MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2013

=Proposed Additions=

save-sara-tancredi.org


While it is purported to be an online petition for the Prison Break character Sara Tancredi to return to the show's fourth season, it is nothing but an iPad spam. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anybody home? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Evidence of Abuse?--Hu12 (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain whether you would consider this abuse, but it was introduced within the text of the article about Sarah Wayne Callies, with no hyperlink (this is me removing it). Is there a way to prevent the text from being entered into an edit altogether? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any valid reason for blacklisting here, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

cloudways.com
 

  [ 

  

     

There has been a steady campaign since summer 2012 to add this site to various articles, often those of competitors, most recently today. Joja lozzo  21:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

heightincreasinginsoles.net

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Dec 1


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

86.142.76.14 felt the need to post this. MER-C 13:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

onelittlemouse.narod.ru
Fake site, attack page; diff and many others from "beatles troll". May be abuse filter will be useful here too. OneLittleMouse (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Attack site...--Hu12 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

model-viewer.com
Nine instances from 15 January to 28 January 2013:, , , , , , , , Joja lozzo  17:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems the IP has been blocked, lets wait on this....if it resumes, blacklisting should be considered. for now.--Hu12 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems the IP has been blocked, lets wait on this....if it resumes, blacklisting should be considered. for now.--Hu12 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

filmgola.com


See Sockpuppet investigations/Filmgola. MER-C 02:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * by Someguy1221..--Hu12 (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

wysinger.homestead.com
Massive copyvio host. Moonriddengirl concurs. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright).✅--Hu12 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rollingpapers.net
This link has been placed in all articles related to Rolling papers, including as an external link even there is no value to it. The website is owned by HBI International who also owns several of the brands where the link is posted (Raw (rolling paper) & Juicy Jay's). A whois search on the domain rollingpapers.net confirms it is registered to HBI. The company is using its own site to spam links into non-notable articles on Wikipedia. You can see the list of all of the companies and websites that they own here (http://www.hbiinternational.com/links.php). --MoreLessLEI (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The link is owned by the company HBI who is using it as a promotional site to promote their products such as Juicy Jays and Raw. You can see from the deletion discussion at Juicy Jays Articles for deletion/Juicy Jay's that someone close to the company is familiar that they are spamming the link. They are inserting it into pages believing it will provide them with a backlink to their website. They also have changed the name of it from Rollingpapers.net to "Juicy Jays rolls on collectors site" (in the external links) with a link to rollingpapers.net. The site is attempting to give more credibility to the Wikipedia pages. According to Wikipedia's external link policy, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues," can be added. However, rollingpapers.net is not "neutral and accurate" as it is owned by a rolling paper company and is used to promote their own products and give bad reviews on competitor products. Thank you for your consideration. --MoreLessLEI (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Insufficient reason for blacklisting. . Based on your edit history and the discussion here, it appears you have a connection to this topic. Filing a blacklist request on a competitor, particularly when it lacks any merit whatsoever is never a sign of good faith. --Hu12 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

myathens.tv, mymykonos.tv
I found a job listing on Elance (https://www.elance.com/j/wikipedia-contributor-wanted/37646140) where someone is looking to hire Wikipedia edits to add links to the poster's websites. Kind regards, Matt (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Quote;
 * I am looking for a Wikipedia Contributor - someone who holds an account in wikipedia and has written an article or added further details in existing articles - to put 50 links leading to my video guide websites -myathens.tv and mymykonos.tv - as external links in existing wiki articles which are related to my sites. I am going to provide you with 50 wikipedia URLs where you are going to place the links in the form of "External Links" under each article. You don't have to write any article. You will only place a link at each article within a certain anchor text, for example "Myconos video guide".


 * The ad was Posted: Thu, Feb 07, 2013 a day after his last spamming activity (6th). Also:
 * I'll add all of the previously spammed sites. Thanks for catching this. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add all of the previously spammed sites. Thanks for catching this. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add all of the previously spammed sites. Thanks for catching this. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Noting that myathens.tv has been added to or.wiki (http://or.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=104953) by a likely unrelated editor. Just a heads up, I think that has cross-wiki potential so we should continue to monitor this on other projects as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

emr-matrix.org


Spammy site, with various IP's repeatedly adding links over the last couple of months. Toohool (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Other related
 * (redirect site)
 * Others;
 * Persistent multi-IP spamming.... Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Others;
 * Persistent multi-IP spamming.... Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Persistent multi-IP spamming.... Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

pacbi.com again


Previous reports - MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August_2012 and MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2011

www.pacbi.org is the URL for Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. www.pacbi.com is an anti-pacbi attack site. www.pacbi.com is blacklisted. However, the site has set up redirects from pacbi.net -> pacbi.com and the pacbi.net URL is not blacklisted. Replacing the official URL with the attack site's redirecting pacbi.net URL has happened numerous times this week (some examples, , ). Please blacklist pacbi.net.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

