MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2014

= Proposed additions =

lisakellysite.com
I just added this, it may be a temporary measure, but the site or its DNS has been hacked and currently redirects to an MMF scam (see 2014020310001561). I blacklisted it to prevent good-faith users trying to reinsert it, as this was, by all accounts, the correct official site of Lisa Kelly. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry - Shelby sedan

 * Links


 * Users

Sock-puppets talking about a nonexistent Shelby sedan, as well as Google search results about it, were adding those links. 212.103.189.106 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

= Proposed removals =

canadiancrc.com

 * Probable false positive with www.canadiancrc.com being blocked because of \bcanadiancrc\.com\b (which does not exist)--Ironass (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * \bcanadiancrc\.com\b is supposed to block just that, canadiancrc.com. Why do you think it is a false positive, or why do you think it should be de-listed?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * canadiancrc.com is the Canadian Children's Rights Council, a respected human rights organization. A web search indicated no spamming activities by this site.  Why would or should that site be blocked? --Ironass (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This site was spammed to Wikipedia using a number of sockpuppets (I see two individual SPIs), and using several IPs, and linking to copyvio material that is (or maybe, was at that time) hosted on their site. That was combined with threatening comments etc.  It may not be someone of the organisation itself (it could have been someone just sympathetic to their cause, though COI is implied), still the abuse was quite widespread and that is exactly what the blacklist is designed to stop (especially when WP:COPYLINK comes into play).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This site was spammed to Wikipedia using a number of sockpuppets (I see two individual SPIs), and using several IPs, and linking to copyvio material that is (or maybe, was at that time) hosted on their site. That was combined with threatening comments etc.  It may not be someone of the organisation itself (it could have been someone just sympathetic to their cause, though COI is implied), still the abuse was quite widespread and that is exactly what the blacklist is designed to stop (especially when WP:COPYLINK comes into play).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

www.water-technology.net


This website is a secondary source which includes good, detailed information on water supply, dam and hydropower projects throughout the world. It is used legitimately in 84 water, dam and hydropower plant articles and is generally reliable. It was black-listed in March 2014 which several other website for spamming. I myself have never seen it spammed on Wikipedia, just used as a reference.

How can the site be useful It is used as a reliable source. Often this website is the only English source with an article on a specific dam or hydropower project. Stubs get bigger and readers learn more.

Why it should not be blacklisted It may have been spammed with several other websites but it is most useful as a source for many articles. Despite that the website was spammed, it is a valuable resource for myself and others who start similar articles. I am dismayed that it was spammed but moreso that it was blacklisted.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly some discretion was called for. Banning a site which is legitimately linked by hundreds of wiki pages means imposing hundreds of hours of work on the Wikipedia community to either find alternate sources or to remove now-unsourced material. Requiring the community to waste that much time on busywork instead of spending it on more productive edits just because a site was spam promoted is unreasonable. Anti-spam work is supposed to reduce others' opportunity costs, not increase them. TheOtherEvilTwin (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

- not blacklisted anymore pending discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

naval-technology.com

 * "Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia."

naval-technology.com has considerable information on its namesake: naval technology. It currently has 490 links, the vast majority seem to be useful.


 * "Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore."

There is no explanation as to why it was blacklisted: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log, so I don't understand why it was added. A considerable number of article use this site for reference. Loss of access to this website would seem detrimental.

Jim1138 (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that it's one of many sites discussed at below. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Railway-Technology.com

 * "Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia."

Railway-Technology.com, like naval-technology.com above, has considerable information on its namesake: railways (e.g. metros and subways and the like, as well as commuter rail), especially in regards to statistics relating to railways (e.g. route length, number of stations, etc.)


 * I agree that this site is valuable to a number of articles with which I'm familiar and it does provide comprehensive and pertinent information to them, so would gather that it has been used in other articles as well. Blacklisting would be detrimental to Wiki as a whole as well. Djflem (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Railway-Technology.com seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate online source of definitive information about railway technology. It is used by a large number of articles on the English wiikpedia, and including this site on the blacklist is causing a large number of articles to be defaced by a bot-created notice.Hallucegenia (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to agree with what User:Hallucegenia and User:Djflem have said. This website as far as I can tell contains useful and relevant information and is used as a reference in many articles. I have added links to this website as references myself and I'm certainly not a spammer. I find it rather annoying that so many articles have been tagged by this spam bot! This has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. G-13114 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the events leading to this site being on the blacklist in the first place. Railway-technology.com and its sister, Future Rail (Railway-technology Dot com/Uploads/AboutUs/RailwayTechnology/mediapacksfr/about-us-fr.html), are digital magazines produced by Kable, an information research firm based in London with offices in Australia, Asia, Europe, North America and South America. This is a legitimate secondary source. If we think railway-technology.com should be in the black list, we should also put wired.com on the black list. The are just in similar ranking in their respective industries.Z22 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore."

There is no explanation as to why it was blacklisted: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log, though I gather it was added in response to its use by some Wiki sockpuppets. A considerable number of articles also use this site for reference. Loss of access to this website would seem detrimental to Wiki as a whole as well.

--IJBall (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * On second thought, suspending this request, until the discussion downpage is hashed out. --IJBall (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is necessary to remove from the blacklist. This should be removed as soon as we can. As mentioned, there is no good reason to be put on the blacklist in the first place. The site is used by many articles with real legitimate contents. Editors with good intention may see the note left by the bot about blacklist and may attempt to clean up articles by choosing the less valuable or less reliable sources to replace those citations. This will be detrimental to many rail articles. If there have been problems with certain users who misused this site for something, please address those issues with those particular users. Don't just put this site on the blacklist and cause a mayhem. Z22 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would second User:Z22. I think it's quite obvious that this website (and others similar) has been placed on the blacklist in error, and should be removed from it ASAP! look at the reaction to this website's entry on the whitlelist page. This is causing a lot of totally unnecessary disruption to hundreds of articles, and it should be resolved as soon as possible! G-13114 (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not added in error, it was spammed. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

infosecinstitute.com
This is to request to unblock the site to be used in DEITYBOUNCE. Please unblock. Thanks, --Elvey (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Please unblock [//resources.infosecinstitute.MOC/nsa-bios-backdoor-god-mode-malware-deitybounce/ this page] on infosecinstitute about DEITYBOUNCE if you won't unblock the whole site. This is obviously important content and appears to be original to the site. BTW, winning Pwn2Own is no small feat. , which is blank. Would appear the site is nothing more than for selling training products and services? Yeah, and so is the New York Times, FS! As some IP said, sure, this site may sell training products and services. Lots of sites out there sell things. But some sites do something else besides selling and resources.infosecinstitute.com/how-charlie-miller-does-research/ does not seem like it's trying to sell me something. They have quite a few interviews there (on the right side) with somewhat notable researchers, I don't see why it should not be allowed linking to them. "Spammers" created that article on Charlie? Really? Seems like a violation of WP:NPA regarding a good-faith edit. If when Markg123 added the link in this edit, is as bad as it gets, WTF? That's a pretty reasonable seeming good-faith edit to me. --Elvey (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Your first paragraph makes no sense, no valid rationale has been provided ("obviously important" isn't sufficient), and your aspersions on others as well as WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments aren't relevant here. Try less combativeness and more civility. for the time being. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In this way, indeed, wholeheartedly . Singling out one edit of Markg123 (you ignored the others, and the deleted edits) and ignoring the IPs does not make a case.  Regarding New York Times vs. this site: this site was spammed, New York Times is not.  And that was why this site was blacklisted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't single out the edit. You guys did.  As evidence of spam, that's one edit.  I saw no evidence of spamming of the domain by IPs.  If there was, please reply with diffs or explain where this evidence is. Are you ignorant as to what DEITYBOUNCE is?  I guess it's 'obvious' to me because resources.infosecinstitute.com/nsa-bios-backdoor-god-mode-malware-deitybounce/ is about something that has frequently been on the front page of major newspapers recently - Snowden's NSA revelations regarding active dragnet surveillance, in particular DEITYBOUNCE.  I find that the addition to the blacklist wasn't even logged, and a horrible, unfriendly sandtrap-rich system for handling block and unblock requests.  Not conducive to a collegial atmosphere, folks.  --Elvey (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you did. The other edits by Markg123 that you see is spamming the wikilink to the article that he created on the subject (you don't see the edits where he created the article because the article is deleted (it was basically an advertisement for the company)).  Albeit not external link spamming, that is also spamming (linking for promotional purposes to a promotional article).  The IPs are clearly mentioned in the report that led to the blacklisting, and properly logged (you actually above used the link that is in the log, as well in a later de-listing request, I presume you got it from the latter).  Those IPs are clearly spamming: one of them has about 40 edits, by far most to external links sections, adding the links to infosecinstitute.com to the top of the external links list.  And I am sure that if you ask friendly here, you will get a friendly explanation (as in the previous delisting request).  Still .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, can you please provide publicly viewable evidence of spamming? I saw only one edit, which as I said appeared to be good-faith edit.  Again:, which is essentially blank. Is that what you mean by properly logged?  By properly logged, I refer to the top of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist which says:
 * "# Log your addition. All additions to this blacklist MUST also be logged here"


 * I took a look and see a total of 5 edits by Markg123. 8 years ago. I found Articles_for_deletion/Infosec_Institute Non-notable?  Sure.  Vandalism?  No, I see no evidence of that.  No publicly viewable evidence of spamming.


 * Please comment on why the URL I want to add is or isn't a RS in your view.--Elvey (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, the archives of this page are publicly searchable. Please do your homework before asking these questions. Here, I'll do it for you:
 * It's been in the logfile since January 2008: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log/start to 2009
 * Previous declined delisting request, containing references to spamming records: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2011
 * Granted, the version you linked shows collapsed templates (probably because there are too many on the page) making the report look essentially blank. But if you look at the actual archived entry at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jan 1.5, it is obviously not blank, and contains sufficient reason to blacklist.
 * Repeated requests to reconsider after being declined by multiple admins is bordering on WP:TENDENTIOUS. Once again, this request to de-list is . If you just want to white-list the page resources.infosecinstitute.com/nsa-bios-backdoor-god-mode-malware-deitybounce/ then ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, by properly logged, I refer to the top of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist which says:
 * "# Log your addition. All additions to this blacklist MUST also be logged here"


 * If you don't welcome or can't handle constructive criticism, please STOP READING NOW. I see there's something in some OTHER log file archive. I now see that. But well, you folks should get your message straight, no?  I don't have permission to edit it to make it clearer... MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log/start to 2009 and MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jan_1.5 are hardly the same thing; I thought I did "my homework" and searched the latter.  It's WP:TENDENTIOUS to not have the ESP to know that I need to search not in the place where I'm told the logs are, but somewhere else, and there's no Search box?  I'm sorry.  Please, put up a search box that would find that stuff, or better yet, when you tell folks the url they're trying to add is blocked, provide a link right there to search results for the blocked domain. Repeated requests for clarification after being declined by multiple admins is bordering on WP:TENDENTIOUS? There's nothing in the former log but a provided link that doesn't even work.  If you don't want to provide answers to my questions THEN PLEASE DON'T REPLY.  Thanks.  Interpreting my questions here as repeated requests to reconsider is your story; I see nothing I've said as an explicit request for that, rather I said that I agree with the deletion of Infosec_Institute.  I asked, "Please comment on why the URL I want to add is or isn't a RS in your view." and instead you point me to deferwhite.  If you think that helps me, you're deceiving yourself.  Again, if you don't want to provide answers to my questions THEN PLEASE DON'T REPLY.  Over and out. PS.  > 6 years ago, Hu12 was right to list this domain. That is NOW evident. BUT: You admins should really put yourself in the shoes of a new user and see how long it takes you to get to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jan_1.5 after trying to add a infosecinstitute.cmo URL, just by following the guidance that appears when you start there. --Elvey (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Elvey, you come here full assuming that this was blacklisted without evidence of spamming, you couldn't find the log entry and therefore assumed that there was none, and started with ""Spammers" created that article on Charlie? Really?  Seems like a violation of WP:NPA regarding a good-faith edit.  If when Markg123 added the link in this edit, is as bad as it gets, WTF?  That's a pretty reasonable seeming good-faith edit to me.".  I hope you are familiar with WP:AAGF as well.  Next time, if you don't see why something happened or you don't understand, ask first and don't start yelling immediately.  That works for you, it also works for new editors who run into this.  And a question, and a following discussion, does help more to build goodwill than yelling or continuing to push your links.  There may very well be a case to (try to) remove this from the blacklist after 6 years, but I am afraid that you now have lost the goodwill of the volunteers here to further investigate this.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

andrewprokos.com
The photographer is well regarded and published in many magazines and newspapers around the world and has won several important awards, especially for his photography of my native country Brazil. I want to add a link to his web site homepage as it is obviously relevant to the page Andrew_Prokos. I am not able to request that through the whitelist.

The site was blacklisted in March 2008 because the editor Herbythyme (no longer has an active profile on Wiki) thought that the photographer sells his artwork on the website and he thought there was some commercial motivation to the links being added to wikipedia pages. He said at the time: "This is a commercial photography site, with the site owner clearly wanting to sell his photos. This site does not meet the external links guidelines, and he has been told so. Nonetheless, the site owner (presumabely) keeps re-adding the link"

I checked andrewprokos.com and I can't find any ecommerce or Google ads of any kind on the pages, so it seems odd to me to ban the entire site as being too commercial. The editor was presuming to know who was adding links to pages. It seems that the site could be a very useful reference for its large collections of images of places and architecture. The site is still referenced in several articles in non-English Wiki pages. Please let me know if this is possible as I have just an external link to the photographer's Facebook page, and I don't like to use Facebook in the article. Thank you for your assistance, Larantes (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like every photo on that site has a caption with instructions on how to purchase a print.
 * Furtheremore, I don't really see anything on that site that would be worthy of linking on Wikipedia except for the bio at andrewprokos.com/bio.html - and for that, . ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. This is the site of a living artist so I think it's only normal that there will be some mention of how to to purchase artwork. If you use mention of how to buy as a strict guideline then potentially every link to every site of a living artist across wikipedia could be judged to be commercially motivated no? Most artists' sites mention how to buy their work in some way or another. I will request that the bio page be unblocked on the whitelist page. Thanks, Larantes (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @User:Larantes: yes, for every site we link to there is someone making money. That is not why sites end up on the blacklist.  Sites get on the blacklist when that person who is making money with a site is spamming links to that site (or better, when a site gets spammed or abused and other methods don't help in stopping that; we don't really care who is abusing the links (except if there is also a lot of regular use) or what is on the site).  That is what happened here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @Dirk Beetstra Ok I have requested that just the bio page be whitelisted instead. I completely understand your point above, however that was over 6 years ago when the internet was a different place. It seems a little draconian to keep sites of good quality perpetually blacklisted. Thanks, Larantes (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree, I think that this is not a case of long term, intensive (SEO) spamming and that we could consider to try and see what happens if we remove the site. I do note, that 6 years is not 'a long time' in spamming terms, we do have companies that are spamming Wikipedia for longer than that time.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Since this was deferred to whitelist two weeks ago nothing has happened...nobody has even responded to my query on the whitelist page. As Dirk says, this doesn't appear to be a case of intensive, long-term spamming so why not try removing it from the blacklist for a while and see how it goes? Thanks, Larantes (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just added the link you requested to the Whitelist, so removing from blacklist ❌. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

pechakucha.org
pechakucha.org was apparently previously owned by a cybersquatter (see Wayback Machine) until it was obtained by the the owners of PechaKucha, who now use it as their primery domain. Due to it being on the blacklist, the Wikipedia article for PechaKucha contains only links to PechaKucha's old domain pecha-kucha.org, which only redirects to pechakucha.org. One needs to take care when linking as some of the URLs aren't the same between the old and new domain, e.g. the old page pecha-kucha.org/night is now pechakucha.org/attend which I spotted this while trying to add a new link. There should be no reason to keep this on the blacklist now and would need to be removed so the links can be updated on the PechaKucha Wikipedia article. See the talk page Talk:PechaKucha — Lee A. Christie (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not on this (local) blacklist, but rather on the Meta blacklist]. You'll need to take up the matter there. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks OhNo itsJamie , I have posted about it on the meta blacklist discussion. — Lee A. Christie (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed from the global SBL. -- Glaisher  [talk]  10:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)