are its market. It's no doubt widespread within WP:Bodybuilding articles because it has good bios and contest-winner lists.  It and similar sites generally aren't used anywhere like the steroid or training articles for reasons of WP:RS except when talking about what such magazines/sites have to sway about whatever. So anyways, looks like there's more research for me to do; all I'm trying to do is protect two articles from deletion for not having sources, and encountering wiki-procedure out the ying yang.  Remember that word "wiki"?  Means "fast, quick" in Hawaiian?  Yeah OK.  I think I'm gonna look up the Hawaiian word for "complicated and time-consuming".  Thanks for the heads-up.  There may be other bb'ing sites also blacklisted that shouldn't be.  What I'm smelling here is bit of knee-jerkery and it looks like it was black-listed simply for containing phrases used by a well-known Chinese-American jock cum "scientist" who is definitely a spammer.Skookum1 (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotta agree here. I have a link from the site in an article that is not spam and should pass RS. It was entered before the site was blacklisted. Bodybuilding doesn't have the same coverage as baseball or football and bodybuilding.com is a big player in the coverage. Not everything on the site passes RS of course (such at forums or user generated), but much of it would and the blanket block makes sourcing a lightly covered sport even more difficult. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment; I was looking at the global meta-blacklist procedure and it's torturing my brain, was going to see about a whitelisting, but it's not just about this site but others of the same kind e.g. elitefitness.com. Here's a copy paste of the tags that triggered off the blacklisting, I'm wondering how many other bodybuilding sites have been thrown out because of the seo-driven bathwater "Triggered by \b(easy)?(hairgrowth|bodybuilding(?!-magazin)|weightloss?|mafiawar|sixpackabs)(secret)?\b on the global blacklist"  Hairgrowth?  Six pack abs?  Weight loss".  Why not just block particular sites that are KNOWN spammers like the whatsisface with the "secret" from China (diet, diet, diet).  is "bodybuilding" a blacklisted term>?  I don't understand the syntax of that....Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "lightly-covered sport" is definitely true re Sports Illustrated and TSN/ESPN et al, but the truth is that the bodybuilding publishing industry is one of North America's largest markets; Muscle & Fitness, FLEX, Men's Health et al. are massive in earnings and circulation...... websites like bodybuilding.com break from the corporate norm ("Weider Inc.") so excluding them implicitly means giving a boost to the use of the bodybuilding mainstream media (Weider) and also its ties to the IFBB/NPC....much as banning political blogs means that the biases of the mainstream media are considered "reliable" while sites carrying correct and unbiased information are often not allowed...... this is trivial by comparison but I think you see the issue; bodybuilding.com and certain others are held in higher regard than the editorial content of the major print publications and their websites, which really are glorified catalogues for particular product lines.....many bodybuilding websites are independent of any product line....(many are definitely front-page for particular lines, however).Skookum1 (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please. We have very established and notable companies who do however either push their links themselves, or who hire SEO companies to improve their Search Engine results who then choose to use also Wikipedia in their tactics. Do not assume that because it is such a good site, that such a site would not engage in those tactics. Spam is not just porn, viagra etc. It is not even that the site needs to sell something, it may boil down to 'getting known' or even down to 'need more traffic to our site' - SEO is a booming business.