finance.mapsofworld.com


This is in follow up of a request at the Help Desk by Toshio Yamaguchi. Back in October 2007, two IPs and two registered editors were spamming mapsofworld.com into Wikipedia and that generated WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/mapsofworld.com. That resulted in User:Beetstra adding mapsofworld.com to the black list 09:34, 16 October 2007.. As noted in 2008 here, "somebody unrelated to mapsofworld.com was persistently adding links for that and other sites to many articles." Given that occured over five years ago, I think the reasons for the black list no longer exist. Please consider removing http://finance.mapsofworld.com/ from the black list. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * finance.mapsofworld.com isn't specifically blacklisted. All of mapsofworld.com is listed, as well as many other mapsof*.com sites. We could possibly add the subdomain finance.mapsofworld.com to the whitelist, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Galatta.com
I don't know, who blacklisted it and which reason was given to blacklist the site, possibly malware or so? The website is one of the oldest existing film magazines in India and it would be utilized as a reliable source. I discussed a different matter on my talkpage and both colleagues were of the same opinion for de-blacklisting, if there is no problem with malware of course.--Dravidianhero (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not blacklisted here, but on meta (i.e. globally blacklisted). You could either chose to whitelist a specific link  or ask for de-listing there .  I'll have a quick look if I can find the reasons for blacklisting (which generally is, that it was relentlessly pushed by many editors, but there are exceptions).  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 12:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As I expected, relentless spamming, back in 2008.
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_1
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_1 (related)
 * AN thread here
 * m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2008-03 (listing on meta).
 * m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2012-08 (declined request for delisting on meta, August 2012).
 * It is quite some time ago, we could consider a de-listing of this site (but with the promise that it will be quickly re-listed if it re-starts ..), though it was quite a promotional campaign. The safest bet is to ask for whitelisting of a specific link.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 12:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The website would be probably used quite extensivly due to its huge content, hence it would be very tough to deblock these sites one after another. I will give it a try at metablock.--Dravidianhero (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, 'probably used quite extensively' .. It has not been used until now, I'd still suggest to first go through some whitelist requests to see a) how much it does get used, and b) how editors respond to its use. If it then gets too much, de-blacklisting is generally easier.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 14:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think, the website was never really popular as compared to the magazine. But since a year or so they have totally reworked their website with a fresh modern GUI etc. I rather give up my request and use the other available websites than asking for whitelisting all the time.--Dravidianhero (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also;
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive133 --Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Dravidianhero, you don't have to ask 'all the time' .. but having 2-3 before asking for either a wiki-wide whitelisting, or even a delisting at meta would help. Spammers are persistent (it is how they make money, the general observation is that they will return and will continue) - I really like to see that a site is really used before opening a possible spamhole (and have then mitigation in place) in stead of opening the spamhole and no-one really using it.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 09:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm totally fine with your proposal. I'm not really knowledgable about spam production. Do I need some tool to identify spam, so I could report the site instantly ?--Dravidianhero (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is not a specific tool (except for my bots that monitor link additions off-wiki) - it is generally a matter of seeing who added the links that are on Wikipedia, and whether there are accounts that do nothing else than add a specific domain (and nothing else) - or accounts that spring into existence, add a couple of links, and never come back. Then it is a matter of seeing the disruption vs. the advantage of a link - if the disruption is massive, then even good links sometimes make it to the blacklist (yes, big companies do hire SEOs to optimize their search engine rankings; with the whitelist to facilitate specific links), if the disruption is small, cleaning is better, if the link is useless anyway then there is generally no risk in blacklisting, if a link has only one specific use, and there is some disruption, also blacklisting is a case (the latter happens with porn-sites; they have their place on its own article, but they have a tendency to show up as the 'official external link' for schools (as a form of a joke)).  If a link is of really good use, then we will have to live with the disruption sometimes (in a way, that is where YouTube stands - a lot of good stuff, but sometimes spammed, and the not-too-occasional copyvio).  Here, in the past, the disruption was quite massive, so blacklisting was then necessary .. but if the use is now turning out to be used quite a bit, then we might move to de-blacklisting and user other methods to control the (possible) disruption (if it would start again).  Thanks!  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 12:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

TVRage.com
(English is not my first language, so my apologies for any mistakes in grammar) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.187.31 (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

My name is Roger and i represent TVRage.com. this will be my second and final attempt to try and get this site whitelisted. In 2007, nearly 6 years ago. TVRage was blacklisted due to the actions of members of TVRage and one Admin who has been fired a long time ago. However, these attempts were made in an unprofessional manner by people whom were not in any position to officially represent the site. I am the actual owner of TVRage, and I simply ask that you read through the points I'd like to make here and keep an open mind on how the site has changed. The topic that started it all was: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talkpam-blacklist&oldid=178668854#www.tvrage.com The following points were made in the previous request and i would like to answer to each one of those.

1. Massive Meat puppetry.

None of this was sanctioned by me or condoned. but this was my staff so i will take responsibility for it.

