MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

associatedcontent.com[edit]

Site is dead. Its presence on the blacklist prevents fixing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April. SilverbackNet talk 01:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverbackNet: no Declined - solved by disabling the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

invisionfree.com[edit]

Site is dead. Its presence on the blacklist prevents fixing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February. SilverbackNet talk 01:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverbackNet: no Declined. Solved by other means. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tutorialspoint.com[edit]

I'm a new Wikipedia user. Tutorialspoint is a educational website that is very useful and most definitely not spam. I have personally used the site for the last three years, it does not contain any objectionable content. It contains valuable study materials in the fields of Computer Science and Information Technology. It is used by a large number of students and If we are able to cite the materials at tutorialspoint it will be helpful to a lot of people. Please consider removing it from the blacklist. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivaraam subramanian (talk • contribs)

@Sivaraam subramanian: no Declined, the reasoning you bring forward is similar to other, new Wikipedia users who have requested this. The problem is not that the site is spam, the problem is that the site was spammed cross-wiki. It cannot be delisted here, and will very likely not be de-listed on meta. For specific links where you can make a point where it is of use on a specific page on Wikipedia can be whitelisted, hence  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

econlib.org[edit]

I copy a thread from WP:HD.

Any attempt to edit Apartheid seems to be rejected. The reason given is that the article contains a new link to banned site econlib.org (or something close -- I may have gotten it wrong. The edits I have attmpted don't include anything remotely close to that. Can somebody find out what's wrong and fix it? In the See also section, I was trying to add a wikilink to Born a Crime. Lou Sander (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't explain what's going on. When I try to do the same thing (both with my non-admin sock and my main account), I get MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext and a warning about econlib.org, even though that URL isn't in the page text. Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Even weirder: I removed econlib from the spam blacklist and then tried to insert the link, and even then I got rejected because my edit added "econlib.org". Time for a Phabricator bug request? In case you wonder, I've restored the blacklist entry for econlib. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what's going on? See [1] for URL removal and click "next" for restoration. JzG, you comment about that URL in a thread higher on this page; are you at all familiar with the situation? I'm not asking for "permanent" removal; I just wondered if someone more familiar with this blacklist might have a better idea than I of how to remove it temporarily to enable this edit. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lou Sander: I am taking it off for now, but lets see what happens (see follow up edit). Maybe some lag-time? minus Removed from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
econlib.org. Test edit to see whether this can now be saved. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removing and re-adding seems to work now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am removing a large number of inappropriate links to this partisan website at the moment. It was extensively spammed by a group of libertarian agenda editors. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: I agree that it got spammed with many other links, however, there are now remarks about this specific one from that set of links above (both in that thread and this thread) as to being genuine. Maybe this is one for XLinkBot? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EconLib is the "Library of Economics and Liberty", run by Liberty Fund, a libertarian think-tank of no obvious significance. I suspect that most of the uses of this source right now are inappropriate. I removed the links from the Apartheid article. The issue is that many (most?0 of the links are to an online "encyclopaedia" of economics published by this group. It's another fisheaters. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Liberty Fund isn't really a think-tank, it's primarily a publishing house. One of the things they publish is the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics which is an excellent reference work on a wide variety of economic topics. The first edition was published in 1994 as "The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics: 141 Top Economists Explain the Theories, Mechanics, and Institutions of Money, Trade and Markets". Later editions got more concise - including the title - but kept the general theme of being, well, an encyclopedia. The essays are indeed written by top economists, including several Nobel prizewinners. The latest print edition is 2007 but an earlier 2002 edition is online for free which is REALLY USEFUL in fleshing out economic topics...or would be if it weren't on the blacklist. Can we get this fixed? (in addition to the Concise Encyclopedia, it's also a good place to find lots of older webbed public-domain econ texts. Bastiat, Mills, Adam Smith and so on.) Blogjack (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Blogjack: we do not need to link to a site because they have an online version of an older version of a real book. We have ISBNs for that, which should give the interested reader access to copies of the book, and may even give links to online copies of said book. My question now basically is, how big is the spamming problem of this specific site (User:JzG?)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC) (screwed the ping: @JzG:). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How big is the spamming problem? Hard to say. There are dozens of articles from Vipul and associates (Vipul has blogged on econlib), many of them are primary-sourced opinions by a fellow econlib blogger. There are also a lot of examples of test by Keynes, Mill and others presented as being published by the "library of economics and liberty", when they are in fact merely hosted copies of public domain works published by other people. Would you source copies of the works of Hayek, Keynes and the like to the Margaret Thatcher Foundation website? I don't think so. Think tanks are part of the dark money ecosystem, designed to obfuscate political activism and conceal the sources of funding.
And yes, they are a think-tank. The Orwellian title is a dead giveaway. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of spamming. Vipul hasn't spammed econlib. Which are the user accounts that are associated with Vipul that have spammed econlib? Jonpatterns (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: econlib.org probably shouldn't be on the blacklist. It contains the full text of many classical economics texts. Jrheller1 (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... which are public domain and should be on Wikisource, not presented by links to a libertarian fundamentalist website. Rather like the issue with religious fundamentalist websites republishing out of copyright texts and surrounding them with editorialising and links and other material that drive an agenda. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not appropriate to blacklist in its entirety. Surely dealing with the actual spammers is the first move - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: "Surely dealing with the actual spammers is the first move" .. sure, but lets entertain the idea that multiple IPs are spamming econlib.org, and that they do their utter best to get this linked in any form. Are we here to play a game of whack-a-mole, or to build an encyclopedia. If this stuff is spammed, this should be blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are the spammers associated with the website? Is the spam effort a deliberate and co-originated effort by the website? It may be hard to tell. Is there any legitimate use of the site by non spammers. For example, three assumptions of neoclassical economics are referenced by an article written by E. Roy Weintraub on econlib (www.econ lib.org/library/Enc1/NeoclassicalEconomics.html). Actually, the term 'neoclassical economics' is more contested than the article makes out. That's not to say the libertarian view should be removed altogether. I believe there may be some legitimate uses for the site as long as the bias is noted.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Are the spammers associated with the website' .. who cares, our job is not to punish the owners of the website, our job is to stop disruption to Wikipedia. Most porn websites are NOT spammed, not even by their owners. However, editors do disruptive edits with those sites so much that we blacklist them, and have several attempts at disruptive editing a day. Totally in the realm of our tools to stop this. As for econlib, some of these porn sites have legitimate use. And we have mechanisms for that legitimate use. For nearly anything on the spam blacklist there is legitimate use, but the spamming problem is outweighing that legitimate use. What I have seen of econlib, is that there are in many cases better alternatives, or that it is superfluous altogether (you allude to similar for your one example). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm by no means a right wing libertarian, quite the opposite (check my history). I may not like much of what econlib.org publishes, but as an economist, I can appreciate the quality of many of the articles in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. For example, the article on Keynesian economics (which I can't link, because of the blacklist) is by Alan Blinder, a professor at Princeton with a named chair, who was President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. However, the quality is patchy, as there are some unreliable articles as well. Perhaps a whitelist for links starting with "www.econlib.org/library/Enc/" so that articles from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics can be referenced, with a caveat that the reliability of the articles depends on the author? Thanks, LK (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawrencekhoo: That is a very legit consideration, and such an analysis would make me whitelist that link immediately, as possibly the one above suggested by Jon. Our goal is not to stop legitimate sourcing, it is to stop disruption. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Econlib.org is still on the blacklist. I was seeking to use an article written by Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (and retired Marcus Wollenberg Professor of International Financial Diplomacy at Georgetown University. See: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Sanctions.html. This is just plain wrong!! Please remove from the blacklist. – S. Rich (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lou Sander: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. I see hardly anything left in mainspace, and very little resistance against removal. Alternatives exist (ISBN for real books, etc.), and whitelisting can handle the rest for now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean? E.g. "{{Declined}}". Is Econlib.org still restricted in some fashion? The website was added to the blacklist by a patently POV inspired admin and I am shocked, shocked! that this problem persists. – S. Rich (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srich32977: It was blacklisted after an AN/I thread unanymously suggested to block an SEO spammer out of an editing ring who was spamming this and other links. I still think that for much of this alternatives exist (using blogposts on such stes as references .. if there are no better sources), or it can be plainly sourced to the original work through regular Linking. For the rest, there is the whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you got some of the facts mixed up. Econlib was added to the Blacklist on March 10, long before the massive deletrions thread was opened (March 26–April 2, yet to be closed). I think you are referring to the Vipul gets paid thread of March 9–15 and User:Vipul. HOWEVER, that thread does not mention Econlib. (Also see the User talk:DGG thread of March 13–17.) Rather, it seems that Vipul has done editing on a variety of topics since 2005 (and declared his COI by listing his COI edits). A few years ago, when he was at the University of Chicago, Vipul started the [https://openborders.info/] blog, and Bryan Caplan mentioned it on his (Caplan's) Econlib blog. (But I find no evidence that Vipul is connected to Econlib.) Well, User:JzG has taken it upon himself to remove any and all Econlib links in WP because the tenuous non-connection between the evil Vipul and Econlib. (And in so doing JzG often wipes out whole paragraphs containing Econlib links, even when those paragraphs contain other material supported by other RS.) Shamefully, JzG abused his admin privileges by adding Econlib to the Blacklist while the discussion about Vipul was underway. JzG's motivations are clear from his edit summaries and discussion posts – he is anti-libertarian. So two things ought to happen: 1. Remove Econlib from the Blacklist so that editors can link high-quality, original material from Econlib; and, 2. Admonish JzG for letting his POV get in the way of neutral admin'ing. – S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done a search on the http://econlog.econlib.org/ page. Vipul Naik comes up 99 times as being mentioned. He, like many other readers, makes reader comments about blog posts originated by the 5 Econlog bloggers. Here is one from September 26, 2012: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/09/somin_on_libert.html "Very interesting, thanks!" Vipul Naik himself is not a blogger on Econlog. – S. Rich (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ALCON, I'm now traveling on WikiBreak. I'll be back April 14th. In the meantime, Happy Editing! – S. Rich (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong, userSrich32977, I am talking about the thread that precipitated the blacklisting, where another editor got unanymously !voted to get blocked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: please provide a link to the thread. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ai, my apologies, I had the timeline wrong. The thread about one of the users mentioned there was (shortly) after that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948#Riceissa. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised by how many of these links were added by Srich32977, and by his failure to mention this. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And he spammed it multiple times - virtually every articles that he edited or wrote where it could possibly be crowbarred in, it was. And there are articles that had five or more External Links to econlib, but none to any other think tank. There is no doubt in my mind that this has been abused, whether through zealotry or whether it's spamming is pretty much immaterial. Oh, one more thing: were you going to mention at some point how many of these links you added yourself? Guy (Help!) 22:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be just removing econlib.org citations. We should be actually changing the citations to point to Wikisource. (If Wikisource doesn't have the content yet, then it should be copied over there.) Otherwise, we run the risk that articles will get deleted for being unsourced. See., e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian perspectives on natural resources. But actually, I would support removing it altogether from the blacklist. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the approach has been heavy handed, but I don't think there is any guideline about that. It is possible that the sub-domain "www.econ lib.org/library/Enc/" could be white-listed. This appears to more useful and less bloggy component of the website. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of the heavy-handed editing; the edit removes the mention of and reference to an Econlib material - but also takes out two unrelated books.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of heavy-handed editing was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Nobody cared. I guess we just have to put up with it. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that no one cared, but it is a hard thing to account for - therefore we should keep an eye on the situation.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick poll[edit]

I believe from the discussion above, that there may be consensus for whitelisting within econlib, links begining with "www.econlib.org/library/Enc/". This will allow articles from the online Concise Encyclopedia of Economics to be used, as these articles are usually written by experts in their fields, and are not available anywhere else. I'ld like to run a quick poll to check consensus.

  • Support as proposer. LK (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up note: Some editors object to this proposal arguing that the host organization has a POV. However, a source having a bias is not a reason to black list a source (Fox News and the New York Post are widely seen as biased, but they are rightly not black listed). The only reason to black list a source would be a persistent ongoing campaign spamming the source into various articles. LK (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support (though we should do this at the spam whitelist directly, not here). Although I suggested so above, I think I'd like to see a couple of granted whitelisting requests on econlib so we can gauge whether there is really no replacement information available elsewhere. User:JzG, as you looked into this in more detail, was the /enc/ part of the original spam problem, and of what scale is/was the general appropriate use? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, can be linked otherwise, no need to link to the copy/documents on this site. Use the ISBN (ISBN 0865976651 or ISBN 978-0865976658) to link to the book, include a pagenumber. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The online source is freely and openly accesible to both readers and editors. Why is this poorly documented spamming issue so bad that you want to force everyone to buy a text that's freely available online from the copyright holder?--Bkwillwm (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this measure would allow the blog type portion of the site to remain blacklisted and allow use of the more reliable part. Where is the evidence of mass spamming of econlib? User:vipul appears to concentrate on spamming other sites, see history. User:JzG mentioned that it was associates inserting the links, are these named accounts or IP address edits?Jonpatterns (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jonpatterns, did you also go through the edits of the accounts that Vipul paid to edit? They are disclosed on their userpage. The ones that are not disclosed will be more difficult to find. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look. There may be a tool for showing the reference-sites-used stats for a particular user, but I'm not aware of one. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have that with my bots, but I need decent shell access, as it is over the limit of my bot access (have to pull it manually out of the db). May try one of these days. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#visajourney.com. Turned out there that that site was also spammed unrelated to the paid editing spree a long time back (not saying that this is going to be the same, but I don't believe that this was altruism either). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per LK, sounds fine to me. Morphh (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support FWIW, I found this discussion in connection with Airline deregulation. The relevant Concise Encyclopedia page ( ...library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html ) certainly has a point of view, but refers to a bunch of relevant facts and references that the WP page does not cover, such that also reading the ConEnc page helps add useful context. Going back through the history we notice that this particular "See also" reference - the one JzG just removed - had been there AT LEAST since 2014 - it certainly was not placed as part of any RECENT spamming effort. I wanted to update the article using some of those facts, properly sourced, and couldn't due to the blacklist. The point of having the "See also" reference is so somebody could read the ENTIRE Concise Encyclopedia article to get more context - clicking an ISBN link doesn't cut it because current permissions don't allow Google to show more than a brief snippet. So I do support whitelisting, though I would prefer to just remove the blacklist. Blogjack (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this point. Where is this consensus? Why is a libertarian encyclopaedia reliable? Would you also include an anarchist encyclopaedia, the encyclopaedia of Occupy, or one run by the Fabian Society? Guy (Help!) 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think bias alone is enough to blacklist a source. The source should be used appropriately and bias noted where relevant. It can be useful for sourcing the libertarian opinion.Jonpatterns (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonpatterns: No, the abuse was the reason to blacklist. Much of the material on this site is easily replaceable. I stand with my caveat of showing that this is needed as it cannot be replaced, and that it is generally reliable what is published in the /enc trees. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This ^^^. Blacklisting is a response to abuse, bias mitigates against a broad whitelisting to enable a large proportion of the links to remain and continue to be added. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comment I was replying to was - Why is a libertarian encyclopaedia reliable? Would you also include an anarchist encyclopaedia, the encyclopaedia of Occupy, or one run by the Fabian Society?, this makes it sound like the main objection was bias. I don't think bias mitigates against a broad whitelisting. Also, where is the proof econlib was spammed? Jonpatterns (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Jonpatterns, the site was blacklisted because of the abuse. Now to whitelist you will need to show that it (or a part, or even one document on it) is needed so that we can need to take the risk to have (a portion of) the site whitelisted (and the broadness of the need will determine what needs to be whitelisted - the broader the whitelist the more 'space' there is for continued abuse as well, we'd prefer specific whitelistings for specific links on specific pages instead of blanket whitelisting of whole subtrees or even a whole site). That 'need' needs to show whether the material cannot be replaced (as said earlier, parts of the site is hosting copies of old economic works - which are a) linkable through ISBNs, or b) alternatively could even be uploaded on WikiSource - it would be convenient to link but not needed, there is no need to take a risk of having it abused again). Those parts are hence not 'needed', and we would be reluctant to whitelist. For the encyclopedia (or parts thereof) the argument is made that it is not replaceable and deemed reliable, and hence 'needed'. If either of these arguments fails (either the site is unreliable, or the information can be linked elsewhere; or both), we would not whitelist it (we're not here to play Whack-a-mole with external link/reference abusers - if you whitelist a tree it is equally open to them as it is to the users).
I am sure that User:JzG can show you cases where the editors (Riseissa, Vipul) have added the links that have subsequently been removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems most articles in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics are copyrighted. That leaves the possibility of referencing the book, or the web article without linking. Here is an example of an apparently high quality article on monetary policy econlib.org/library/Enc/MonetaryPolicy.html, it is written by James Tobin - who to my knowledge does not hold particularly libertarian views. Currently there is no user:Riseissa, but the account could have been deleted. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The user was banned. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why I am having a hard time assuming good faith re this source. During cleanup activities, I have found a very large number of {{cite encyclopaedia}} links to econlib, often but by no means always dded by the same editor (not Vipul). In many cases it is the only entry in "further reading". Big red flag for a site with an openly declared fundamentalist POV. In some cases, e.g. Road pricing, Congestion pricing, Traffic congestion, Rapid transit, Public transport, exactly the same econlib article has been linked from multiple articles, often on subjects where the economic POV is tangential and the fundamentalist libertarian economic POV even more so. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose whitelisting of an entire section. Individual pages/entries, if actually valuable, can be whitelisted upon evidence being provided of their actual value. --Calton | Talk 03:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Where is the evidence that CEE is not reliable? Where is the evidence for spamming? I don't think the opposers are familiar with economics or the CEE.

The CEE is run by a Libertarian group, but it includes articles authored by Keynesian and left-wing economists like James Tobin, Clinton-appointee Alan Blinder, and Obama's head of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer. The CEE is a freely-accessible, high-quality, reference work on economics. I think it's disturbing that we are blacklisting a site based on the ideological views it represents. This violates WP:NPOV.--Bkwillwm (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

whitelisting details[edit]

On a technical note the forward slash shouldn't be included at the end at "www.econlib.org/library/Enc" as some pages begin "www.econlib.org/library/Enc1", for example www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/NeoclassicalEconomics.html Jonpatterns (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the articles out of the encyclopedia, which is in itself a whole 'book'. Would one link to the book suffice? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article was just an example of part of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics that would be not be white-listed if the final forward slash is included. If you white list "www.econlib.org/library/Enc/" then links beginning with "www.econlib.org/library/Enc1" would still be blacklisted. Ie. white listing "www.econlib.org/library/Enc/" would not white-list the whole of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics as the proposal suggested.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I mean, it is a part of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Instead of whitelisting paths to each part, can we whitelist a top level only? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced. Is this actually a neutral encyclopaedia? The publishers ahve a clear and very strong POV, as do the authors of many of the articles (i.e. all of those I have checked to date). When the editors and authors of a thing all seem to share a strong and aligned POV, that does not often make for neutrality. At least not in areas like economics, where where there is no recourse to objective fact. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Guy has quite a task set-out for himself. Bibliography of encyclopedias lists 1,700 encyclopedias and I'm sure many of them are not neutral. So he ought to go through and blacklist those evil non-neutral sources. But wait – what is the WP policy that dictates that sources be neutral? (Hint, there is none.) WP policy dictates that editors use the sources neutrally, and doing so often entails presenting minority viewpoints. This effort to Blacklist a website that publishes original material from highly reliable sources is nothing less than censorship. (nd requiring editors to go through a process of whitelisting flies in the face the idea that WP is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. No! Requiring such approval means that self-appointed gate-keepers (not the community) must pass judgment on whether the particular page is "neutral", has "actual value", is "a libertarian think-tank of no obvious significance", etc. (PS: Thank you, Jonpatterns, for your listing. So far you've got one Nobel Prize winner and five university professors listed as authors of the particular CEE, now blacklisted, articles.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of spamming and bias[edit]

I've started compiling a list of when Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (CEC) links were added to check for spamming. It also lists author which may be useful for checking likely bias. User:Jonpatterns/Analysis_of_the_Concise_Encyclopedia_of_Economics. Editor are welcome to help.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on removal of black-listing[edit]

Please get this resolved!

The sponsor of Econlib is Liberty Fund. This organization is listed as number 74 out of the 150 Best Independent think tanks world-wide by the 2017 Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program listing. See: here, page 144. The organization is NOT some small fly-by night evil libertarian group, but is a valuable resource for readers. Come-on, PLEASE. Do the right thing and get their links off of the blacklist. Not doing so is wrong, and it only hampers editors who want to provide worthwhile material for the readers. The spamming issue is a red herring, nothing more. – S. Rich (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC) @Nyttend: 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 04:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am yet to see evidence of spamming, and claims of bias don't justify blacklisting.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALCON: I've posted a request at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Spam-blacklist Admin needed for assistance in getting econlib off the blacklist. – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I came here from WP:ANI. I also don't see any reason to remove it from the blacklist. If there's a good reason to whitelist a sub-part of the domain, then fine, but it looks like a lot of those texts are public domain and should therefore be available elsewhere (more information on this would be useful). So I think there's two possibilites - leave on blacklist, or whitelist the /Enc* part so that those texts can be referenced. What do other admins think? Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The one valid basis for blacklisting was the linkage to texts accessible through ISBNs. But even that basis is problematic because some of those Econlib supplied texts have commentary from Econlib authors (e.g., forwards and the like). The less drastic and disruptive anti-spamming effort of notifications to the spammers was not attempted. IMO Econlib in general is a valuable and useful resource for interested readers and the huge stumbling block of white-listing conflicts with the idea that WP is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". I am quite willing to do the heavy lifting of patrolling Econlib links in order to remove those books which should be listed by ISBNs. – S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics are copyright and have been used legitimately in many Wikipedia articles. Jonpatterns (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't looked closely enough to explicitly support or oppose removal, but I don't see convincing arguments for removal at first glance, and the reasons given for the initial listing look legit. Off-handedly, Black Kite and others' proposals sound good, to whitelist pages on that site with usable original content. Wholehearted support for the idea that links to public domain material should point to neutral sites when possible (Wikisource, Project Gutenberg, Internet Archive etc.) including by copying the materials to such sites when necessary. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the argument for blacklisting? The only reason tentatively given for blacklisting is the site might have been spammed to drive traffic. Jonpatterns (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles in the CEE are written by some of the top economists from across the ideological spectrum. The CEE is part of Libertarian site, and many of the articles do present a Libertarian perspective. However, there are also articles authored by Keynesian and left-wing economists like James Tobin, Clinton-appointee Alan Blinder, and Obama's head of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer. The CEE is a freely-accessible, high-quality, reference work on economics. I have not seen any evidence that editors have been involved in spamming. The burden should be on the blacklister to document the abuse, and any abuse should be dealt with by blocking editors, not blacklisting a reliable source.--Bkwillwm (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove EconLib.org and associated domains econlog.econlib.org/ EconLog and econlib.org/library/CEE Concise Encyclopedia of Economics from the spam blacklist? EconLib is often-referenced and generally well-regarded as a econlib.org/library/About.html source for libertarian, AND other economics articles. Yes, it is true that EconLog is a blog, but it is repeatedly included in the Wall Street Journal's Top 25 Economics Blogs. The description for econlib.org/library/About.html#CEE Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, edited by David R. Henderson, reads as follows: "This highly acclaimed economics encyclopedia was first published in 1993 under the title The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics. It features easy-to-read articles by over 150 top economists, including Nobel Prize winners, over 80 biographies of famous economists, and many tables and charts illustrating economics in action...the Econlib edition of this work includes links, additions, and corrections." Given that, it is absurd to see EconLib.org (listed as \beconlib\.org\b in the Spam-blacklist) included among blacklisted domains such as

  • \bfemalehongkongescort\.com\b
  • \b6minutestoskinnyreview\.org\b
  • \bislamhaters\.skyrock\.com\b
  • \bperfecthairtransplant\.com\b
  • \bshemalefuckfest\.com\b

EconLib doesn't belong there.

I realize that editor Vipul Naik has massively spammed links to econlib.org, econlong.econlib.org and CEE. I've seen the warnings. I also did some checking and found an awful lot of gratuitous links to the root and subdomain of econlib and econlog associated with article talk pages, user spaces of Vipul's and so forth, so I am totally sympathetic to this comment, written (persuasively) by Guy: "he spammed it multiple times - virtually every articles that he edited or wrote where it could possibly be crowbarred in, it was. And there are articles that had five or more External Links to econlib, but none to any other think tank. There is no doubt in my mind that this has been abused, whether through zealotry or whether it's spamming is pretty much immaterial". I am not a fan of libertarian economics or Bryan Caplan (who has an almost cult following in certain circles of Rationality), but all readers of Wikipedia shouldn't be forced to suffer because one (or several) editors find the site irresistible and spam it everywhere.

To quantify the extent of the spamming, of the first 500 occurrences in mainspace for EconLib.org/library (Concise Encyclopedia of Econ), 48 are in Vipul's user space.
The EconLog blog is more of a Vipul-related problem. Of the 78 occurrences in mainspace for econlog.econlib.org, over half (45) are in Vipul's own user space.
EDIT: I think that Beetstra confirmed this here, in August 2017, which I didn't notice until now...sorry.

Please, can something be done about this? I was editing the biography of mid-19th century economist and logician William Stanley Jevons. Look at the prominent display of relevant EconLib.org/library sources, plopped right on top of the page with the Category:Tagged_pages_containing_blacklisted_links. For that particular economist, Jevons, EconLib is one of the more accessible (comprehensive, no paywall) sources available, but we aren't allowed to reference it because of the obsessive spamming of the site by one (or a few?) editors.--FeralOink (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Oh wow, we have a celebrity economist and regulator with extremely high integrity among us, right here! I see the famous William K. Black as the author of the comment (Bkwillwm) immediately preceding my grumpy rant. VERY COOL! You are an economic and regulatory hero!--FeralOink (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vidme[edit]

Vidme is a growing video platform that many are seeing as a YouTube alternative. In recent years, many creators decide to jump ship to this site after the so-called "Adpocalypse". I'm trying to create an article, but, apparently, the link is blockbed. JWthaMajestic (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JWthaMajestic: no Declined, globally blacklisted,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain (you'll need an about page here).. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonrywatch[edit]

Editor is trying to circumvent blacklist by adding search-engine results. Trying to block some of these:

  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: \b(google
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: \b(google

--Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

indspy.com[edit]


Junk Indian blog site being added by IP addresses to multiple articles for a while - see [5] in December 2016 and this lovely masterpiece from today. Listed two IP's but it's been spammed by more. Ravensfire (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

basketballreference.com[edit]

Frequently added unreliable source.Burning Pillar (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Site is not unreliable, this was apparently posted in bad faith by user in line with similar questionable edit patterns. But I'm not an admin, so I can't close this obviously inappropriate request. Smartyllama (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should not be blacklisted. This site (and related sites for other sports) are often linked by sports reporters, especially for stat-oriented articles. Ravensfire (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was my error - the site is not as unreliable as I thought, and I should have made more research before asking(I did some research, but it seems to have been faulty).Burning Pillar (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Burning Pillar: We would not blacklist for being unreliable without a broad community consensus. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: Just to say that opinions and comments on these threads by non-admins are highly valued, it helps us in making quicker and more informed decisions on these cases. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

freemasonrywatch.org[edit]

I attempted to link to an article on the page but apparently the site is blocked although it is near the top of the results for searches in the subject on Bing.Phillip.13 (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Phillip.13: no Declined, too much abuse of this site,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
let's hat this totally derailed discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why does everyone article related to Freemasonry use dozens of websites from the same pro Masonic sources, but they are never considered to be 'problems' or 'spam'? Who placed the links or sources there? The initial edit I made was actually to a page about Fatima and I found it very odd that there was no mention about Freemasonry on any of the related pages. Pope Francis is to canonized two of the children Saints in May 13. They were arrested and threatened by their Mayor in a kind of Star Chamber. Sound familiar?,Phillip.13 (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Phillip.13: maybe because they were discussed, maybe because they were not pushed. Maybe you are right. It is however irrelevant: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You have to comment on the merit of this link (which was abused and caught). I don't feel te re-enable that abuse, but am willing to entertain single link inclusions, if a good case can be made. Hence the whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'You have to comment on the merit of the link' Really? You certainly didn't. No discussion. No explanation. 'Declined' Your 11 years on Wikipedia doesn't seem to amount to much. Like the Poppery character who patrols the page about Fatima and instantly deletes any edit from pro-Catholic sources with no discussion, like you.. And now you make an accusation about sickpuppetry on my talk page? You're an. Admin?? What a joke. A bad one. Freemasonrywatch.org is a good site with good information about Freemasonry that is difficult to come by. Including Freemasonry and Fatima. What pages on the site are spam and why? Who got the site put on the Blacklist and why? For siting articles on it as a source? You should go and become one of them with such instinctive reflexes. Phillip.13 (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedia Admins: I have no idea what a whitelist or a blacklist is, I just want to use articles in a particular website as sources and the edit feature won't let me. The website in question is prominent in the subject area and I consider it an authoritative resource. Any allegations of spam are likely very dubious and the product of bias and partisan activism on the part of Freemasons or hyper progressives or others. Please remove the site. The general public should be able to make edits without finding wasting their time like this. It's a good site.Phillip.13 (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what a blacklist is, yet you are here. You were pointed to the whitelist earlier.
I've commented on the merits of blacklisting: it was abused. I have not said the site was spammed. Now it is up to you to go to the whitelist and explain why the one link you want to add to that one page is indispensible.
Regarding the sockpuppetry: if it quacks like a WP:DUCK. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you big mouth? You obviously don't care about this website or it's research and articles being banned by Wikipedia. For absolutely no good reason it is obvious. You think it is reasonable to demand folks go page by page to some made up list and appeal? How about this slick you do your job properly and see if there is anything wrong with the site and if not then unban it. That's what an Encyclopdia Editor would do. Of course your not one are you. Like Poppery and the d.cks who banned this site and hundreds of others. Unban it!Phillip.13 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Phillip.13: Now, that is going to get you a lot of goodwill. Research was easy, still no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do your job properly slick. Should the website be banned or not? Stop the personal attacks. Stop kicking the ball to someone else. Stop being D.ck. Phillip.13 (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Phillip.13: Yes, it should be banned, as its abusers. Is that not clear from my decline? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

panendeism.org[edit]

Actually both panendeism.org and panendeism.webs.com, which are the same group. Spamming of website created to promote WP:NEOLOGISM on multiple wikis. Wikipedia: [6], [7]. Wikiquote: [8]. Wiktionary: [9], [10]. Wikiquote deletion proposal brought out a pack of sock/meatpuppets, so dealing with a single user won't do it. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyperbolick:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperbolick: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

expert-board.com[edit]

Spam for personal blog, 2 final warnings (the first immediate one was a bit harsh imo, so I added a second notice to explain the problem in more detail). Both warnings have been ignored. GermanJoe (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

infosecinstitute.com[edit]

This domain name infosecinstitute.com seems to be a reputable U.S. based organization, doing IT and information security training. Read more on that Wikipedia article. Also that domain name was repeatedly used as a source by well known notable mass medias, including Bloomberg News, Washington Post, Better Business Bureau (BBB), POLITICO, VICE News. Sources are in that Wikipedia article. But that domain name is listed on the wikipedia blacklist under \binfosecinstitute\.com\b Wikipedia article. But as of May 14, 2017 there are no log supporting why it was added. Maybe a typography, maybe a mistake, maybe an electronic glitch? I vote to remove infosecinstitute.com from the blacklist. Steps to reproduce error:

  1. Using Wikipedia Visual Editor, edit any Wikipedia article
  2. Added any link to infosecinstitute.com
  3. The following error message is return:

    Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.

  4. Expected result is that error should not be return. As that domain name seems to be about a reputable organisation.

Francewhoa (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Francewhoa: There is a log, which brings us to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jan_1.5#InfoSec_Institute. It was spammed, resulting in blacklisting. Very little use has been shown since (someone suggested that it could be a primary source sometimes). I'd suggest to  Defer to Whitelist for the cases that are really needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Beetstra:) Thanks for your reply and those useful links. I realize now that some blacklist logs were archived. I'll try to remember that next time I search those logs. Indeed according to that 2008 log, that domain name was abused by 4 anonymous users and 2 registered users. As of today May 14, 2018 only one of those user is still registered. And does not seem to have abuse that domain name since 2008. As for the other users, like you wrote there was little or no abuse for the last ~9 years. I'll try to suggest a whitelist. Francewhoa (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Francewhoa: there is also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infosec_Institute, though the situation may have changed dramatically since then.
Abuse is of course not obvious .. it cannot be abused as it is blacklisted. There may be things in the logs, but they are impossible to find.
I guess whitelisting the about page and maybe one or two defining documents on their servers as primary references for the article you wrote is enough for now. I don't know if there is much need for this on other articles. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra:) Thanks for the information about that 2006 deleted article. I was not involved back then 11 years ago. Maybe the 2006 contributor(s) wrote it in a fashion not complying with Wikipedia agreements. I don't know the details about the 2006 background and context. So I trust the contributors judgement back then. As for that 2017 article I contributed to it's all new content. I tried to add reputable sources to that 2017 article. The only whitelisting need for now is for that one Wikipedia article. I'm not aware of other needs for now. By the way I created the whitelist suggestion here. Thanks again for the suggestion. Francewhoa (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

digitalravan[edit]

Collecting here from socks.

--Dirk Beetstra T C 03:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disable linksummary, otherwise will not archive. Track otherwise. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mbbs-2017-admission[edit]

Being creative. Already blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've preemptively blacklisted .*admission.*mbbs.* as well. MER-C 12:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEETnews[edit]

  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: .*NEETnews.*

related spam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mbbs-donation[edit]

  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: .*mbbs.*donation.*
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: .*donation.*mbbs.*

Another one. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For XLinkBot[edit]

  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: mdms
  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: mbbs

May give some false positives, but this will not have this much extra use. These terms are nice for XLinkBot as such. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEETMEDICALADMISSION2017[edit]

  • Regex requested to be blacklisted: .*NEETMEDICALADMISSION.*

Another term. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tulamba.cf[edit]

tulamba.cf: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

An IP and a new editor are trying repeatedly to add this site as an "official" Web site to the article at Tulamba, when it is clearly a personal Web site under development. General Ization Talk 14:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. This should be enough for now to generate some warnings. If it persists ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian exam result spam[edit]

Various websites being spammed with exam results (really links to the official site), been removing these as I see them but enough articles were hit today that it's time to just block them. Generally from IP addresses but sometimes from one-shot new users. See recent history of SSLC, Haryana Board of School Education and Kerala State Education Board for some examples. Ravensfire (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 24 May 2017[edit]

Plz remove line \bimhabib\.com\b from this list. actually some months before I was editing some stuff then Wikipedia block this site plz unblock I hate spamming next time I will take care of this thanks Tkabadsha (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tkabadsha - Why do you need this website removed from the blacklist? Your request speaks of about how you "hate spamming" and how "next time [you] will take care of this" - this is definitely not what I want to read in an edit request to have a URL removed from the Spam Blacklist... not at all. You also speak nothing about the article subject that it would be useful and could used to properly reference, nor how it's secondary and reliable. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Your edit request is denied. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

imhabib.com[edit]

Plz remove line \bimhabib\.com\b from this list. actually some months before I was editing some stuff then Wikipedia block this site plz unblock I hate spamming next time I will take care of this thanks Tkabadsha (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkabadsha: no Declined. this was plain reference spamming, the link is not appropriate for what it was used, not relevant to the subject, let alone suitable as a reference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

opposingviews.com[edit]

I'm wondering why opposingviews.com is banned? It is cited in Cockfight#India but without the url unfortunately. I can't see any reason to exclude this website eg Wikipedia_WikiProject Spam_LinkReports_opposingviews.com tells me nothing obvious. Over to youse... DadaNeem (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DadaNeem: I am surprised that you say that the report is not telling you anything obvious. It shows edits by User:Paperbroke1, who in mainspace (see contribs) ONLY added links to this site. In short, this has been spammed. no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on; you're saying that because 1 user spammed to this site (in 1 hour on July 29, 2008), all users are forbidden to link to it? DadaNeem (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DadaNeem: No, that is not what I said. We also have, from said report that you could not extract anything obvious from, Special:Contributions/71.189.35.12, Special:Contributions/MisterFine (who identifies as 'Russell' here, the CEO of opposingviews is Russell Fine; see Opposing Views), Special:Contributions/Themikeman24, Special:Contributions/216.135.176.107 (the latter showing that XLinkBot here alone was not enough). What the (previous version of) the report also shows you is that these were the only editors that were using the link up to the time it got first revertlisted, then blacklisted. Since then there have been only three whitelist requests, none of them granted. Hence my suggestion to see whether whitelisting of specific links for specific targets sticks, and if it turns out that most whitelisting requests are granted, we can consider de-blacklisting (which has to happen on meta, it is not blacklisted here anyway). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well Dirk, I think I would need a tutorial to find what you found at Wikipedia_WikiProject Spam_LinkReports_opposingviews.com The whole process seems Byzantian. I would also appreciate a reply from you that is easier to follow. Perhaps it's because it's late here-I will come back to it tomorrow. ;) DadaNeem (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DadaNeem: The previous version of the report lists the edits in which the link was added, together with who, and when (that was the report you initially saw, it has been updated since, and the bot has a new database since then). From that list, you find 4-5 editors who only have as a focus adding this link. You then go through the editors' edits, and see what else they say/do. That leads you quickly to the above information. Multiple editors who focus on adding one link and nothing else, defying XLinkBot is more than sufficient reason to blacklist a link - even moderately useful ones. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, that report also says the site is blacklisted here and on meta. Even if it was removed from our blacklist, I believe the meta one would still block it. Ravensfire (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thereviewgurus.com[edit]

spammed by

Promotional review site conveniently linking to Amazon shop offers. No author info, no credentials, no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 06:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

primewire.ag[edit]

Site appears to host videos for download in violation of copyrights. Site appears to contain malware. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May_2017&oldid=1108730192"