That being said, it does appear as if 'bodybuilding.com' got caught up in a wrong regex. I can not find any discussion regarding this domain. I'll have a look at the meta-blacklist and see whether we can adapt the rule or similar. However, maybe it is easier to just plainly whitelist it here (sigh, why do we not have a global whitelist ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And Skookum1, please WP:AGF, your comments ('What I'm smelling here is bit of knee-jerkery and it looks like it was black-listed simply for containing phrases used by a well-known Chinese-American jock cum "scientist" who is definitely a spammer.') are insinuating a form of abuse of process for which you do not have any evidence - we are all just volunteers here, we do our best to keep Wikipedia free of spam, but do accept that occasional mistakes are made as well. Also Niteshift36 - a 'blanket block' is hardly ever the intention. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC) I've whitelisted the whole site. Looks like a case of collateral damage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * my comment was only meant disparagingly against the aforesaid jock-cum-scientist, whose ads I find far too widespread and obnoxious and is the best-known use of "six-pack abs". The further point is simply that that phrase is so widespread in industry publications that using it for a filter doesn't seem appropriate; might as well make "build your biceps" or "how to get big fast" and the like also filters; clearly not workable; common phrases should never be used for a filter, IMO.  And that's just a straightforward observation.Skookum1 (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * K thanks. I'll advise you of any similar situations that will probably come up about other related sites.Skookum1 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * is there a bot I can use to go through Category:Professional bodybuilders to strip the blacklist template from it? Or a way to easily find all the pages that have been affected for easy removal?Skookum1 (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to look into it Dirk. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're both welcome!
 * Regarding the widespreadness of the filter - it may be that the spamming took such a scale that that was needed (it may be the person you refer to ..), and that exceptions should be handled appropriately; but I am not fully aware of the discussions that lead to those rules, it may also be an honest mistake. Note that some cases of good sites being spammed take such proportions that blacklisting/whitelisting is the only option to mitigate things, however obnoxious it is for editors.
 * For other sites, just ask for whitelisting immediately.
 * The bot that tagged will also come by and remove them all on its next run. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It could also be that "that person" bought ad-space on bodybuilding.com...but as I said, while his is probably the most widespread of all uses of that very cliche phrase (going back to Charles Atlas ads in the back of comic books.....along with "send $5 for the secret to building massive biceps"), his is hardly the only use of it out there. Also, wouldn't a removal bot be able to except a site in its filtering? In this case it's important because of many of the bb'ing bios out there, for major stars, were cited only by themselves; the other citation for the bios is the athlete's own website's, as in the case of Thorvildsen.Skookum1 (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, well, that didn't work; a bot just placed the same blacklist template on it again.Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * test: http://contest.bodybuilding.com/bio/703/ --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ^^ It did work - I think you should ask the bot-owner what is the issue. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

muumuuhouse.com
This link is to a literary publisher's website which has dozens of poems and stories and writings freely available that could be linked to in Wikipedia articles. Though the website is technically for a company it's website does more than promotion it is a resource of collected writings and there is a opportunity for some of these to be added as references or external links or citations in other articles. The blacklisting is not necessary because the link itself is not "spammy," it can be used as a reference. OR drohowa (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not delisting this domain because it has been abusively spammed by the publisher themselves over a multi-year period. If you (or anyone else) want to use an individual URL for a reference, you should make a whitelisting request. MER-C 06:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per MER-C - the question is not whether a site is 'spammy', the question is whether a site was spammed, abused to Wikipedia (which was the case).,  for specific links that are needed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

cbronline.com
Contains the archives of the Computer Business Review, an indispensable source of information about business computing of the 1980s and 90s. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Computer Business Review is cited at Azul Systems and would seem to be a valuable source concerning a 2006 legal dispute between Azul and Sun Microsystems. As far as I can tell at the domain has changed hands since the blacklist listing. Kingdon (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, there are few online sources from this era, except a few in Google books or a few other narrowly-focused sites. Being able to cite them might help recentism. The cbronline pages do show up in Google searches near the top, perhaps because of spam-like behavior in the past, but also perhaps because they are useful. The cbronline story pages do not seem overly commercial themselves, unless I am missing another reason to keep them blacklisted. A bunch of pages on computer topics from that era still have the citations, but many others are uncited because of the black list. W Nowicki (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I have used cbronline.com as a source for several articles about computer systems from the 1990s, especially Digital Equipment Corporation products. For a lot of facts and figures this was the only reasonable online source I could find at the time. Letdorf (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC).