2. Widespread disruption. -- When TVRage first started there was a rivalry between tv.Com and old tvrage concerning the old tvtome.com members. This unfortunately lead to people from both sides to remove/add links to tv.com and tvrage.Com on several pages relating to shows. it also caused insults to each other and i can understand that this is a valid point to look at. again, these actions were never condoned by me but i will take responsibility for them

3. Gross incivility and vandalism

I agree that some members of TVRage but also TV.Com where not civilized and vandalized each others pages, this also happened after, i do not take responsibility for this cause after all freedom of speech is something i have no control over, the persons in question should of been blocked by wikipedia.

4. Harassment & persistent spamming - Members were frustrated that because tvrage had more information on a lot of TV Shows that they kept being removed while other sites with no info got an external link. Again, i did not condone these actions, but i will take responsibility for them

5. A Petition started to include TVRage into wikipedia --- Even though i had no hand in this, it was arranged in our forums and nothing was stopped todo this so i will again take the responsibility for this

6. Threats of continuous disruption - This was based on a quote i made: "But we will continue to pursue this matter as TVRage continues to grow", with this i simply tried to express that once we can show we are worthy to be whitelisted we will try again through the process of wikipedia

7. Using wikipedia to promote our own interest --- Personally i never had any intention to promote our own interest, i never added a link myself to the best of my knowledge (it has been 7 years ago). But other people had been adding links during that time and i cannot speak for them, i'm sure some were for the interest of TVRage but the majority was because we had superior information.

I hope these answers satisfy you, as for my closing argument. TVRage has changed a lot during the years, we now employ over 20 people and we no longer depend on volunteer editorial oversight. Our employees work hard to make sure all information is correct, 11 employees have the task for data entry to make sure our all information is 100% correct. This nullifies the argument previously made by an admin that TVRage cannot be a reliable source because the system works like wikipedia, this is no longer true. We may allow anyone to submit after becoming a member but every contribution is vetted by one of our employees to be sure it is accurate.

The main reason why i am pleating for this website to be whitelisted is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist I do not know what goes on behind the scenes of google, bing, yahoo when they make their algorithms but i fear this could be one of the factors since your site is highly regarded.

I hope i made a compelling case, if you choose still to not whitelist me, so be it but this will be my last attempt to hope to reason with you. Our site is nothing like it was when we were banned, We strive for perfect information. While other TV websites have fallen because they focused on flashy things our base motto is information is the most important thing.

And finally i understand the staff here is very busy and cannot go deeply into every case of blacklist/whitelist so it's understandable that you sometimes are fed up with it, hopefully this quick glance of my apology for the way members behaved in the past could smooth things over and you will give the site a fair shake not based on past events but what has changed since.

Kind Regards,

Roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.149.58 (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests, so per your previous request and the one before that, this is still . "we will continue to pursue this matter". Closed.--Hu12 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

- So if you are a site owner you have no recourse to submit an application to be removed from the blacklist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.187.31 (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * None at all. To be honest, you have a compelling financial interest to ask for the unblacklisting, so we cannot take your arguments at face value. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 21:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

youthhungama.com
I was adding links regarding Bollywood movie and reviews on the recent Bollywood movies that were released..The links were not spam as they will provide useful information regarding the upcoming movie,official trailers and many more details.. So it is my humble request to remove the site from the spam-blacklist and allow me to provide all the latest information regarding Bollywood movies.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankysupercool (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 February 2013‎
 * It is spam and you used sock accounts to push it - see Sockpuppet investigations/Shankysupercool/Archive. This is the reason why sites like this will never get unblocked and why Wikipedia is better of without low-life spammers. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There appears to be some dispute about this. I have raised the matter at WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them or in response to site-owners' requests. I'll remind you, that your username contains your personal name which connects you directly as the registrant of the site youthhungama.com. There also is, in this case, significant evidence of sock-puppetry and block evasion in order to egregiously pursue a spamming campaign. --Hu12 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

gematria
Two sites which have been probably the first Online Gematria Calculators www.c2kb.com/gematria and www.gematrix.org are in the black list. I believe a few years ago someone have tried to add them to Wikipedia in a brutal way and this is why they were black listed. There is no reason to black list them now. Both sites gives accurate Gematria results and very popular. Never the less the links have been removed maliciously by other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.26.145.86 (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for removal, nor would removing restricted URLS be in any way considered malicious.. Please refrain from attempting to add them, as you did on he.wikipedia.org, thank you. --Hu12 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for removal, nor would removing restricted URLS be in any way considered malicious.. Please refrain from attempting to add them, as you did on he.wikipedia.org, thank you. --Hu12 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for removal, nor would removing restricted URLS be in any way considered malicious.. Please refrain from attempting to add them, as you did on he.wikipedia.org, thank you. --Hu12 (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

LookChem
This site provides accurate information about chemicals, and it is also a buyer site. The basic information added to wikipedia and cited as it would be excellent additions. Please consider my opinion that de-listing it would be a very godo contribution to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.112.17 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

LMGTFY
LMTGFY ("Let me Google that for you"; http://lmgtfy(dot)com) is a handy website used to assist people too lazy to use Google, and is also a useful tool to shorten Google searches. Compare: I don't see how LMGTFY can be used maliciously in any way - it is not a hosting site (i.e. cannot be used for spam), and it is not a URL redirector/shortener (i.e. cannot be used for spam). Is there any reason why the website is blacklisted? --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 07:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=copyright+law+in+Australia&oq=copyright+law+in+Australia&gs_l=hp.3..0l2j0i30j0i5i30l5j0i8i30l2.7562.20272.0.20371.32.24.1.3.3.0.406.3400.8j8j4j1j1.22.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.9hn1fCzGWwM
 * http://lmgtfy(dot)com/?q=copyright+law+in+Australia


 * It is possible to use it as a workaround to get (only) the result you want (hence, only the spam-result), moreover, google.com/search?q=copyright+law+in+Australia (link) does it as well, as well as .  There is no need to use lmgtfy anyway (there is hardly any use for google searches in mainspace, they are not suitable as a reference, and should not be used as an external link since the result is not 'stable' in any form).  Finally, this is blacklisted on meta, not here.  I hope this explains and helps.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 08:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of using them on talk pages, to explain things, and not actually use the links within mainspace. But yes, I understand your points. Though, given that the site itself does no harm, and the purpose of the spam blacklist is to prevent malicious or disruptive use of links, is the block necessary? I'll ask around on meta. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 09:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the use of it when there are better and more clear links to google results. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 06:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Silk Road (marketplace)
First of all let me say to anybody not familiar with .onion links, this certainly does look like a spam link but it is not. The above link is the url for an online, anonymous marketplace which is only accessible with a special browser called the Tor Browser. The anonymity of the marketplace makes it a useful place to buy and sell drugs, but that isn't the only use for it. Please take a look at Silk_Road_(marketplace). Here is the blacklist log listing blocking this link:

�silkroad.*\.onion�               # Phishing site with changing url (i.e. silkroadfqmteec4.onion)

The marketplace is not a phishing site. Since it's difficult to tell when the link is incorrect, malicious editors were replacing the correct link with phishing links so that they could withdraw the money deposited into their victims' marketplace accounts. I would suggest some kind of page protection instead of blocking everything, including the legitimate link.

This link is useful because there are legal purposes for the Silk Road marketplace. As in the case of ThePirateBay, whose article links to the site, it is up to users to make the best of use of the information Wikipedia provides. See Neutral_point_of_view

A discussion took place on the administrator's noticeboard preceding this link's blacklisting, but it explicitly suggested ignoring the rules to blacklist the link. Unfortunately I can't find it on the noticeboard anymore. The primary argument used was that Wikipedia has no interest promoting illegal activity. However I would point out two things: 1. Wikipedia also doesn't have an interest in condemning it. 2. The link is ELOFFICIAL and not ELNEVER

146.115.137.225 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . However the abuse is characterized, it correctly led to a blacklisting. Furthermore, the .onion top level domain is not an official TLD, and requires special software to access those sites. WP:ELNO specifically says links requiring special software to view are to be avoided. I see no reason to de-list this domain. In fact, I would advocate all of *.onion be blacklisted, for the same reason that all of *.co.cc is blacklisted on meta. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response Amatulić. As I understand the need for special software is recommended against but it's not a sufficient condition for blacklisting, and nor is being a non-ICANN TLD. As I said before, the link I posted above is not a phishing link, and frankly User:XLinkBot would be a better fix for the abuse than the Blacklist. I'm not familiar with the *.co.cc blacklist reasoning and couldn't find anything on the subject; could you post a link? 128.84.126.85 (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear anonymous. IF there is ONE single, fixed, clear .onion account for silkroad (e.g. silkroad.onion) then we could consider something.  As this does not seem to be the case (it seems to be changing .. and it has the additional 'code'  vb5piz3r added to it, which .. makes me think that this is not the official .onion site.  Should this not simply be 'silkroad.onion'?).
 * For me, .onion should be blanket blacklisted (the abuse and the possibility for abuse is, obviously, too broad), and then for specific pages one specific link should be whitelisted. Note that actually providing a link is a mere service, there is no necessity for it in any way.  I think that this might be a case for whitelisting this specific link, here .  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 08:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Beetstra (public), thanks a lot for your response. The link I posted is the ONE link that works. It's the only link that works, and it doesn't change. The changing of the link on the Silk Road article was due to malicious users putting up phishing sites to replace the correct link. The reason it has the gibberish after the 'silkroad' part is related to the security controls inherent to Tor's anonymizing technology. It's not possible to make a link which is just 'silkroad.onion'. Take a look at .onion for more info about this. I really like your idea of blanket blacklist and specific link whitelisting. Unfortunately, the gibberish in all .onion links makes users susceptible to phishing sites no matter where they on the web they look for a link. That's why I think it's important that Wikipedia puts up and maintains the correct link, it gives correct information that users can trust when no other site can really do this. 128.84.126.26 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes two of us admins in favor of blacklisting all of *.onion. First of all, as I said earlier, WP:ELNO suggests that those links have no business being on Wikipedia due to the need for special software. Second, the entire *.onion TLD is a notorious source of illegal material, phishing, and what not. The benefits to blacklisting outweigh the benefits to keeping it unlisted.
 * At the moment, only silkroad*.onion is listed. If you want to white-list a specific case of that is guaranteed to work, then for such requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

avoiceformen.com


Men's rights are a topic of increasing interest, and Avoiceformen is the leading site on the topic. The blacklist entry is completely bad as it:
 * 1) uses weasel words ("sneaky")
 * 2) alleges that citation is a form of vandalism
 * 3) alleges the site should be blacklisted because of vandalism causing links to the site to in fact link elsewhere
 * 4) unsupported claims "I cannot see that this website could even be considered a reliable source"

It would be quite absurd to not cite a leading site on any given topic, and as avoiceformen is the leading site on its particular topic, it is only logical to de-blacklist it.


 * I recommend no action here. The website could only be considered a "leading site" if it was run by a group of notable people or scholarly topic experts, but it is not. The closest it comes to naming its leaders is the mission statement which offers email contacts for "Paul" and "John". That is not the signature of a reliable website. There is no indication that this website is in any way important. Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2012 says it all .. link hijacking etc. .  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 13:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

People are "notable" because they are noted. Clearly, they've met that criteria, by virtue of sheer size, traffic, and recognition. "Scholarly topic experts" means nothing because there is no associated realm of scholarship. Male rights is, after all, an emerging field. A source need not be scholarly if it is relevant and does not claim to be scholarly.

Very few websites offer direct contact information or the proper names of administrators, including Wikipedia itself. Trying to use the very common internet practice of first-name aliases to preseve personal anonymity as a smear against the site betrays the lack of any real case against it.

How is the link hijacking case relevant? That was over a year ago, do we have evidence that the site in question was responsible, or that is a reason to keep the site on the blacklist? To say simply "link hijacking etc" seems to indicate there is no real case against the site itself. Aestu (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You should really have a look at WP:V, WP:RS .. we do demand the highest quality sources.
 * The owners of Wikipedia are known by full name .. not by alias.
 * Well, it was clearly used to advocate / promote the site (link hijacking in order to traffic people to this site in stead of to the site that one thinks to go to - not just 'honest' additions to pages where it should be), and that is exactly relevant here, that is exactly one of the things that the spam blacklist has to prevent.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The accusations still haven't been proven. Waving around a random link and accusing another poster of acting on the basis of ignorance does not change that and only underscores the lack of a case against the site. Do we know that those responsible for the edit and the reasons for it are applicable to any such information from the site? No? Then the entire argument is based on an unproven premise.

The individual who nominated the site for the blacklist is an aggressive editor of ideologically opposed material. Therefore, it seems most likely that the accusation was ideological in nature. No other individuals other than this one user have found fault with the site. Aestu (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The link hijacking has been proven, so I don't know what you are talking about there. And you say 'a source need not be scholarly if it is relevant and does not claim to be scholarly' - well, it needs to be scholarly, and if it already claims not to be scholarly, then it is certainly not the highest quality source, and hence not worth mentioning on Wikipedia.  And no, I did not argue that those responsible for the edits were affiliated (and actually, whether they are affiliated or not does not matter at all; and people not affiliated with a site can still promote or advocate it), what I do know is that the editors responsible for those edits were also responsible for the disruption caused by the edits, and that is what the spam blacklist is preventing now.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 14:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, a source does not need to be scholarly - WP:V itself says so, so I am curious why you are arguing against site policy? Blogs and non-academic sources qualify, "particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications". AVoiceForMen has appeared on the NYT and CBS so clearly that criteria has been met.

The evidence suggests that the questionable edits were made not by affiliates of that site but by ideologically opposed opponents looking to smear it.

Let's boil this down. Beetstra, what criteria for deblacklisting do you feel is not being met? And why are you claiming the policy says something other than it clearly does? Aestu (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As Beetstra noted, this site does not have the appearance of a reputable source. No amount of wikilawyering (i.e., attacking the blacklister as if you're hoping to get this "dismissed on procedural grounds") is going to convince me that this site meets WP:RS or is otherwise useful to the project. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No legal terminology or procedure was used. You are using the term "wikilawyering" as an insult without any proper justification, and trying to attack a contributor for properly employing the cited Wikipedia regulations.

"No amount". In other words, you refuse to examine the issue objectively; it doesn't matter what the evidence is.

The following would seem to apply:

"Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their fact and principle marshaling opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere."

[]

"Does not have the appearance". Your argument is entirely semantic in nature. No proof, no argument; just the semantic ad hominem of "not reputable". Why? The site meets the criteria specified in WP:V and WP:RS - it has appeared in mainstream publications, is not self-cited, and makes no extraordinary claims - so if you feel otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

Abuse of the insult "wikilawyer" to defend a lack of factual basis for a blacklist decision corroborates the appearance of bias. So we come back to the question: do you have a non-semantic basis to claim the site is not credible, when, in fact, it appears highly credible, having appeared in mainstream publications, and contains an abundance of diverse contributors?

Aestu (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me make a counter point, the site has been forcefully inserted into Wikipedia against Wikipedia policy, as a result Wikipedian's where forced to blacklist the domain (something that isn't done casually). Now the burden of proof lays on you to prove that the site in question meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. That threshold has not been met with your statements. No proof has been given that your site is a avoiceformen is the leading site, clear proof has not been established that your site is in fact reliable, well sourced, and professionally written at all. All we have are some vague statements by the owner of the site. I have seen other domain owners attempt to sell snow to an Eskimo for one reason or another. (For the record Eskimo's never need to buy snow.) The burden lays with the person wishing to include the material after the fact that it has been proven to be abusive. Werieth (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

First off, you're making this personal, which is bad form. You keep referring to Avoiceformen as "your site". It's not "my site". Please observe proper decorum and approach the issue in a non-personal manner.

Second, the burden of proof has already been met. The site has been repeatedly cited by several mainstream publications. No good reason has been given by anyone why the site is good enough for CBS and the New York Times but not Wikipedia. Obviously, if it's good enough for CBS/NYT then it's good enough for Wikipedia unless a VERY good reason can be given why not.

Third, you're throwing out a red herring by trying to associate a site with an anecdote about Eskimos and snow. It has nothing to do with the topic and suggests, again, efforts to blacklist the site in the absence of any objectively acceptable reason to do so. Aestu (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for using the term "you", I must have had my links mixed up. I just did a basic search for avoiceformen in google. I checked the first 100 results (beyond that its insignificant) None of them where from a reliable source endorsing the site. In fact several results had some fairly strong words against the site, including suspicion of hate crimes. You are making claims about reliable sources using avoiceformen in their publications (CBS, New York Times) and I cannot find any proof of that. From what I have seen the site utterly and completely fails the definition of WP:RS. This isn't even taking into consideration the reason for the initial blacklisting (link hijacking and other abuse). Werieth (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I just did a Google search avoiceformen (I have user indexing turned off). Site was first one up. Accusations are not guilt. Google itself is a poor measure of relevance/credibility. You obviously didn't look very hard since the site's appearance on NYT/CBS is cited in the site's materials. Your claims are dishonest slurs and obviously biased. Objective, fact-based approaches to this issue are clearly necessary. Aestu (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Request for the third time now. None of the discussion above addresses the reason for the blacklisting, therefore all of it is irrelevant to this page.  to discuss white-listing specific pages on the avoiceformen site. We consider blacklist removal requests from trusted, high-volume editors, and the petitioner in this case meets neither qualification at this time. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2012
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2012
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive242
 * This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. When a request for removal becomes attempts to "battle it out" with every editor vexatiously, despite clear evidence of abuse and multiple statements of policy by experienced independent editors and administrators above, then continuing to consider this request is no longer reasonable and a misuse of this MediaWiki page. avoiceformen.com is a blog/forum/wiki which fails Wikipedias inclusion requirements of the External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Wikipedia policy is quite clear - as such many links do not belong here, nor is Wikipedia obligated to host them.  (x4) and Closing discussion. --Hu12 (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

valleyofflowers.info


There is a very useful and lots of information about valley of flowers. In fact this is the most informative site on Valley of flowers. I think this is quite reliable source to be referred in Wikipedia articles such as Ghangaria. This spamming act may have been done by some other website owners who does not want this site on wikipedia. But for sure this site has information which need to be shared. This is good link and suffered due to spamming by some ignorant people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemadelhi (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 February 2013‎


 * It appears this account (Sock of ) was created to continue to add other "devkant sangwan" owned domains (whom also owns valleyofflowers.info);
 * , and the additional sites have now been added to the blacklist. --Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * , and the additional sites have now been added to the blacklist. --Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * , and the additional sites have now been added to the blacklist. --Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

digimunch.com


Digimunch was established back in Aug. 2012 as a simple blog which quickly got into the SERPs because of the quality of information it provides. As a result of gain in popularity I have decided to make it's page on Wikipedia so that people will know the History of Digimunch as a leading technology website. So on making my page I was surprised to see my link is blacklisted. Digging deeper into the problem, I found out that either a random spammer got it blacklisted or it's a "Supposedly Seo specialist" who got my site in the blacklist. I highly believe that the site was blacklisted by someone who I paid for doing SEO for the site and by any means this was not done properly since Wikipedia rules clearly states not to Spam with links. I checked the User who did it and apparently it was an account created with sole purpose to spam my site's link into Wikipedia thus creating massive spamming on the site and definitely getting my site blacklisted. I come here in good faith that my site will get removed from the Spam List so I can publish my page and there won't be any spams going on around in the site. I will proceed to discuss the roots for the blacklist:


 * The user involved in getting my site blacklisted is Astro Sab who in my opinion has edited pages for the sole purpose of putting my site's links and this is not a good practice. I understand the spam problem of this and I would like Astro Sab talk to be prevented from editing any future page involving Digimunch and/or posting any links which include "digimunch.com" in them.


 * Taking it forward, I see that the spammer was told several times by BikerBiker not to spam but the spammer continued which lead Biker Biker to report the link and get it to the Wikipeida Black List. I request Biker Biker talk to please look into this problem and help me get my site's link removed from the black list.


 * As stated before, I come here in good faith and hope to get my site link removed from the Wikipedia Spam Blacklist. My concern is getting my site Listed on Wikipedia as a page on it's own since the site is getting popular and people need to know of the History behind it, the references, etc. Please do your best.

Thanks.


 * This site was spam a few month ago and is spam now. The fact that the site owner is seeking to have it reinstated is testament to why this list exists, and why the site should remain blocked. Spammers, especially COI spammers, have no place on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As for claims by this user that it was a third party who added the site originally, that doesn't stack up given the comments that made on my talk page, where he/she frequently referred to "my site". Spammers the lot of them! --Biker Biker (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * > Digging deeper into the problem, I found out that either a random spammer got it blacklisted or it's a "Supposedly Seo specialist" who got my site in the blacklist.
 * > Well, these paragraphs have been written by me on my site -- Astro Sab,
 * We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to requests from site owners. MER-C 11:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding to this, whether it was a Joe job that landed this site here, spam by the site owner, or by an SEO company hired for that task does not matter, fact remains that the site was spammed. The spam blacklist is here to protect Wikipedia from sites being pushed by editors without any gain for the encyclopedia.  It is not here to protect, nor promote, your business.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com
I don't understand why this site was blacklisted. I wanted to use a page of it as a source for release dates of DLCs of a game but found it was blacklisted for spamming. I request you to please remove it from the blacklist. It's just a gaming website. Why is it being blacklisted? KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Examiner.com is not a gaming site .. examiner.com was blocked because it offered/s money for incoming webtraffic (a spam incentive for people publishing on the site), and because it was spammed (though not excessively). Are you sure you are talking about the right site?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * to request white-listing of specific pages on examiner.com. Be aware, however, that requests to white-list pages on examiner.com occur rather frequently and are frequently declined due to the existence of alternative sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Deblacklisting's not happening. Pages may be whitelisted on a case by case basis if they are of impeccable quality or are a bona fide interview. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Movie Review Intelligence
This domain was blacklisted in 2010 because people involved with the website sought to solicit it across film articles on Wikipedia. Recently, I was researching about film review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, both of which are well-referenced). I saw that Movie Review Intelligence has gained prominence as seen here, and I think we should reconsider its blacklisting. (I started a discussion about this website and Movie Review Query Engine here.) I was fine with the blacklisting at the time, but I think it has built credibility since then. The aforementioned link indicates it as a reliable source to go with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and we should allow it to be referenced in film articles. Whether or not there is a consensus to use it in a widespread matter is yet to be determined, but I think this de-listing is a necessary first step. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Movie Review Intelligence is a review aggregator website which collates and analyses movie reviews.". Fails Wikipedias inclusion requirements of our External Links policy --Hu12 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)struck by --Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hu12, as another admin who is active on this page, I must say I don't believe it's so simple. Had I seen this request before you answered it, I'd have given a different response. We have repeatedly stated on this page that we consider seriously de-listing requests from trusted, high-volume contributors. Erik certainly qualifies in that regard, so I believe this request deserves serious and thoughtful consideration.

I believe WP:ELNO doesn't apply as a rationale for declining this request. The intent of WP:ELNO #9 is to prohibit linking to aggregator sites that simply re-publish content from elsewhere. Such sites add no value to the original source. Those sites should not be used because it's preferable to use the original source.

However, Wikipedia widely cites Rotten Tomatoes, arguably an aggregator site, but with a major difference: The point of their "aggregation" isn't to serve as a tertiary source for reviews that we could cite elsewhere, but rather they publish statistics about reviewer consensus toward a particular film. Because the reviewers they aggregate are considered reliable sources individually, the statistical analyses published by Rotten Tomatoes is also considered reliable for the purpose of citing overall reviewer consensus.

That is why we cite Rotten Tomatoes, and that is also the reason why Erik wants to cite Movie Review Intelligence — for the purpose of referencing statistics published by that source.

Movie Review Intelligence was blacklisted due to abusive activity. It's irrelevant how respected or prominent the site has become. The real question we should consider is: Will removing the site from the blacklist result in a resumption of disruptive activity? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to monitor for such abuse, though I doubt it will happen after so long. I'm no fan of linkspam and have done my share of combating it (as seen on this old user page: User:Erik/Linkspam). In addition, if there are any issues with too much solicitation, I can bring the issue up with WT:FILM, which is a pretty active forum. If there are still concerns about the reliability of the website, I can re-post the sources I shared on Hu12's talk page. I also think that the references at Movie Review Intelligence (New York Times, Los Angeles Times) further indicate its reliability. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple of interactions with the founder of the website: 1 and 2. For what it's worth, I came to revisit this blacklisting because I wanted to discuss film aggregator websites beyond Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as seen here. I realized that MRI was blacklisted, so I was following up with it so there could be a proper discussion about such websites. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Any perceived "prominence" elsewhere is irrelevant resulting from the abuse activity (5 sock puppet accounts 4 IP's, excessive spam-linking, cite-spamming and promotion) that took place here on Wikipedia. With that being said, WP:ELNO #9 is a large considering factor, perhaps not strictly as defined, but certainly applies due to the nature of how MRI functions and operates. Movie Review Intelligence(MRI) is simply a site aggregating other websites content to produce their own "Self-published material" and original research. To clarify, because MRI "aggregates" other website reviews to produce their "own content", they have no control over their "own content", which is constantly changing. This becomes problematic as any statistics, consensus, analyses or score published by MRI are merely temporary and not reliable for a useful period of time (failing ELNO#16). This is position is also supported by the requestor;
 * "review aggregators help reflect the consensus...but this does not necessarily mean they are permanent....A selection of scores serves as the lead-in for newer films. As time goes on, they are less necessary...as transitional references" -- Erik 25 August 2010
 * More importantly, there is valid concern for continued abuse. A year after the site had been blacklisted, the owner returned for the sole purpose of continued promotion of himself and his site, for example by pushing for an article to be created about MRI. I suspect, that if the site is unblocked the abuse will resume, as demonstrated by previous patterns in this case. This not a typical d-listing request as it has the potential to affect a massive amount of Wikipedia article related to film, not just a few. FYI, Rotten Tomatoes currently has 17,000 links on Wikipedia and Metacritic has 16,000. Erik's offer to "monitor" for abuse is well intentioned, however he cannot prevent, nor guarantee against future abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNO #9 does not apply even in spirit. Movie Review Intelligence, like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, is staffed. There's not an automatic aggregation like the examples in #9. The staff retrieves the reviews and assess each one; #9 refers entirely to blind collecting. And how can you claim that WP:OR even applies here, to MRI? It is not an applicable policy at all because there is no original content on the editors' part being added. In addition, the permanence of such websites' scores will depend on the film. The most prominent films will be covered in retrospect, and that retrospective coverage is best used to describe the contemporary critical reception to a film. Ideally, we want to replace such aggregate scores with references to such coverage, but this is not possible for many run-of-the-mill films.
 * Your concern about continued abuse is valid, but we are talking years ago. In addition, evidence I've cited shows that it is reliable. How do we balance making a reliable source available for general use with preventing said source from being abused? Is this not a problem with any source? For example, a few months ago, someone tried to refspam Film Comment, but I worked with an admin to undo that spamming and to get the offender blocked. Film Comment is still used and available to use. The issue is murkier with MRI because there was an argument against reliability at the time, but I think the situation is different now and that we need to reevaluate the balance, especially under our banner of assuming good faith years later. We cannot truly tell if MRI would have been referenced independently because it has been blacklisted all this time, but a similar (and a little lesser known) website, Movie Review Query Engine, has been referenced. That is why I want to make MRI available to use. I want to assume good faith, and I am capable of monitoring with tools like Special:Linksearch. Otherwise, when is it appropriate to de-list? Another few years? A decade? Never? How long do we maintain this punishment? When does the balance tilt toward making a reliable source available for general use? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of others here and for some perspective, these are very specific niche sites. Movie Review Intelligence is nowhere near Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, David A. Gross (owner) even admits that fact; "The other sites are giants...”. Metacritic.com (owned by CBS Interactive, Inc.) RottenTomatoes.com (owned by Warner Bros/flixster inc) both have been around since about 2000. Movie Review Intelligence, on the other hand, is new (2009) and a personal website run by an individual. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic has a staff which reads reviews and decides whether they're positive or negative, where as "Anybody ...even someone with no previous experience – would be considered especially important in Movie Review Intelligence's formula. I don't think this site meets the Verifiability Policy's section on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material". Roger Ebert, the Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic for the Chicago Sun-Times isn't even convinced of the value of aggregated rankings;
 * "People quote the Tomato Meter, But what does it really mean?" -- Roger Ebert
 * Either way, any statistics, consensus, analyses or score published by MRI are merely temporary and not reliable for a useful period of time (failing ELNO#16). Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic already exist on wikipedia, however that fact doesn't prove that Movie Review Intelligence should also exist. Currently, Rotten Tomatoes currently has 17,000 links on Wikipedia and Metacritic has 16,000, this is an unmanageable amount of links to "monitor", even with a bot. I've stricken my decline marked above for now, so this can be discussed, because this is essentially a request to link farm Wikipedia en mass. Perhaps the merit of all "aggregated rankings" sites should be reconsidered. While I am not opposed to white-listing where appropriate, I'm not convinced MRI site is reliable enough or brings much value to Wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote from Roger Ebert seems like a non-sequitur. His opinion on aggregators should have no bearing on the issue of blacklisting. A conflict-of-interest opinion like that is to be expected from a professional critic who might be dismayed at seeing his authoritative review considered as no more than a data point, given no more meaning or weight than those any other professional authoritative reviewers.
 * This discussion is has ventured squarely into WP:RSN territory, so perhaps it should be taken up there. If the community deems it a reliable source, then we can re-address the question of whether disruptive activity will resume if the site is de-listed. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, WP:RSN sounds good. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have requested for the website to be reviewed at WP:RSN as seen here. Please make any additional comments that you think necessary. I've tried to lay out the evidence for others to review. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =