MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2015

=Proposed additions=

*.guru



 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=*.guru

This is a TLD that I just came across. After looking in the LinkSearch page, I found that these sites (at least as they appear on Wikipedia) are almost always blogs or other self-published sites, aggregation sites, or similar-named alternatives to "official" sites.

I've already cleaned up the first dozen or so, so they no longer appear in the LinkSearch list. So far I have not seen any that would be appropriate for using on Wikipedia, unless a .guru site happens to be the official site for an article subject. Haven't seen that yet, though. Those I've cleaned out fell into the following categories:
 * promotions to personal sites on user pages
 * refspam (sometimes already tagged as "unreliable source")
 * inline external links instead of valid wikilinks to existing articles
 * links within massive external-link directory listings

These observations lead me to conclude that:
 * Like .co.cc which is globally blacklisted, anybody can get a *.guru domain name for a personal website, often paralleling the name of an official website in the .com TLD
 * These sites are non-authoritative sources of information
 * The domain is potentially a spam magnet

I'm not advocating blacklisting the entire *.guru TLD (yet), but it bears keeping an eye on. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: I've gone through all the main-space links and found each one of them wasn't worth keeping, so I removed them. One anon tried to edit-war on one of the articles until I found the official alternative link.
 * There's a low enough incidence of these occurrences that it may be best to add *.guru to XLinkBot. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, abuse is still happening. --Guy (Help!) 12:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is affecting more than just *.guru (example). Not sure if that is intended.  -LiberatorG (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also here -- Callinus (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not intended. I will look at it. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also here guru.bafta.org -- Callinus (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * guru.bafta.org is obviously a legitimate site. Will it be de-blacklisted or added to the whitelist? Lapadite (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm this due to collateral damage per the above and numerous requests on WT:WHITELIST. Please fix your regex before trying again. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

xlibris.com


I have been finding a large number of links to xlibris, as external links and as references, often linking directly to the sales page, e.g.,. This is essentially a vanity press - it has no editorial oversight, yet contents of books is being represented as being issued by xlibris corporation or published by xlibris division of Random House.

This use is spamtastic, but likely to be in good faith. It's a long-term problem, I have pruned these links before. I think the site should be blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist after cleanup. Genuine sources can be whitelisted. --Guy (Help!) 17:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

bangalorean.net
SEO article hosting site: see analysis at COIN and another [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Presley&diff=673252955&oldid=673197574 attempt] by anon to insert link today, after offending users blocked. -- Brianhe (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur with Brianhe. This site is being used to provide fake references for undisclosed paid editors. SmartSE (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And here is a good example of it being used as WP:REFSPAM. SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst we're at it, this site is also being used by the same group of editors and is written by the same people. [binghamtontimes.com/2015/06/agent-x-launches-new-watch-at-affordable-price-871231.html This] was used at Agent X (Brand) and is written by the senior editor of [bangalorean.net/p/team.html bangalorean.net]. Probably worth blacklisting this as well. SmartSE (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

bayridge.net

 * Very persistent site owner repeatedly re-adding bayridge.net to Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. The site has been masquerading as "official website" on the article for several years in order to evade scrutiny, being re-added every time it has been removed, a pattern that has resulted in a real edit-war over the last few days, with semi-protection for the article because of socking and the site-owner now being bocked for 24 hours. But the owner (User:Bay Ridge) obviously has no intention to stop adding the site after the block has expired, via that account, new named accounts or IP-socks, since the site, instead of being an official community owned website, is a privately owned and operated money-generating site with a forum, classified ads and a "Yellow Pages" directory. So blacklisting the site would reduce the workload for people keeping an eye on the article being affected. There's also a risk that the owner will try to add the link to other articles relating to NYC once they realise that they're not going to get it back into Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.W (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * support adding to spam blacklist. editor disclosed their ownership of the site here, along with a demonstration of the attitude that a dug-in attitude that means this will likely be a recurring problem - they seem to feel fully entitled to use WP to promote their website. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very persistent site owner repeatedly re-adding bayridge.net to Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. The site has been masquerading as "official website" on the article for several years in order to evade scrutiny, being re-added every time it has been removed, a pattern that has resulted in a real edit-war over the last few days, with semi-protection for the article because of socking and the site-owner now being bocked for 24 hours. But the owner (User:Bay Ridge) obviously has no intention to stop adding the site after the block has expired, via that account, new named accounts or IP-socks, since the site, instead of being an official community owned website, is a privately owned and operated money-generating site with a forum, classified ads and a "Yellow Pages" directory. So blacklisting the site would reduce the workload for people keeping an eye on the article being affected. There's also a risk that the owner will try to add the link to other articles relating to NYC once they realise that they're not going to get it back into Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.W (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * support adding to spam blacklist. editor disclosed their ownership of the site here, along with a demonstration of the attitude that a dug-in attitude that means this will likely be a recurring problem - they seem to feel fully entitled to use WP to promote their website. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very persistent site owner repeatedly re-adding bayridge.net to Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. The site has been masquerading as "official website" on the article for several years in order to evade scrutiny, being re-added every time it has been removed, a pattern that has resulted in a real edit-war over the last few days, with semi-protection for the article because of socking and the site-owner now being bocked for 24 hours. But the owner (User:Bay Ridge) obviously has no intention to stop adding the site after the block has expired, via that account, new named accounts or IP-socks, since the site, instead of being an official community owned website, is a privately owned and operated money-generating site with a forum, classified ads and a "Yellow Pages" directory. So blacklisting the site would reduce the workload for people keeping an eye on the article being affected. There's also a risk that the owner will try to add the link to other articles relating to NYC once they realise that they're not going to get it back into Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.W (talk • contribs) 18:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * support adding to spam blacklist. editor disclosed their ownership of the site here, along with a demonstration of the attitude that a dug-in attitude that means this will likely be a recurring problem - they seem to feel fully entitled to use WP to promote their website. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . One article, one editor (now blocked). We'd only need to look at this if the spamming were more widespread, we can control it now with a block and (if necessary) semiprotection. --Guy (Help!) 16:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

cbrates.com

 * This has been added to external links by several IPs over a long period of time. The links are often disguised in a way suggesting they are related to the article (usually banking related) I reverted all additions by 83.215.135.88 whose 20+ edits appeared to be entirely links to cbrates.com Ping me with &#123;&#123;u&#124;Jim1138&#125;&#125; and sign "&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;" or message me on my talk page. 09:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been added to external links by several IPs over a long period of time. The links are often disguised in a way suggesting they are related to the article (usually banking related) I reverted all additions by 83.215.135.88 whose 20+ edits appeared to be entirely links to cbrates.com Ping me with &#123;&#123;u&#124;Jim1138&#125;&#125; and sign "&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;" or message me on my talk page. 09:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been added to external links by several IPs over a long period of time. The links are often disguised in a way suggesting they are related to the article (usually banking related) I reverted all additions by 83.215.135.88 whose 20+ edits appeared to be entirely links to cbrates.com Ping me with &#123;&#123;u&#124;Jim1138&#125;&#125; and sign "&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;" or message me on my talk page. 09:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also:



And 2 other single-edit IPs. This is long time abuse, started back in 2010.


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

localtaxilisting.com


Obviously normal people will advertise local taxis on New Jersey articles. Obvious spammer, looks like a long-term one. Jr Mime (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

facebook.com/groups/ElonMusk

 * facebook.com/groups/ElonMusk
 * facebook.com/groups/ElonMusk

Unofficial Facebook fan group being repeatedly added by User:202.86.32.122, who was blocked for this.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Same user tried adding unofficial Facebook Peter Capaldi fan group (facebook.com/PeterCapaldi), which had been added to blacklist already. Btw, the group is NOT on Musk's twitter page anywhere that I could see. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders  ‖ 04:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User above has been blocked for two weeks for repeatedly adding the link, and now an apparently sock is adding it again. Glen 06:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 07:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

zoompondy.com

 * Website

Repeatedly being added by IP-hopper/s and throwaway accounts to articles related to Pondicherry/Puducherry, a Union Territory in India. Thomas.W talk 12:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

for a long time -> for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

knowyourmeme.com


Rarely used link, but keeps being used in BLP articles such as Techno Viking, Jameis Winston and other articles, by vandals and good faith editors. Already on XLinkBot list, but good faith edits keep slipping through. No real use as a source, as it is a user-editable site.--Otterathome (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with me, fine, but you need to articulate why you disagree instead of just copying and pasting the same request. Otherwise, please stop flogging the dead horse. MER-C 04:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * it will never be a reliable source or any use anywhere in the project, stop trouble before it beings. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see any any substantive difference between this suggestion and ��this one in September. What has changed in the interim? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose This would constitute abuse of the purpose of the Spam-blacklist. knowyourmeme is used on a regular basis because it is a popular site, regardless of its low reliability.  Reliability is supposed to be asserted on a contextual basis, blacklisting is non-contextual.  By this merit rational wiki and encylcopedia dramatica would have to be blacklisted as well, but that is not the purposeful intent of the spam blacklist.--Typenolies (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi MER-C, I didn't disagree with you, but you didn't review the suitability for adding it to the blacklist, instead you commented on the motives of the user that proposed its addition.--Otterathome (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC) this for further discussion. Well over 500 links now, many from mainspace. If this is a reliable source then the request needs to be archived, but it seems dubious to me - the information looks accurate enough but there's not real evidence of the controls that confer reliability and it's clearly being added by a significant number of people. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg

for a long time -> for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

thepiratebay.ee
Another phoney clone similar to the other two.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * link hasn't been actively spammed jet therefore it doesn't really warrant an inclusion but maybe a regex allowing only the .se domain to be accepted wouldn't be a bad idea. Avono (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

for a long time -> for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

filecloud.io
The article about an obscure television cartoon special used to link to an illegal upload of the special. I can't see any practical purpose for linking to this cloud hosting service. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

for a long time -> for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

www.newlovetimes.com


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctg4Rahat (talk • contribs)
 * MER-C 11:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 11:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 11:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

for a long time -> for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

banglanews24.com apparently partly hijacked

 * banglanews24.com/English/detailsnews.php?nssl=5876221c2bec11337e186aac8aa3100d&nttl=0203201365018

I don't know if this was a good link at one time. How malicious it is appears to depend on the browser (with Firefox I was easily able to recover, but with Safari it was difficult). It has been on the page 2013 Shahbag protests since 2 March 2013. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

for a long time -> for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

dogbreedinfo.com
dogbreedinfo.com - is an unreliable, self published site that is used for creating the impossible breeds that are listed here, that are only dog cross breeds. We remove them all the time. Hafspajen (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

for a long time -> for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

thaibiodiversity.org

 * thaibiodiversity.org/Life/
 * thaibiodiversity.org/Life/


 * Bulk addition to a substantial number of articles, including the creation of new articles for the purpose of adding the link. Url quoted is a shortened version, deemed to be sufficient for wildcarding. Example full url is thaibiodiversity.org/Life/LifeDetail.aspx?LifeID=78878 Fiddle   Faddle  10:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

for a long time -> for now, please re-suggest when it re-occurs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

huntingforbinoculars.net

 * Spamming by multiple single-use accounts:
 * //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image-stabilized_binoculars&diff=671895950&oldid=532082077, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orion_Telescopes_%26_Binoculars&diff=671370616&oldid=630695938, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monocular&diff=prev&oldid=673820104
 * Mean as custard (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 03:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

healthy4u.net

 * Added to multiple articles by  despite warnings.  General Ization   Talk   02:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: additional IPs also reported at WT:WPSPAM. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Definitely spam, this is never going to pass muster as a source. --Guy (Help!) 07:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

balearic-villas.com
Spam links to a company that sells and rents out holiday apartments and villas in the Balearic Islands, Spain. Regularly added to a large number of articles, mainly articles about islands and localities in the Balearics, but also unrelated articles (such as this), by various IPs, most of them being fairly quickly removed by other editors as "good faith edits" (and I made a link search and removed the links that were on en-WP now), but the regular addition of the links shows that it's definitely not being done in good faith. Thomas.W talk 10:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

lulu.com
Just referencing article to share topics thematic schizophrenia and its secular conclusion. --Joseph L. Russell, Jr. 18:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetlifeWP (talk • contribs)
 * - as far as I can see, this is blacklisted already. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tested that, it is blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

stellarinfo.com
Posted link twice under references of Data recovery without any other changes to the main content. Pointing to a blog posts promoting its services. This would be best protection against future spam, as it seems a business was doing this.


 * Hmmm. This is spammy but potentially slightly legitimate - someone is certainly pimping their company but it may or may not have a product that merits inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Activity insufficient for blacklisting, by the looks of it. . MER-C 13:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

sahinahi.com
IP editor is spamming Bollywood movie review sections with refrences from this completely unreliable website sahinahi.com. Mostly this IP range 66.108........ adds SahiNahi links.There are other IP ranges also. The website employees must be behind this. Sahinahi has no notability, completely unreliable source. This is just using Wikipedia for advertisement. They claim it's equal to Rottentomatoes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, adding other reliable refences along with sahinahi. Rest are same. Some spam links were removed by other users from Bollywood movie critical reception section. Cosmic  Emperor  13:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Add: However, this looks stale, since neither the IP nor the user has edited this year. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not true.I recently removed three sahinahi links today. He has opened another account. They may not be one guy. But how did you find that UserId?.I agree they are stale but there are two more IPs who made sahinahi promotion once. They will come back. I am tired of this. adding sahinahi along with reliable sources to hide sahinahi promotion just like this, this and this. It's a style to avoid the detection of editors by adding other reputed sources along with sahinahi. Cosmic  Emperor  15:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

See this, only one edit. But you must know they are not retired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:9:100:64F:C85E:E492:91F1:7B5B   Cosmic   Emperor  15:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. per and the above. --Guy (Help!) 00:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

latinoreview.com
Caught a malware attempt while checking a recent BLP addition on Steve Lemme.


 * I checked the Google Safe Browsing list, and it wasn't listed. . MER-C 13:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

vk.com
Found on List of Teacher's Pet episodes being used in references to share illegal copies of episodes. VK (social networking website) (the full name of the website) is a Russian social networking site.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - VKontakte is the Russian Facebook (it got started before Facebook created a Russian-language version). It's hugely popular and like Twitter and regular Facebook, can be a reliable primary source. It should not be blacklisted because of this incident. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. If that's the case, I'll retract this request. The fact that media can be shared on it concerns me though (though the same can be said for Youtube).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the same can be said for YouTube. There are so many documentaries, interviews, news clips on there etc. that are used as sources that are definitely not identified as third-party content (ie OKed by copyright owner to be on there, in order to get a cut of the profit from the views). There's a ton of otherwise OK sites that you can use for this purpose though - I think it just hasn't been deleted yet. It may not have been reported. Usually it's the owner of the content that alerts the company. We can't really WP's job to police that though, it's more about blocking the accounts used to insert spam links in WP articles, and also block sites that are clearly spam-only.  —Мандичка YO 😜 18:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

per above -- may be suited for User:XLinkBot (if it isn't there already). MER-C 13:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

beverlyhillscaviar.com
In January of this year the following note was placed on the user talk page of an IP that had been spamming this site: "You're a single edit away from ensuring that the website you are promoting is blacklisted from Wikipedia." (User talk:104.35.138.190). They have since continued adding the link. Deli nk (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for 7 months. MER-C 03:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for 7 months. MER-C 03:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for 7 months. MER-C 03:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for 7 months. MER-C 03:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for 7 months. MER-C 03:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for 7 months. MER-C 03:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. This has come up before, they are clearly spammers and not going away. --Guy (Help!) 13:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

wikigrain.org
Wikigrain captures Wikipedia articles (including spam, pure promotion, copyright violations etc) and archives the deleted ones. It should never be allowed to be used as a source, like it was at this spammy article that is pure promotion and was the resurrection of a previously deleted article. It was basically linking to its own previously deleted article - you can see how this is an issue. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. This will never be usable as a source and there is ample evidence of it causing confusion around the project. --Guy (Help!) 11:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism Picture

 * laurabwilliamsdesigns.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/attack_of_the_giant_mosquito-350w_263h.jpg
 * laurabwilliamsdesigns.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/attack_of_the_giant_mosquito-350w_263h.jpg

A vandal and its several sockpuppets have been trying to replace the taxobox picture with this URL, including and  and Mr Fink (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This seems to be isolated to one page - I would regard protection a suitable alternative to try first (if this persists). . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

visasavenue.com


Dead link reference spam, probably from the same user. Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 16:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

steamlocomotive.com


Multiple users, possibly good faith but that strains credulity given the ad load of the site. Not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I was the one who raised it at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, a discussion that is still running, so blacklisting as a way to force the decision is against basic principles of editing here at WP (and not for the first time either).
 * As to the eventual decision, I'd still opposed blacklisting. I see nothing here so bad that blacklisting is justified. It should remain at the editor's discretion, as it seems likely that this site may be useful for some aspects, even if not so for others. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That discusison noted sockpuppet use to try to force-add this link. That's the sole reaosn I brought it here. I DGAF about it otherwise and have played no part at all in the edit disputes. Guy (Help!) 15:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which "noted sockpuppet"? The only editor I can see adding this link was and I see no claim that they're a sockpuppet. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose As far as ads are concerned, I do not see any, so it may depend on how up-to-date your browser is. This website has been used countless times by many different individuals on several other railway-related Wikipedia articles for years. Search for "Steamlocomotive.com" on Wikipedia to see for yourself.  Previously, the website was primarily focused on steam locomotives in North America and Australia, but has very recently expanded to include New Zealand, Ireland, and the UK.  To my knowledge, this is the first time that this website has been used as a reference for articles about steam locomotives outside North America and Australia.  It seems to me that the true reason why people all of a sudden are against this website despite the fact that it's been used as a valid source on Wikipedia for years is that it's starting to be used on British-related articles.  I could see how an American-based website being used as a reference for a British-based subject might irk people living in Britain (Americans, what do they know, right?), but having a personal bias against sources that are not based in your own country is not a valid reason to denounce them.  American sources can be used to reference British articles, British sources can be used to reference American articles, and so on.  In short, there is nothing wrong with this website and dragging it through the mud is unreasonable.   Jackdude 101  ( Talk )  00:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

marinelike.com


Repeatedly added (see contribs) by morphing Latvian IPs. Some of this is weak EL-failing content about individual modern ships: removable as ELs, but not really spam. That seems though to be a veneer though over the main spam, which is a sailor's recruitment site. Past warnings to the IPs, but they were either unread as morphed or just ignored. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 15:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

moeinmusic.com
Google is warning "This site may be hacked" - potential malware hazard. Dl2000 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just did a Google Safe Browsing API lookup, and the domain is no longer listed. . MER-C 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

personalgrowth.com


user has been replacing deadlinks with links to this site. The deadlink ref spamming is bad enough (which is something that has been noted at COIN that seems to be happening more frequently), but apparently just about anybody can write anything and that site will publish it, per [personalgrowth.com/contact/ here] - this site shouldn't be used as a reference anywhere in WP. Jytdog (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 03:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

t4c-apocalypse.com
See, three spam-only accounts have been replacing the official website to a unofficial game server. Please add this URL to the blacklist. Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 08:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism of The Merck Index

 * (linksearch; currently 20 links)
 * (linksearch; currently 40 links)

These two sites plagiarise The Merck Index: either the current online database operated by the Royal Society of Chemistry; or possibly past, print versions of The Merck Index from before the RSC took over the product; in which case Merck are the copyright owners. Note that I am employed as Wikimedian in Residence at the RSC. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. I just wanted to back up this request and confirm that these two websites appear to be hosting content copied from Merck Index.  And regardless of copyright status, we should reference the original, not a copy.   -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist - I see quite a number of similar IPs adding this (two ranges?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

haloactive.com
//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journal_of_Epidemiology_and_Community_Health&type=revision&diff=677724218&oldid=669127376, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Well-Tech_Award&type=revision&diff=677642021&oldid=632743289, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight_helmet&type=revision&diff=677721218&oldid=650539733, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agni_Motors&type=revision&diff=677724935&oldid=663109287
 * Recent spamming by multiple accounts:
 * Mean as custard (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Several more today: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Golinkin&type=revision&diff=677791699&oldid=675913733, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Physical_Therapy_Day&type=revision&diff=677793683&oldid=633349846, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaziat-e_Sefid&type=revision&diff=677793877&oldid=635336014, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=¡Ciaütistico!&type=revision&diff=677794406&oldid=604840582, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abd_el-Gilîl&diff=677794766&oldid=608317677, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helmet&type=revision&diff=677795909&oldid=677794407 Mean as custard (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 01:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

iotworm.com
Mostly to Internet of Things, but also Machine to machine and Industrial Internet (maybe others). It's a low quality site that is about one notch above blogspam, but still a long, long way below WP:EL.

This keeps getting re-added, mostly as multiple inlined ELs. Re-added by a wide range of throwaway IPs and an obvious socking problem too. As there's no engagement, just edit-warring, I would expect this problem to get worse and wider, so blacklisting the root cause is more appropriate than page protection. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

lablanche-and-co.com
The spamming has been going on for months if not years. The IPs provided are just for the month of August, a simple look at the Compressed sensing history page will reveal many more. The spamming occurred in the past on related articles as well such as big data (see ). That domain is already blocked on the French wikipedia.--McSly (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, but consider also reporting to Meta. --Guy (Help!) 16:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

taxguru.in


Non-WP:RS website regularly spammed by throwaway IPs on multiple articles, even articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Indian tax system. Thomas.W talk 12:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 11:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

sincitylawfirm.com
//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Click_It_or_Ticket&diff=678529535&oldid=593791312, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trespass_to_land&diff=679326626&oldid=646473871, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whitney,_Nevada&diff=prev&oldid=678699991, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mercury,_Nevada&diff=679328773&oldid=653663404
 * Spamming by multiple throwaway accounts:
 * Mean as custard (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 10:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

couponconnexion.com
Obvious spam, added to various articles Washing machine, Footwear, Laptop, Naaptol, Great Online Shopping Festival, Flipkart. All removed now. IIRC I have seen it before. - DVdm (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * . (in a minute or so).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ per m:User:COIBot/XWiki/couponconnexion.com. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

bharatbook.com


(Most links alreads removed) Online "market research information aggregator" (aka "seller" to use a less fancy term), has been spammed in the past (see this old case) and has been added again by



Besides being spam the site-links serve no useful purpose: acknowledged scientific articles, journals and books can be referenced by their respective index numbers and bibliographic information. WP:SPI request filed for involved accounts. GermanJoe (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 09:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

softwaresuggest.com


spammed by

Software "suggestions" and customer advice site. Please blacklist (will remove links). GermanJoe (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to remove SoftwareSuggest.com from blacklist.. How I can do this..?

discovery.uk.com
//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physical_education&diff=prev&oldid=680206130, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suspension_training&diff=660315796&oldid=648915861, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IDEA_Health_and_Fitness_Association&diff=660321188&oldid=555573614, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Greene_(fitness)&diff=660322230&oldid=660000178
 * Spamming by multiple single-use accounts:
 * Mean as custard (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 11:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

educatemygirl.org

 * Repeatedly linked to in spam pages created by sockpuppets of Nandinigoel.india. It appears to be a shady organization asking for donations. It has zero use as a source or external link. Pages linking to this website have been recreated many times spanning back at least 1 year. Some of the deleted pages include EducateMyGirl, Educate My Girl Program, Educate My Girl, EducatemyGirl, and EducateMyGirl. It has also been maliciously added to other articles it has nothing to do with such as European migrant crisis in this diff. This recent change went undetected for almost five days before being removed. Seahorseruler  (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 09:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

bookselfpublishing.com

 * spammed into unrelated articles by


 * (spam reverted already) The site is a pure advertising site and serves no useful purpose on Wiki. GermanJoe (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

pantothenicacidacne.net and danipetcare.com


This groups of socks has been spamming links to these sites to multiple pages. Each account is created, adds one link, is blocked, and then the next is created. Deli nk (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 22:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

xsoftcore.com (NSFW)
added by (with misleading edit summaries)

Softcore porn site with no encyclopedic information. GermanJoe (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Useless as a source anyway. --Guy (Help!) 16:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

timecube.com


Sad news at Talk:Time Cube - after the legendary website's domain expired in August, it seems to have been replaced by a version with malicious iframe spam redirect code at the bottom. Per WP:ELNO it should be removed and blacklisted, so here I am. --McGeddon (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist for now, as there are definite concerns re malware and it's a long-running joke so may be innocently linked. RIP Gene Ray, I guess. --Guy (Help!) 16:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

theonlinesportsbetting.com

 * Dead link spamming for betting website by


 * Continued after warning (edits reverted). GermanJoe (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 20:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

musclehealthfitness.com

 * Regular spamming of user pages, e.g. User:Judithreed, User:DickApril00/sandbox, User:GaryJohn00/sandbox, User:Menchacerva, User talk:Nicolesowder. Mean as custard (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * MER-C 09:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

jaggy.in

 * Blog-like private website repeatedly spammed by throw-away accounts. All links I found have been removed, but the perseverance, re-adding links that have been removed (as shown here), and the use of throw-away accounts shows they have no intention to stop spamming. Thomas.W talk 12:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 20:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

epctek.com

 * IPs persistently add spam links to laptop-related articles e.g. promoting their brand of laptop batteries and AC adapters despite warnings.  General Ization   Talk   03:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

eltoro.com

 * Orangemoody actors have inserted this site a few times [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geotargeting&type=revision&diff=678577360&oldid=653237571], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IP_targeting&diff=678705776&oldid=372328528]. — Brianhe (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Blatant SEO fodder. --Guy (Help!) 00:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

setari.ro
spammed by

SEO spammer for dead links (see user contribs, and "OFERTA" subpage of the website). Final warning posted on talkpage. Spam has been reverted. GermanJoe (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 21:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

YourStory.com
Per WP:COIN discussion, spam/SEO abuse. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist per discussion at COIN. --Guy (Help!) 11:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Request to reconsider this blacklist. Yourstory is a very important news website in India. Please see my thoughts --  Tinu  Cherian  - 11:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I ran into a blacklist warning for this site when looking over the AfD request for Scrollback, and decided to visit the site. I'm unsure of its editorial independence as far as being a reliable source, but a cursory reading doesn't make it clear why this is blacklisted. It seems to be a site about startups in India and their stories -- whatever the state of its editorial policies may be. can you shed some light on the nature of the SEO abuse here? I'm not quite sure I understand how SEO abuse maps to blacklisting in this situation.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been abused for spamming. Guy (Help!) 00:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm a bit dense here. Reading WP:SPAMLINK, is it fair to assume you're referring to "citation spam?" In the article I saw this site cited in, the article seemed reasonable enough (ie not from a content mill) and its use wasn't overtly spammy. If I'm reading the external link search correctly, it's mostly listed repetitively on user pages (which isn't too relevant for policy purposes). Is there anything more overtly outrageous than that?--69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been used for WP:REFSPAM. Read the linked discussion. It is, in any case, not usable as a source since it is not independent. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Request you to reconsider this blacklist. Yourstory is a one of the most popular startup news website in India. By no means it deserves to be in this list --  Bhanu  - 11:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

miamidogs.com

 * Recent spamming by multiple accounts: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dog's_fashion&diff=prev&oldid=684861559 and see //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=*.miamidogs.com&title=Special%3ALinkSearch Mean as custard (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

blueoceanlearning.com










Spammed by throwaway IPs for a long time. I have removed all links I found, but the regular spamming (usually several links on each article...) of these promotional links, and the use of throwaway IPs, show they deserve to be added to the blacklist. Thomas.W talk 13:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist - the COIBot report contains even more IPs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

discountedpornsites.net
//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_movie_theater&diff=687075357&oldid=682795052, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Softcore_pornography&diff=687075645&oldid=679135420, //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_show&diff=687074934&oldid=685400262
 * Spamming by multiple single-use accounts:
 * Mean as custard (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Funny, three SPA editors with exactly the same MO.  to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

=Proposed removals=

www.kavkazcenter.com


We have a page about this internet resource in Wikipedia. This is a useful resource. It was used for sourcing in a large number of books (see here) and certain wikipedia pages. Why can't we use linking to a source used in many scholarly books? It was included in blacklist without discussion, based on a request from an IP. Note that IP provided a link to discussion on RS noticeboard that leads to nowhere. This site has indeed been discussed on RSNB, and some participants suggested that it may not be "reliable", while others argued that it can be used in certain cases with appropriate attribution. In any case, simply not being a reliable source is not a reason for blacklisting. I therefore request to whitelist the entire site. My very best wishes (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Some background:
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2011 "This is a "radical islamic website" providing disinformation about the cacasus region/world. .." - blacklist request. The request refers to a WP:RS-discussion regarding this site.
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/08 whitelist request without response to questions
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/10 - whitelist request for an article copy hosted on this site, alternatives seem to have been found.
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2015/02 - whitelist request without response to questions
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2014 - lengthy discussion
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2014


 * (some(?) of the WP:RS/N discussions are:
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 23
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 25
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 70
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 90
 * People found it too often unsuitably used. It was not 'included in blacklist without discussion', there are 5 discussions on RS/N before.  If specific sources are needed, they can be whitelisted, but those requests never have been granted (and hardly been performed).  I'd like to see a couple of granted whitelist requests on specific links to see how those discussions go.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for quick answer! Sorry, I did not know or forget about these discussions. Yes, I can agree: this might be an "extremist source", but a very notable and perhaps useful "extremist source". Here is main question: should something be blacklisted simply for being an unreliable source? I thought the blacklisting is needed only to avoid technical problems or prevent abuse, rather than to remove undesirable sources. There was never any significant abuse, such as linkspam, related to this site to my knowledge (and there are no many links to this site right now). Therefore, I would still suggest to remove it from the blacklist. Saying that, I do not really care. I only reported this for your consideration, because I think it could be removed from the list for the good of the project as something having significant information value (as you can see from my link above, it was used in a large number of scholarly books). This is not spam. P.S. Here is what had happened. I asked this site to be removed from blacklist. You directed me to "whitelist". People from "whitelist" directed me back here, and here I am because the problem has not been resolved. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As about your suggestion, "to see a couple of granted whitelist requests on specific links to see how those discussions go", thanks, but no, thanks. I personally never used this source during last four years, I do not read it, and have no desire to use it in the future. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, User:My very best wishes. You have your request and answer here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist, which I will wholesale copy here:
 * "We have a page about this source in Wikipedia. This is a useful source. It was used for sourcing in a large number of books (see here) and certain wikipedia pages. It was included in blacklist without discussion, based on a request from an IP . Note that IP provided link to discussion on RS noticeboard that leads to nowhere. This site has indeed been discussed on RSNB, and some participants expressed concerns in its reliability, while others argued that it can be used in many cases with appropriate attribution. In any case, simply not being a reliable source is not a reason for blacklisting. I therefore request to whitelist the entire site. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)"
 * "*declined. Per the instructions, requests to whitelist an entire domain need to go on WT:BLACKLIST. Please re-file your request there or alternatively file a new request here specifying pages to whitelist. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)"
 * You request on the whitelist is for the whole site, upon which User:Stifle says 1) "requests to whitelist an entire domain need to go on WT:BLACKLIST", and 2) "alternatively file a new request here specifying pages to whitelist" (my bolding).
 * I say above "granted whitelist requests on specific links" (my bolding) - as also suggested by Stifle, but you did not request a specific link, you requested the whole site to be delisted.
 * You also say, " I personally never used this source during last four years, I do not read it, and have no desire to use it in the future." - seen that there are very few cases where whitelisting was requested, that most went without response (so the editor was not that interested?), or where alternatives were presented (but not scrutinized for suitability) shows me that there are, like you, very few regulars who needed it during the last four years (regulars would know how to get this whitelisted/de-blacklisted or figure out how if they really needed it, newbies may indeed not). I find the argument that this is "perhaps useful" quite a leap of faith upon which to de-blacklist a site.
 * Regarding "should something be blacklisted simply for being an unreliable source?" - if a site is often or continuously improperly used, or even here and there abused, pretending it to be a reliable source for information that it is not a reliable source for, or using it as a source for wrong information, and/or that reliable or proper alternatives exist, then that is a form of continuous abuse that may warrant blacklisting. If regularly editors need to be reverted or edits need to be cleaned up, up to a level that this site is not (or at least hardly) used for proper reasons on Wikipedia, then that is a strain on editors who have to run behind every single addition of this site to see if it is properly used.
 * I agree that this is a grey area (as are proper sources that get really spammed by someone with a vested interest in the site), and I am not sure if I would have made the call to blacklist this (and in fact, I did not decline de-listing here). I do agree that this site can be a proper source if properly used (but that is practically true for every single website on the planet!).  Before making that call I suggest that we know that this site really has a proper use on Wikipedia before we have our volunteers running again after every addition having to clean them up (and I'll add that if proper evidence is presented here that this site is suitable way beyond a "perhaps useful" we should also consider de-blacklisting and perhaps invoke other methods of mitigating the mis-use).
 * Therefore my suggestion to have several granted whitelist requests for specific links before we take it off (but I could, and can still be convinced otherwise, as may other admins looking at this). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not ask anyone to invest their time. I only asked to follow logic and procedures:
 * 1) This is "Spam-blacklist". Does it look like a spam website? Did anyone use it to spam WP? No, I do not think so. Do you?
 * 2) We have well established procedures to work with sources. If someone believes that a source was unreliable, they go to RSNB, and that is precisely what some people did. Did this result in WP:Consensus that the source was unreliable? No, it did not. None of these discussions was officially closed as consensus, and for a good reason: there was no consensus.
 * 3) Even if that source was decided to be unreliable, that would not justify blacklisting. Are we going to blacklist all sites like RT (TV network) because "it has been accused of spreading disinformation"?
 * 4) You are talking about "abuse". What abuse? Was anywhere decided that an abuse related to this site had happen? Was anyone sanctioned for this abuse? There was no abuse to my knowledge. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "Does this look like a spam website" - this is, as you argue as well, not about what a site is about, it is about whether it was abused. And you do not ask volunteers to invest their time to clean up all the wrong use of a website either (clean up the additions that did not follow logic and procedures).  And that you did not see the abuse does not necessarily mean that there was no abuse.  Anyway, I'll leave it for User:Amatulic to comment about that, he made that call and apparently did find that there was enough abuse of the site.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is what I think. I have discussed this site in the past with two contributors who used it for sourcing. I think the use of this site was mostly appropriate, because it was used for describing claims by rebels, which no one sees as "the truth" (frequently just the opposite per other sources). There was almost no discussion about this site on article talk pages. There were several discussions of this site on WP:RSNB, but they were nothing special, just an ordinary discussion of a source with questionable reliability. Neither you not Amatulic provided any links or diffs with proof of actual abuse. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I say - I'll leave it to Amutalic to comment on that. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . No credible rationale for removal from the blacklist (rather the opposite: the site fails WP:RS and the argument for removal appears to me to deny this). Defer to whitelist for a link in the article on the site. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can easily agree that it fails WP:RS for anything except sourcing claims by the rebels. However, simply not being a reliable source is not a reason to blacklist a site per policy. There was no rationale for blacklisting it at the first place. Was it used for spamming? No, it was not to my knowledge, and no one proved the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any claim that is provably significant will be covered by an independent source. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

technologyadvice.com
In general, they are a nice website providing reviews for IT companies & computer software. I don't know why they got blacklisted, but I guess that this happened because of the wrong usage of their links by a user and not by their company or so. Since wikipedia needs such nice independent reviews for considering a subject notable for discussion, I guess that many of this website's reviews would be very helpful for supporting IT articles. Antpetsas (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC) User:Antpetsas (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC+3)
 * It was added due to spam. Your own history is as far as I can tell exclusively promotional, I don't think you understand what constitutes a reliable independent source yet. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

teluguone.com removal request

 * REQUEST TO REMOVE FROM THE SPAM LIST *

Deliberate attempt of some one to make it in the spam list .sir www.teluguone.com is the only major resource which is available on internet for telugu related articles on all categories and more over it is a very old website sir and a prestigious website. It is looking like someones deliberate attempt to get it on to the blacklist .. You can look for the website credentials and everything. It is a very old website. Knowledge back availible on telugulanguage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queendivz (talk • contribs)
 * That someone appears to be, among others, you: this diff clearly shows the problem that wikipedia had with this site.   --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

www.change.org

 * It is only a petition site!! Email me at my gmail homealone1and2rule at gmail, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLabib195 (talk • contribs)
 * The site is blacklisted because people keep adding petitions to Wikipedia articles soliciting signatures. It is one of many blacklisted petition sites, all have the same issue. Specific links of use in articles can be whitelisted but since you have no real history it looks like you hit the filter because you were trying to link a petition - in which case it was working as designed. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For more info, please see our 'What Wikipedia is not'-pillar, specifically the part here..

moneyweek.com


Blacklisted October 2008 by User:A. B., who hasn't been on Wikipedia in the past 8 months. Reason given for blacklist: "See WikiProject Spam Report". I'm not familiar with analyzing those reports. MoneyWeek is an important financial publication in the UK, with valuable informational articles that are used to cite a variety of topics and biographical articles on Wikipedia. I'm not seeing a need for it to be blacklisted, at least not now, and as it is a major resource, it seems best that it should be removed from blacklist. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the main company, Agora, who owns these domains was caught spamming quite recently. I would advise whitelisting on a case-by-case basis, of the individual links where a positive case for their inclusion can be made.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I hear you. That's irritating for serious editors though. :-/ Were they spamming with this particular domain? Anyway, it's just inconvenient when I'm in the middle of researching and writing to stop and request whitelist for a particularly useful biographical MoneyWeek article. *sigh* Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delisting is of course also convenient for the spammers, and we know that they are still around. Note as well that the current spammers are (probably carefully) avoiding the blacklist while spamming their articles, they know they can not be linked.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * as stale. --Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 07:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

misericords.co.uk


How can the site be useful Source for the three misericords of Peterborough Cathedral. Possibly for other British churches as well.

Why it should not be blacklisted I don't know why it was blacklisted, as I couldn't find it on the full log, but it seems a very useful and relatively scholarly, if not very pretty, website. Jtle515 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . It's blacklisted globally, not blacklisted here on the English Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Indianetzone.com
While preparing biographies on Indian personalities, I have found this site very useful as it carries reliable information on India related subjects. In many cases, I could overlook the site as the information could be gathered from elsewhere, but one a few occasions, that was the only site I could locate. Presently I am working on a bio on Maniben Kara, an Indian trade unionist, and this site alone gives any insight into her personal life. I am not sure why this site is in the blacklist in the first place, but if someone could check and release it from the list, it would help. --jojo@nthony (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like they were caught spamming multiple domains.
 * to whitelist individual pages on a case-by-case basis. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

circlemakers.org


This was spammed by IPs in January and blacklisted, but it seems to me likely that this was a Joe-job - the IPs geolocate to France, whereas the website is British. A lot of crop circle fans hate the circlemakers website because it documents the circles having been made by humans, not extraterrestrials. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the purpose of the blacklist to stop abuse of external links. Whether material is good or bad, useless or whatever does not matter, what matters is how it was added to Wikipedia - blacklisting is a proper measure to stop abuse, even if the target is a Joe-job.  Can you verify that the Joe-jobbing stopped?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it has, yes. I see no more evidence of it. As I say, it seems to have been an attempt by crop circle kooks to get a site they dislike, blacklisted. There wasn't that much activity and I am happy to watch it personally going forward (I watch the article). Guy (Help!) 12:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's some quite impressive crop-field artwork on that site. It would be nice, if they own those photographs, if they'd be interesting in donating them to Commons. No objection from me for de-listing with monitoring. It would be nice to have a feature where we can poke a hole in the blacklist for specific articles. That would prevent the Joe-job spamming. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

azlyrics.com


This is the same as sites like MetroLyrics yet they're not blocked. This site is harmless and is just a social lyrics site, unsure why it's blocked. -- Anar  chyte   11:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My regular answer would be 'maybe because this one was caught being abused, and the others were not', but it turns out that this one was blacklisted for WP:LINKVIO, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2013. I am not sure whether these sites have legitimate use on Wikipedia.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * per WP:LINKVIO, as above. --Guy (Help!) 16:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

tradekey.com
Don't know why this company website is showing blocked. It is not even in the blacklist log. Kindly check on this matter Saadtk (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's because it isn't blacklisted here on the English Wikipedia. It's blacklisted globally. . ~Amatulić (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

attukaldevi.com
I was noted the attukaldevi.com is block listed, but this site is more informative of Attukal Devi temple in Trivandrum, Kerala. We can add this site in Attukal_Temple wiki page for more information about the temple. I kindly requesting to reconsider this website and remove from spam list.
 * ❌ Per this report. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

nambla.org
Why this link would be useful:

Useful on North American Man/Boy Love Association and Allen Ginsberg, (where the website is mentioned using ), David Thorstad (where the website is mentioned using WebCite but not the original page), and could be useful for pages such as List of pedophile and pederast advocacy organizations and others in a similar vein.

Why the website should not be blacklisted:

Similar websites, such as ipce.info, are not blacklisted. Although the website definitely propagates a pro-paedophile point of view, there is no evidence (as far as I can tell) of indecent images on their website, and I'm sure the issue of spamming can now be treated on a case-by-case basis. Articles related to paedophilia and pederasty are closely monitored by Wikipedians. The main reason given for its deletion, according to the archives, is this Fox News article (hardly a WP:RS).

— Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 16:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , for reasons that should be obvious. for a single appropriate link on the article if necessary. --Guy (Help!) 16:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Mixcloud.com
Why this link would be useful:

Allows Radio Presenters who use Mixcloud to store previous shows to use the link in articles about their shows, and to use it in the references to show that they are legitimate radio presenters.

Why the website should not be blacklisted:

The website is 100% legal as it does not allow people do download music or to view the tracklist before listening to a song. Artists also get royalties for music, so there isn't a reason for it to be blocked. Hazzy6000 (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazzy6000 (talk • contribs)


 * This was blacklisted because of significant COI spam spamming several years, not for any of the reasons you suggest. A more detailed decline was posted MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2015, just a couple of weeks ago.  I stand by my point of then,,  for specific links that are of interest.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

simplytablecloths.co.uk
How can the site be useful

Has a relevant blog post which can be used as a reference to the uses of Teflon.

Why the website should not be blacklisted:

This site was blacklisted for spamming not long ago for incorrect uses of references which has now been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gman2489 (talk • contribs)
 * Given the contents of your userpage, the real reason for blacklisting and Sockpuppet investigations/Dasbinays, I'm not convinced this is a good faith request. MER-C 02:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . --Guy (Help!) 16:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

PhilippineTalks.com


This is a entertainment and humor news websites in the Philippines which doesnt contains any spam links. The news here are basically reviewed by some expert editors from the Philippines. Please remove this from spam list.

talibong (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_Apr_1. Waiting for a report.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, this is a removal request. Anyway, this was spammed.  Criteria is not whether it contains spam links, criteria are whether it is not spammed anymore, whether it is of use to Wikipedia on a regular basis and similar.  If you just need a specific link, I would suggest to ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist for thát link.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

typemock.com


How can the site be useful Main page of a company listed on wikipedia.

Why it should not be blacklisted How can we exclude this link from blacklist. according to WP:ELOFFICIAL each company is allowed to add its homepage infobox Typemock. --Gikipedian (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Spammed in 2008, current request is for a hideously promotional article, requester is a WP:SPA whose first edit is this request - I have real concerns that the purpose of the request is to allow continued promotion. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, - if the article stays, you can ask for a link to be whitelisted (generally the about-page or the index-page that constitutes the main-page of the site).  We will not whitelist the main domain, nor de-list the whole domain for that.   if those conditions are met.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

thewebminer.com


How can the site be useful Contains articles about crawling technologies

Why it should not be blacklisted It's site of a tech company and contains useful resources. Website is banned since 2012 for a link in web scraping article. 188.27.185.101 (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What it contains does not convey how it can be useful to Wikipedia. Why it should not be blacklisted should include information why the site is of general use to Wikipedia, and information why the spam threat is not relevant anymore.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . Lack of evidence of utility, request is not by an established user with a demonstrated history of being able to discern between good and bad links. --Guy (Help!) 09:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

idebate.org
How can the site be useful Contains articles about high school debate. Includes a glossary of debate terms.

Why it should not be blacklisted Apparently this was spammed around a bunch in the past. Seems more an argument for blocking the users than the site, which isn't the issue. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What it contains does not necessarily convey what it is useful for. Is this of general use to Wikipedia, or are there just some articles that would be helped by one or two documents hosted on this site?  Note that when there are multiple users spamming it, that then generally blocking the users is unhelpful - accounts and IPs are cheap, being linked from Wikipedia helps paying their bills.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ No response to questions, no obvious utility to Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

cigarinspector.com
How the site can be useful Contains articles relating to the cigar industry, interviews relating to the cigar industry.

Why it should not be blacklsited There was no reason to blacklist the link in the first place. The site is purely informative and industry relevant. SaschaIllyvich (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What it contains is not a reason to de-blacklist. The question is how the information on this site can be useful on Wikipedia articles (e.g. with specific examples).  And if it is on the blacklist, then there was reason to blacklist it, generally it was spammed/pushed by people with a vested interest.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . No credible rationale, requestor has no significant history, which brings into question whether this is a genuine good-faith request. --Guy (Help!) 08:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

infosecinstitute.com
How the site can be useful Useful primary source on the subject of internet security matters.

Why it should not be blacklisted I have no idea why it is! Deku-shrub (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - Blacklist initially circumvented in this edit by using nowiki around the url which were subsequently replaced with a google cache of the page.
 * See multiple previous removal requests. Ravensfire (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * - "I have no idea why it is!" is not an answer to "Why it should not be blacklisted". If it was blacklisted, it is >98% sure that it was spammed (as is true for infosecinstitute.com).  Can you please give a proper reason as to why is should not be blacklisted?
 * You say that it is a 'useful primary source on the subject of internet security matters', which means that it is only usesul on subjects related to themselves. That will be very few articles and very few links.  That feeling that it is going to be very few links is strengthened by the fact that none others have been whitelisted in these years.   for specific links.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I had not seen the history of spamming. I will white list where needed for now. Deku-shrub (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

100years100facts.com


How can the site be useful Lots of encyclopedic sourced information about Armenian history and culture.

Why it should not be blacklisted I don't know see why it was blacklisted. It's a pretty useful website. Almost all of its information post on the site is verifiable and sourced. It can easily be considered an WP:RS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is caught by the global rule '\b\d+\w+facts?\.com\b', needed for a large scale spam attack with many, many ...facts.com-links. This, however, is a false positive, but it needs to be handled by the whitelist.  Consider ✅ (sorry for letting you wait, I needed a COIBot report to see what is going on here).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

herbiemania.com


How can the site be useful The first true source for historical information on the Disney character, Herbie The Love Bug. In fact, it was the first Herbie website on the internet and therefore has great historical value.

Why it should not be blacklisted The herbiemania.com site DOES NOT send out any type of mail. I believe the site has been wrongly added due to similar copycat sites with slightly different spellings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanfilm53 (talk • contribs)


 * . Please see WP:EL: fansites are links to exclude. --Guy (Help!) 09:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Herbiemania.com was the first online source for information relating to the Disney Character of Herbie. The original page was created in 1997. In fact, all of the information from the original Herbie and LOVE BUG wikipedia pages were put together using information from this site. The site is a resource page. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanfilm53 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * that it is the first online source for information does not excuse the blatant spamming that brought this site to the blacklist. If it contains good information, and that information can not be found elsewhere, then specific links can be whitelisted, but de-listing of this site is, seen its history, .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference, this is the more informative of the only three edits by Fanfilm53: diff. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A petition from Change.org for Red Peak flag


The article Red Peak flag has a citation to a Change.org petition at https://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-john-key-red-peaks-for-new-zealand-flag that influenced a recently passed Bill by the New Zealand House of Representatives. The petition has since been closed as a "Victory". The URL is already in the article, but is commented out as the change.org domain is blacklisted. This request is to unblock a specific URL, and not the whole Change.org domain. + m t  02:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this removal of the request, and will provide a reply. Petitions are blacklisted because of the soapboxing often observed with open petitions ('click here to save the .. '), and that includes change.org.  Often, if not always, the results or the still open petition is only worth mentioning if independent organisations have picked up on the petition, and those are the better references, making the primary link hardly necessary or even completely obsolete.  However, sometimes there are official responses on the primary source that are worth mentioning.  For other sites they often reside on a different path, I don't know if that is true for change.org.  Although I continue to argue that it is always better to use secondary, independent sources to petitions, there are cases where the primary source is necessary.  These then have to be handled by the whitelist.  I will handle this one from here (consider ), technically .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * whitelisting diff. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

chs-alumni.net


Tried to add as an external link for Catonsville High School (Alumni Association), but was blocked by a more general "alumni.net" filter, which is far too broad, but somewhat understandable for *.alumni.net. This request is to unblock chs-alumni.net - at least - to facilitate the constructive external link.Rehmert (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)rehmert


 * . That's what it's for. We're not a link directory, every school of any size has an alumni association, it's not our job to promote these. --Guy (Help!) 09:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

letstalkpayments.com


How is it useful? I am a college student try to do research in blockchain. Happened to checkout the indepth research done on blockchain technology by let's talk payments. I want to cite their non-financial use cases in the wikipedia page of blockchain. Currently, only financial use cases are known to people.

Why it should not be blacklisted?

Otherwise the website is good. Simple language for people to understand. It is like a dummie book for payments industry. Thanks for hearing my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4200:3AD7:3DDF:3E71:53C9:A425 (talk • contribs)
 * ❌ The site was spammed by at least eight different accounts. There are plenty of better sites that meet [[WP:RS] for the topic. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. The first 4 SERP results for blockchain non-financial usecases are from this website though - www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=blockchain%20non%20financial%20use%20cases Something to consider. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:6226:E300:8489:DA19:151B:8D3B (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about giving it up and finding another way to advertise your website. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

allinexporters.com


How is it useful? I am an avid reader of this website as it provides authentic informations about natural essential oils. Although, this website is not to intended for posting anything ever on wikipedia even by moderator as it reads about the benefits of essential oils that are observed personally or scientifically that might have been reviewed or non-reviewed. But, it seems that some of its competitor has tried spamming this website for his personal benefits.

Why it should not be blacklisted?

The website is overall good and it is being operated since 2012 (as seen on whois.com) without any penality from any other websites. it has been educating people about the therapeutic uses of essential oils. Simple language for people to understand. Adding this site on blacklisted link of wikipedia would affect its credibility. All of this might have happened due due to jealousy of its competitors who may have added this domain with the sole interest of blocking it over wikipedia. So it is my humble request to delist this website from wikipedia blacklist pages. --Madhur Bhushan (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * . The site exists to sell product, and is not a reliable independent source. --Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 07:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

prizerebel.com


How the link can be useful: To be able to submit an article on this site, would provide comprehensive information about the website that is not currently available elsewhere besides the site. The URL would allow the reader to access the website directly for more information on PrizeRebel, which has been in existence since 2007.

Why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore: All of the blacklisted URLs are are from previous years from a few bad apples and not the site itself. Since then, PrizeRebel has explicitly prohibited their members from spamming their URLs.


 * . The article was spam, I nuked it. --Guy (Help!) 09:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

canadiancrc.com


How the link can be useful: It has interesting news articles, often quoting from news sites which may no longer have them up. Why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore: I'm not sure why it happened in the first place. WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/canadiancrc.com has a history going back to 26 April 2014 but I am not sure what happened then. Ranze (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was spammed aggressively, which precipitated the blacklisting. Seen the history, I think it is best that specific links which pass the bar for the use on Wikipedia are whitelisted.   for those specific links.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

HUMANRIGHTS.FOUNDATION


How the link can be useful: This is an informational webpage about the HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION civil society organization, unincorporated association. Community page: https://google.com/+humanrightsfoundation and YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/humanrightsfoundation This is a new organization with a several projects. The site since its creation facing pressure from the New York based corporation (what makes profit, yearly near $2.000.000). As the founder of the HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION civil society organization I strongly believe that this site need to be removed from this spam list, because it's not a spam. I have been also protested against the "HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION" trademark at United States Patent and Trademark Office because Thor Halvorssen Thor_Halvorssen_Mendoza the president of the New York based corporation Human_Rights_Foundation in 1/05/2015 wanted to registering "HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION" as a trademark. I have evidence that the "HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION" is a general and descriptive term, so the United States Patent and Trademark Office accepted my letter of protest and refused to assign the mark to the corporation, please visit the following link to USPTO and check under "Documents" the "Administrative Response" dated, 19/06/2015 USPTO (U.S Patent and Trademark Office). I requested Wikipedia to change the article name from Human_Rights_Foundation to The_Human_Rights_Foundation_Corporation many times but nobody is responded, so I began to attach humanrights.foundation to much relative page as I can. I strongly believe that Wikipedia is builded to share information and knowledge, not to build monopolium to such corporations. If Wikipedia don't follow my request and don't change the Human_Rights_Foundation page to a listing page that will be misleading the public. Misleading the public on the way that creating to one corporation a page (what even do not use the corporation's legal name: "THE HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION, Corporation" is clearly an error from Wikipedia. Information must and always need to be reflect the legal and real names and content. So, basically I not just requesting to remove the humanrights.foundation from this spam list, but I also request admins to change the Wikipedia article mentioned above to reflect real and true information about the corporation. I'am sorry for changed the link on Human_Rights_Foundation Wikipedia article and showed my webpage at the external link section, but if you think a bit I did nothing wrong. The following webpage will show that the Human_Rights_Foundation Article is wrong and misleading the public, the corporation's full and legal name is "THE HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION" NEW YORK STATE CHARITIES Please, remove the site from the list of spams and change wikipedia Human_Rights_Foundation wikipedia article to The_Human_Rights_Foundation_Corporation and stop misleading the public. Thank you for your understanding! Please feel to contact me at contact@humanrightsfoundation.info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.105.70 (talk • contribs)
 * ❌ PLEASE consider USING normal CAPITALIZATION rules if you EXPECT anyone to read your long EXPLANATION. Furthermore, it is clear that the link above does not refere to a notable organization. The notable entity known as The Human Rights Foundation already has the correct link. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Respond: I don't expect anyone to read my explanation, but because you are an admin I will change for you some section above. Please note that is not your job to say what is organization and what is not. May be you need to read the following article about civil society organizations or unincorporated associations: Voluntary_associations In the other hand, the article about Spam clearly shows that the humanrights.foundation domain name is must not be considered as a Spam just because it's not incorporated. I said and requested Wikipedia admins to change the actual Human_Rights_Foundation article to a listing page. The term human rights foundation is a descriptive and general term to describe a foundation which is operates on the field of human_rights. Due to the reasons and explanation above I strongly recommend to follow up with the requests. If something on Wikipeadia not notable thats don't eliminate the existence of it.

Remove my page from the spam list and do NOT decline my request if you can not shown that personally I did something wrong by writing on a few article the link! As wikipedia can be edited by the public, no one of you in the position to refuse to remove my webpage from the spam list! I deleted one admin's comment from below because not reflecting the true. I think you as an admin must learn about Spam before decline my request, as well any edit on a specific article CAN NOT be used as an evidence to maintain my website blocked on the whole Wikipedia. Evidence need to show that the link humanrights.foundation is a spam! Otherwise nobody can say that this is a spam just because showed in a few RELATED article! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.105.70 (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.105.70 (talk • contribs)


 * The account who has been plastering (spamming) this site all over Wikipedia, generally completely ignoring our inclusion standards (external links guideline), and likely editing with a conflict of interest (conflict of interest guideline) is currently blocked because in between spamming this site felt the need to post edits in mainspace which appear to be death threats. Until one can show on which pages which link does follow our inclusions standards (i.e., whitelist requests), this is .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with this admin! Can somebody please call here another admin who are able to show me evidence that my website is a spam!? This admin saying that "humanrights.foundation SPAMMING ALL OVER WIKIPEDIA" is clearly a huge mistake by this admin! Remove my page from the spam list and do NOT decline my request if you can not shown that personally I did something wrong by writing on a few article the link! As wikipedia can be edited by the public, no one of you in the position to refuse to remove my webpage from the spam list! I deleted one admin's comment (update: I received from this admin a harassment message) from below because not reflecting the true. I think you as an admin must learn about Spam before decline my request, as well any edit on a specific article CAN NOT be used as an evidence to maintain my website blocked on the whole Wikipedia. Evidence need to show that the link humanrights.foundation is a spam! Otherwise nobody can say that this is a spam just because showed in a few RELATED article! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.105.70 (talk • contribs)

If the link humanrights.foundation shows up on the article about Barack_Obama that can be considered as a Spam and irrelevant content but must NOT BE CONSIDERED THE DOMAIN IN THE WHOLE WIKIPEDIA AS A SPAM just because appeared for example on the List_of_human_rights_organisations Please call here another admin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.105.70 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 23 October 2015‎


 * You are right, if it was only on one relevant page (the page about the organisation itself), then it would have been fine (and a whitelist request could be filed for this even now). However, it included several other pages as well, where the relevance is less direct.  I must note, that you (under this IP) have also posted this link and attempted to post this link.  That suggests to me that we are still not willing to discuss link inclusions before the link is included, but that you simply insist that the link needs to be included without discussion.  May I again point you to the mentioned guidelines, and now also to Wikipedia's m:Terms of Use?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. Please tell me where I violated Terms of Use! The only one who violating something is the Wikipedia: Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud - "Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive;" Committing Infringement -"Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights under applicable law".

The article Human_Rights_Foundation under "external links" violating my U.S trademark: http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=86788465 MARK: HUMANRIGHTSFOUNDATION, PSEUDO MARK: HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDATION I don't give permission to Wikipedia to maintain and mislead the public with the Human_Rights_Foundation article, however must be considered to transform the actual article to a listing page. You as an admin obligated to report and take action to stop this trademark infringement! Please remove the '"humanrights.foundation'" from the spam list as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.105.70 (talk • contribs)
 * According to your link you filed an application for registering HUMANRIGHTSFOUNDATION as a trademark a week ago, while the The Human Rights Foundation was incorporated under US laws ten years ago. And they're well known, with lots of media coverage, but you're not, making it more probable that you're trying to impersonate them, and not the other way around... Thomas.W talk 12:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I told you guys, that the article Human_Rights_Foundation is wrong, specially the title, the corporation's LEGAL name is "The Human Rights Foundation" not "Human Rights Foundation".


 * We often do not include the articles in the names, but that could have been a reason for discussion (a 'conflict' between article names is nothing new, and articles can be moved when discussion results in such a consensus). Anyway, it becomes more and more clear that you are two different organisations.  That would hence mean we could have two independent articles on the two organisations (assuming both are notable).  You are more than free to submit a draft about your organisation, and then the naming conflict can be resolved then (as well as either selective whitelisting of the mainpage for use on the article).
 * It does however not excuse the a) hijacking of the existing article, b) the addition of the organisation's link to this page and others, c) removal of mentions of the other organisation, and d) the apparent death threats on the subject of the founder of the other site. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The impression I get is that it's someone who is trying to hijack a well known name in order to get a share of the donations... Thomas.W talk

I get tired to tell you, that my site not a spam and I request to remove it immediately! The trademark is trademark anywhere! Just to be clear I'm the owner of this U.S trademark (as well a Hungarian tradeamark: "HUMANRIGHTSFOUNDATION". You need to learn about trademarks before you publish such a statement, because dosn't matter that the New York based corporation is incorporated before than my mark. Even dosn't matter the name of the corporation. Trademark is much stronger and I requested you to REPORT THIS TRADEMARK VIOLATION! You have no right to tell me what I need to do or what I can not do with my trademark(s)! I told you to change the article name and report this issue without delay! According to United States LAW Wikipedia must remove the page or change it's name IMMEDIATELY! Please in the future do NOT post things that you DON'T KNOW or understand. May be there are consequences and you can lost your admin status. I recommend to take action NOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.105.70 (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The trademark is protecting my intellectual properties, such as: https://google.com/+humanrightsfoundation https://youtube.com/humanrightsfoundation https://vimeo.com/humanrightsfoundation https://vine.co/humanrightsfoundation

...and the website "humanrights.foundation" which is blocked for no reason in the whole Wikipedia. The same time admins helping to maintain a trademark violation. You guys not working as a lawyer, better to do your job and not to tell me what is right or wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.105.70 (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I will try to explain it once more: the site was blacklisted because there were targeted additions which were in violation of this sites policies and guidelines. The additions were aggressive, as well as some of the other language used at the same time.  To protect Wikipedia from those additions, the editor was blocked and the site was blacklisted (because it could be expected that other editors would show the same behaviour of adding the site to, in Wikipedia, inappropriate places).  Since that behaviour indeed did not stop (yet), the site will remain blacklisted.
 * Please do not remove this discussion, it is needed for future reference - it will be archived when necessary. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note also that the IP above was blocked for legal threats. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

kavkazcenter.com


See previous discussion here below, 'Completed proposed removals', March-June 2015, and newly started entry on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, just now. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As this is more a notification, and does not carry forward any new arguments for de-blacklisting, I am going to decline this per the recent discussion. .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

in-cubator.org


How the link can be useful: First, I don't understand why I was qualified as spamming after adding a link to free and open source based open innovation software on open innovation wiki page under external links. Has anyone have any interest in keeping that page without any updates? Wikipedia is for all and people should be able to add their parts. What is wrong about making people aware of new open source platform on wikipedia? Please unblock it and let me know what I'm doing wrong. I don't have any intention of spaming anyone.
 * What you did wrong was have at least six different IP addresses spam the link all over the place. Efforts like that are always rewarded with a blacklisting. Wikipedia is not an advertising venue for new websites. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

typography.guru
How can the site be useful This could be (and no doubt will be) described pejoratively as "a blog site", but it's by someone, Ralf Herrmann, who is WP:RS in the field of typography and particularly usability as it applies to typography. Typography.guru was launched in February 2015, but it's really more of a split of an existing site for English language coverage, away from his main German language site at http://Typografie.info

Why it should not be blacklisted It has just been swept in the bulk addition of *.guru to the blacklist.

I'm actually rather saddened to see that moments after he had blacklisted it, JzG then removed an EL from the X-height article (of course that conveniently prevents anyone else restoring it). A ref he had previously twice removed (it has been added by two independent editors) as "The .guru domain is blogs ans orherr such unreliable sources. feel free to cite him in a reliable source."   The implication being that a RS stops being RS if they publish through a particular TLD, which is nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I think that Andy is right: Although the guru tld is ridiculous, this particular site appears to pass WP:SPS and its material has been used and useful. (I do take issue with the characterization of an author as a "reliable source" as that's not at all how we define reliability in this project but that's irrelevant.) ElKevbo (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why we have the whitelist. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that he's an RS beforehand, because of a whole career outside WP and outside this site as an authority on typeface design. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that this is a self-published source you like. I like Bad Science, but I don't cite it. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When did blacklisting an entire TLD become an appropriate response to SPS?
 * What's "Bad Science"? Dr Ben Goldacre?  We not merely cite him, we have a whole article on him. He exemplifies the good aspect of SPS: when a recognised authority publishes under their own imprimatur. The situation here is similar. It's not that I like him (I'm a rank amateur as a typographer), it's that the typography community recognises the long-established German language http://typographie.info as a valuable and trustworthy resource. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have an article on him, and we cite many of his published articles in the press and journals, but I do not cite his badscience.net website per WP:SPS and lack of peer-review. Many skeptics regard badscience.net as a long-standing and trustworthy source, as indeed it is, but anything usable as a source should be published elsewhere with editorial oversight or peer-review. Ditto David Gorski, who writes a blog at http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ (not citable) and also writes often substantially identical content for Science Based Medicine, which has editorial oversight and review so is citable, with some caveats. Do you see what I'm getting at? Guy (Help!) 11:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This is now moot because .guru was removed from the blacklist - http://typography.guru. MER-C 10:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

=Discussion=

When are we allowed to link to entries on the blacklist?
I assume never but I wasn't sure where to ask this and I'm asking the question because The Pirate Bay inludes a link in the infobox that is apparently on the blacklist. The link is http&#58;&#47;&#47;uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion, which has been added to the article using code to bypass the blacklist. I previously removed the link because it didn't appear to be valid, but it has been restored with a source and I've been told to discuss it on the talk page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. For one thing, the blacklist simply prevents a link being created—it is not a policy statement regarding whether the text representing the link should not be displayed. For another, articles like that are patrolled by activists who do what they can to publicize a favored product (in this case, a website), and battling them is a waste of time. The infobox has six external links which obviously fail WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, yet only the foolhardy would get involved. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The solution is simple, those links and representations are in violation of our pillars, the article should be cleaned and warriors blocked. Some blacklisting and page protection to keep it clean would be a solution.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Content farms
I don't pay much attention to this stuff, so I'm not sure this is the right process or whether there is one. Is there some automated way in which we block content farms (i.e. programmatic publishers of user-written junk articles) from being cited as sources? I'm thinking of things like About.com, eHow.com, todayifoundout.com, allexperts.com, etc. If so, is there a preferred way to get around this in the rare cases it might be necessary, e.g. to cite a content farm as a primary source for WP's article about that content farm itself as a notable business?

And what about URL shorteners? There's an ever-growing number of these, and any of them could be used to insert misleading links or evade any of the applied blacklists. So are we blacklisting those as well, or just living with it? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the sites out of the top paragraph are blacklisted or revertlisted (examiner.com, hulu). If significant abuse/misuse (this is not really spam) can be shown over actual use, I'd argue that the spam-blacklist is the mechanism to stop editors (though for these, an edit filter is actually a better alternative).
 * The latter, url-shorteners, are blanket (and sometimes preemptively) blacklisted on meta without questions. Hundreds of them are already on there, and regularly more are added.  There are only very few redirect sites which are useful (assign-only-redirects like dx.doi.org which we do not blacklist), and only very few specific redirects that can not be excluded (like the Google custom search, which is abuse-able (and was abused) as a redirect while some custom search engines are used for Wikipedia purposes, and a case I am aware of where one page needed so many long external links to an external search that page-size became an issue (hundreds of characters long links each with a search parameter); those can be handled by whitelisting).  m:User:LiWa3 and User:COIBot detect quite some of them automatically and report them to meta (see m:Category:COIBot_reports_for_redirect_sites).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Where are we at now
It's been almost 2 years since Cyberbot II first started going around tagging pages with links on the blacklist. When it started there were roughly 5000 articles on Wikipedia that got the tag. People hated it, and the bot, and they were right to. No one wants to see something like that pop up on an article, especially GAs and FAs. But it brought an important fact to light, and that was the article had a problem. The link was either bad, or the link was good but would be vulnerable to vandalism that would have made it a hassle to fix if the link was blanked out. Since Cyberbot II started its task, I'm pleased to say, the dust has settled and we have gone from 5000 articles to around 655 articles. That's an accomplishment.—cyberpower  Chat :Online 15:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Question - Dying Scene


Hey guys, the site owner of Dying Scene is posting at User_talk:Robzwop and he's interested in getting his site deblacklisted. He was honest in that the blacklisting was his site's fault and that he understood why it was blacklisted. He's also stated that the site has grown since then and could possibly be used as a RS now. Since he's the site owner he can't file a request and I'm not terribly familiar with the whole process of de-blacklisting, but I did give him some general advice on things that I think would be helpful in general. Can anyone else swing in there and see if there's a good case to be made for de-blacklisting? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am unconvinced. This site is blacklisted for 6 years now, and repeatedly asked to be de-blacklisted, and editors have been repeatedly asked to request whitelisting for specific links that are needed.  Still, there has only been one such request by an editor whose first edit (of three in total) was to request said whitelisting for a draft article that is still in draft.  No regular (or other editor) has ever felt the need to request whitelisting, which strongly suggests that the site is not needed, an assessment that is also suggested in previous threads regarding de-blacklisting: the site can easily be replaced by other sites.  In summary, there are zero whitelistings of this site.  If that changes (i.e., we get a significant number of whitelistings that have been granted because replacement is not possible) then we could consider de-blacklisting.
 * The fact that editors with a conflict of interest are still here discussing this shows the interest they have in having it de-blacklisted, even if they say that they stopped editing Wikipedia. Editors who
 * Added to that, Dying Scene is a redlink, and I don't think that we have an article about the subject, suggesting the notability is low (see also Dying Scene Radio, which is 3 times deleted, once discussed and now salted).
 * Overall, as per previous discussions by mutiple established editors: for those specific links that are needed for attribution or to link to the official site of the subject of it's own article.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Vice News
Uh.... why is this on the blacklist?  Volunteer Marek  04:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean, why is google.com/url? (www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEQQFjAHOApqFQoTCP376IfV9ccCFQaSDQodIEkHgA&url=https://news.vice.com/article/eight-years-later-the-mastermind-of-anna-politkovskayas-murder-is-still-free&usg=AFQjCNFkwIOKG902dcXtEhj5p7OgbmI90w&sig2=shTDiGxzgYs2wG4lLv88ww.) on the blacklist? Because it is a redirect service at the very core of search engine optimisation (clicking that link tells google that people are interested in the website it redirects to, giving 'credits' to the site).  However, you want to link to https://news.vice.com/article/eight-years-later-the-mastermind-of-anna-politkovskayas-murder-is-still-free - which is, obviously, not blacklisted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Got ya. Thanks for the explanation.  Volunteer Marek   04:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

petition.parliament.uk


I've just discovered that a filter prevents linking to https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104349. This is an official UK Parliament website. Why is it blacklisted? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * - Petition sites are blacklisted as they fail our inclusion standards (WP:NOT), and are often abused for soapboxing reasons ('Vote [here] to ban Mr. X out of Y'). Open petitions (this one is open) are only a valid reference for their existence, but that should only be noted on Wikipedia if it is notable, which means that there are independent sources showing both existence ánd notability of the open petition (which makes the direct reference superfluous).
 * For the few cases where the (open) petition needs to be linked (i.e., a case can be made why this link is non-replaceable), the specific link can be whitelisted - hence if those conditions are met).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the good people at Wiki in deciding that they fail our "inclusiion standard and claiming often abused for soapboxing are having a soapbox themselves. The UK parliamentary petitions website - BY definition - is not an "open" petition site where just anyone can put up a "oh, I think wikipedians smell of dirty sox" comments.  If you read how it works, all are reviewed by commitee prior to publication - and continue to be reviewed. As it is the platform under which the UK government publishes the official response, including committee responses, this is a primary source, and it shows the knee jerk myopic view of wiki editors (in general) in believing that they know how something works...