 * Please be aware that the usefulness of a source has no relevance to the blacklist. Past behavior and potential for future abuse are all that matters here. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm a greenhorn when it comes to spam-blacklisting. I'm here because apparently a bot has recently begun tagging articles with Blacklisted-links. For example, Super video graphics array was tagged on September 24, 2013—that's just the first one I noticed. An external links search finds some 357 articles linking to this so-called "spam" site. The information box at the top of this section tells me to familiarize myself with the reasons why this site was blacklisted, so I look at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2010 to see who blacklisted the link and when, and the reason given for blacklisting. There I find that user:Tedder blacklisted this site 21:28, 16 April 2010. So, apparently many readers and editors have been blissfully unaware that hundreds of articles have been linking reliable-source references to a blacklisted site for the past 3 1⁄2 years. As for the reason, we are permalinked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (the discussion can also be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Apr 1). There, I find many links to Template:Link summary and Template:User summary that aren't expanded for some technical reason. Notice that those templates work fine up to a certain point on the page, and then they don't. Maybe the expansion limit was exceeded? So, I've taken the liberty to copy the relevant section of the archive to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Apr 1/cleantechnology-business-review.com. There you will see that the blacklist decision was a local consensus between the two editors Tedder and user:Beetstra. Beetstra helpfully mentions that "this is used as a reference as well, and I see many 'regulars' using these links" – well I'd guess that most of the 350+ links are legitimate links created by us 'regulars'. I mean, Wikipedia has a "massive" number of links to The New York Times I'm sure, but their massiveness doesn't make them spam. Sorry, but after all the time and effort I've put into this, I still don't understand why this site was blacklisted. Can Tedder or Beetstra please explain, for the benefit of us spam-blacklist newbies? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I just recalled that my first visit to the MediaWiki talk: namespace, two years ago, was over this same issue. As I've only half a dozen edits in this namespace, to me this particular blacklist item really stands out. I can't recall any encounters with any other site on the blacklist. Relevant past discussions in the archive:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012
 * – view the list @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Apr 1/cleantechnology-business-review.com (see discussion above about apparent technical limit exceeded)
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2011
 * "Maybe this single one should be removed, though very strictly monitored" – I'll second that. It would be a massive amount of work to "whitelist" 350+ articles. I still haven't seen evidence that someone had to revert 350+ spam links to this site. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2009 Archive Oct 1
 * special:contributions/SimonThird – this editor just made 78 edits between September–December 2009. Can someone show me a few diffs out of those 78 which were harmful to the encyclopedia? I randomly picked one: diff which helpfully replaced a Citation needed template with two reference links, the second a link to http://www.cbronline.com/news/sony_ericsson_unveils_xperia_x10_andriod_handset_091103 Sony Ericsson unveils Xperia X10 Andriod handset (our so-called spam site). So, what happened to this reference that was added 4 November 2009? It lasted until 7 July 2011, when it was removed as a blacklisted link. No effort was made to retain the reference itself while just removing the link, and apparently no attempt was made to "whitelist" it. I can't even list that site on this talk page. Geesh. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You just hit it, SimonThird is one of them, 78 edits, most of the cases adding a reference to cbronline. We call that reference spamming.  Sometimes adding his reference to referenced material, or just adding a sentence with this reference.  How many of the current available 350+ articles that contain the links are still there because the spam was not appropriately cleaned out.  Yes, it is a massive work to get those 350 through the whitelist, but I have seen quite a number of them already having been declined because they were not necessary, replaceable (4 of the 5 I just went through were in fact replaceable, and only one was granted).  As this was a massive campaign to spam Wikipedia, and we are NOT a vehicle for that, I am very reluctant to removal, and I will ask editors to go the extra mile and go through whitelisting for the individual links, including showing that there are not other sources for their requests.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * To be able to see the full record, I split the archive, please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Apr_1B. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So let me be sure I understand this last post… a small number of users including (only?) SimonThird started spamming the Wiki. Right? So instead of blocking them we blocked a reference used in hundreds of other articles? And the reason for this is that it would be too much effort to fix the actual problem? Maury Markowitz (talk)

I checked another one of SimonThird's edits. Here he added a new section Releases to IBM's article, referenced with a link to the CBR site. Clearly this gives undue weight to a single product release, one of perhaps thousands of products released over IBM's 100+ year history. This one lasted a couple months before it was reverted. So some unknown percentage of this editor's contributions may have dubious motivations. I maintain that the first example I cited, if looked at by itself, with no knowledge of SimonThird's other edits, should be considered as both good-faith and helpful, were the site not blacklisted. I don't have the power to check this user's IP address to see if it could be associated with this website. I'm not really familiar with the publication, but my perception is that Computer Business Review was a British printed trade journal back in the day, perhaps similar to InfoWorld. A lot, perhaps most of these publications have dropped their paper editions, and if they're still operating, are now online-only. Unfortunately, unlike InfoWorld which Google has helpfully scanned so that we may directly link images of the paper-printed magazines, our only option with Computer Business Review is to link to this site. I doubt this site makes much, if any, money selling subscriptions, so obviously they need to draw traffic that views on-site advertising to survive. Our legitimate reference links to this site may help in some small way in that regard, helping them stay online so that the site is available for us to research and find more references. Now The New York Times does still make real money from selling subscriptions, but even they are becoming more dependent on online ads. So, what if, theoretically, some anonymous editors decided to help the Times out by focusing all their editing energies on clearing the Category:Articles with unsourced statements backlog by inserting mostly helpful citations to Times articles, but got somewhat over-enthusiastic about the project and let some dubious links like SimonThird's "Releases" link slip in as well. Would we then be forced to blacklist the Times?

Dirk Beetstra, I see that you maintain a bot that generated a report: WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/cbronline.com – can we get an updated report? Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll also point out that user:SimonThird has a clean block log, the only admonition on user talk:SimonThird was extremely vague and didn't indicate any specific edits or the nature of the alleged "promotional material", and by the time this site was blacklisted on 16 April 2010, SimonThird was long gone (last edit 11 December 2009). Wbm1058 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Another relevant past discussion: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 49 – yes this site seems to have a lot of "articles" that are just regurgitated press releases, but the idea that these are unreliable sources is a bit ridiculous. You just need to be careful about what they reliably say. Press releases are primary sources, not the secondary sources preferred on Wikipedia. Primary sources are used to fact-check secondary sources. If you have a company Z press release dated March 1996 announcing the release of the product whiz-bang version 3.0 then that is indeed a reliable source for "Company Z announced the release of whiz-bang version 3.0 in March 1996". You might want to look for a reliable secondary source that confirmed that the product actually was released when they said it was, but the press release is a reliable source for "the company claimed the product was released." - Wbm1058 (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Nope, it was not only SimonThird, there were more. If it was only SimonThird, likely, as you state it, it would likely have been a block for the user (with some exceptions for some sites).  Wbm1058, I said it was a campaign, spammers do not stay with just one account, they use multiple accounts to spam multiple domains.  There were 5 or 6 listed, but there are many, many more (some with just one or two edits, but of the same pattern).  We may indeed not have bothered to block editors here, but warn the different accounts and move on to straight blacklisting.  Why bother blocking accounts if other socks will pop up (sometimes, even warning them as they will not read the warning on the old-sock account when they are already on the new one).
 * Also, you say a reference to hundreds of other articles, if I see it correctly, there are at least 5 accounts (and if I go through a handful of other IPs I am worried about those edits as well), who added and (between each other) re-added links that were removed. Since it took 2 years before it was uncovered, the reports are congested with regular editors who, in some cases, may have added the links back reverting unrelated vandalism.  There may also have been regulars adding the link in the past - but that means that there should also be regulars who tried to add the link since.  If it was significantly used, then there must among those have several regulars who do know that when they run into a blacklist warning that there are ways to discuss that problem (whitelist requests).   Still, there have not been many discussions regarding it, suggesting that not many regulars have used the link.  Moreover, most of the whitelisting requests I did see were declined as 'replaceable'.  I don't think this site has been used by regulars a lot.
 * The site was not blacklisted because it was an unreliable source, even a porn site is a reliable source if you use it correctly, it was blacklisted because it was spammed (and otherwise spammy abused) by multiple accounts (likely a SEO-company seen IP edits) in a campaign (or multiple campaigns), ánd it is not massively reliable anyway.
 * So if it shows anything, I think it shows that most of these links were not cleaned out after the blacklisting .. manpower is a continued problem here.
 * Regarding the Times - that is the interesting thing - first, a journal like the Times does not need spam to get their links out (so that says something about companies that do spam), moreover, if a site like that would engage in a massive spamming campaign, we would indeed have a nice problem, which likely would be handled through the legal department of Wikimedia (we have had congressman or their representatives spam Wikipedia - besides blocking, they have to be reported to the Foundation). I would however not exclude that if such a site would engage in such massive spamming, that blacklisting (though more likely an edit filter) may be needed to mitigate the problem - and it has happened for sites like that.
 * And yes, cbronline or the ..-review sites may be a reliable source for some information - and that is why we have a whitelist for those cases where the information is unique, reliable ánd notable enough.
 * Sorry, COIBot is down at the moment, but the old reports should already give you an idea - I just went through some IPs, and there are more engaging in spamming than the ones that precipitated the blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. This has been a good discussion, although I feel that perhaps the burden of proof has been unfairly placed on the defense. There does seem to be a problem here, but the extent of the problem and the manageability of it is just a matter of opinion. I feel that no matter how much effort I put into showing it's manageable, you will still reply that what I've found is just the tip of the iceberg and we just haven't identified the rest of it. So there's no point in further analyzing what happened over three years ago before the blacklisting. This recent addition of bot-generated Blacklisted-links has introduced an eyesore that currently transcludes onto 3,738 articles, apparently 357 (nearly 10%) of which are caused by this reference. If the goal of this exercise was to twist the arms of busy gnomes into diverting from other backlogs they've been trying to clear for months, then it's succeeded. I'll familiarize myself with the white-listing process, which is something I haven't needed to do until now, and get to work on "cleaning out" the links, though I can just get started for now before I need to take a break. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm surprised at how short that white-list is, now that I'm looking at it for the first time. Just nine entries for cbronline. But the "helpful hint" section does not feel helpful at all. In fact, it strikes me as rather hostile. The attitude that you are guilty until proven innocent comes through loud-and-clear. That probably explains why the list is so short. If you make something enough of a bureaucratic bother, then volunteers just won't bother. I suppose that is the goal. Excuse me for grumbling. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding manageability - I was just pointed to a similar case of spamming, where many domains from a company were blacklisted back in 2008. 2 independent whitelisting requests led me to have a look, and it looks like the same spamming is still ongoing, with many single-purpose accounts creating and editing articles in the realm of the company - a clear case of paid advocacy (maybe SEO-spam).  There, blocking accounts and blacklisting their domains certainly did not stop the spam, and I have no believe that here blocking the editors would have stopped it either.  Spamming pays their bills.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the helpful hint - unfortunately that is behaviour that we have to put up with on a regular basis. Please understand that blacklisting is not done to annoy good faith fellow editors, it is to stop spam - and even the blacklist does not do a good job at that.  Paid advocacy is a serious continuous problem, Wikipedia is a massive spam target.  I am sorry, but I get very nervous and non-cooperative when a regular is coming with an attitude of 'you asshole, you blocked the domain that I need and now I can not save my page' .. that approach should be reserved for editors who spam Wikipedia, but that aspect is often ignored.
 * Unfortunately, the bureaucratic bother is needed, spam is not your run-of-the-mill vandalism. And the reverse is generally also the case - we are deemed guilty of blocking 'useful' sites (your post of 23 November, 18:47 suggests such assumptions as well - 'this so-called "spam" site'/'Wikipedia has a "massive" number of links to The New York Times I'm sure, but their massiveness doesn't make them spam.'), and we need to continuously defend that if a site is blacklisted, it was actually spammed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =