Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Wikibirthdays[edit]

Wikibirthdays says it gets its content from Wikipedia, and I've just cleaned up a bunch of citation spam. This even includes adding spam links to an unrelated template and hitting the same article multiple times (1, 2). Note that the first spam link was not reverted; the same website is spammed twice in the lead section. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: per the COIBot report:  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate:  Done on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fineartbartending.ca[edit]

fineartbartending.ca: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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

This is a bartending school website. The school has been operating for 38 years in Vancouver. I see the site was flagged for spam in March 2011 when the site had different owners. The website has been redesigned 3 times now, and the school itself has changed owners twice. The bartending school is independently owned and operated. It is just a small business. The school continues to train students on a weekly basis and refers to cocktail recipes regularly found on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchstone (talk • contribs) — Winchstone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose Spammed by multiple IPs; links to this site would serve no useful purpose on Wikipedia; that the school refers to cocktail recipes on Wikipedia is irrelevant. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ohnoitsjamie, Please provide evidence of 'Spammed by multiple IPs'. Being blacklisted because in your opinion the reference to cocktail recipes is 'irrelevant' seems to be unfair. Please back up any specific references with data. Winchstone 21:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchstone (talk • contribs)
I have a better question: What is your relationship to the website or its operators, Winchstone? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 23:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The spammed links (e.g. Special:Diff/417135666, Special:Diff/418004020) are to blog posts that serve as content marketing for the business. The links were spammed by single-purpose accounts, too. I see no valid use case for links to this domain. — Newslinger talk 23:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advameg sites (city-data.com, filmreference.com, etc.)[edit]

  • Task: To disallow Main article space edits which include links to these sites, and particularly to prevent them from being used as references.
  • Reason: The Advameg sites listed below have been described in many prior discussions as a content farm primarily designed to bring visitors to advertisers. They are often brought to attention in spam reports, reliable sources discussions, and related to copyright violations. The data is not attributed to specific authors, there appears to be no editorial policy, and some data is user-generated - making them unreliable sources. In some cases, they should be considered WP:TERTIARY sources. Below is a (possibly incomplete) list of websites (taken from www.advameg.com/) which should be blocked, along with links to prior discussions involving them that I could find (feel free to add others). --Netoholic @ 17:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Site list[edit]

  • americanforeignrelations.com [1]
  • bankencyclopedia.com
  • biologyreference.com
  • chemistryexplained.com
  • city-data.com [2][3]
  • currency-conversion.info
  • deathreference.com [4]
  • discoveriesinmedicine.com
  • drug-data.com
  • everyculture.com
  • faqs.org [5]
    • faqs.org/allusions/
    • faqs.org/childhood/
    • faqs.org/collective-nouns/
    • faqs.org/espionage/
    • faqs.org/health/
    • faqs.org/health-encyc/
    • faqs.org/minorities/
    • faqs.org/nutrition/
    • faqs.org/ologies-isms
    • faqs.org/people-search/
    • faqs.org/sports-science/
    • faqs.org/time/
  • fashionencyclopedia.com
  • filmreference.com [6][7][8][9]
  • foodbycountry.com
  • healthofchildren.com
  • humanillnesses.com
  • lovetheoutdoors.com
    • lovetheoutdoors.com/fly-fishing/
  • madehow.com [10]
  • minddisorders.com
  • musicbanter.com
  • mythencyclopedia.com
  • nationsencyclopedia.com
  • newsearching.com
  • nonprofitfacts.com
  • notablebiographies.com [11]
  • patentsencyclopedia.com
  • photo-dictionary.com
  • pollutionissues.com
  • presidentprofiles.com
  • pressreference.com
  • readabstracts.com
  • referenceforbusiness.com [12][13]
  • scienceclarified.com
  • shareranks.com
  • siteencyclopedia.com
  • surgeryencyclopedia.com
  • thegardenhelper.com
  • trademarkencyclopedia.com
  • unexplainedstuff.com
  • unit-conversion.info
  • waterencyclopedia.com
  • weatherexplained.com
  • whatdoesthatmean.com
    • whatdoesthatmean.com/dictionary/


Discussion[edit]

Moved this request from Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_13#Advameg sites (city-data.com, filmreference.com, notablebiographies.com, etc.). -- Netoholic @ 17:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo .. User:Netoholic, can you please look at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/12#encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com .. that list corrolates to the list below. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: as above list dates back 12 years ago, and the people who were handling that at that time are not here anymore, maybe you can help to have a look? I will poke COIBot on the domains mentioned there, and below domains should generate reports now at well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advameg sites - full set[edit]

As the request on the edit filter request page (mentioned above) was closed referring it back here, compiling here a full list for tracking and script-assisted blacklisting. Ping Netoholic. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adsense and webbugs[edit]

For tracking this, these seem to be common on large subsets of these sites. This links back then to many other sites and cases as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting[edit]

This was archived without action (neither rejection nor acceptance). Relisting for clarity. -- Netoholic @ 20:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

zenodo.org[edit]

Emergency blacklisting while we work out what's going on with this site, which hosts significant numbers of scientific papers marked as copyright by major publishers (Elsevier, Nature, OUP etc) with no evidence of rights release. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 18:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is supposed to be an open science data repository. Looks like it is abused. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that the intention of Zenodo is good. Also, many journals now allow authors to post their own papers, sometimes after an appropriate delay. Please get this figured out before too many links are removed, and we have to go figure out how to get them back! Gah4 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on their own departmental websites, but the legality of this is highly questionable, since a lot of them are papers published by Elsevieer, Nature and other publishers well known to be evil about copyright. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here[1] is the Elsevier policy. It doesn't sound too evil to me, as long as the use is non-commercial. The APS[2] also has a policy, and I presume others that I didn't look up, also have one. Gah4 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is one positive the Citation Bot trims the URLS to the landing page. It makes them shorter (original intent) and it means wilipedia does not link directly to a PDF (unexpected positive). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why we cannot link to the originals in stead of linking to sites where the hosting of content is questionable (and that includes replacing links with appropriate direct links to originals). Even if it turns out to be fine on quite some occasions, there is no pressing need for them, and there is no reason to even consider taking the 'risk'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If people have them on their personal site, or school site, then link there. I was suspecting that these were put their by the author, but actually have no idea how they got there. I just know that I keep seeing on my watchlist links going away, and wondered why. How many such links are there? Who volunteers to find other sites hosting them and change the links? Gah4 (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Around a thousand links, a lot added by one editor who has... issues with the reality of copyright in academia. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably can get most non-violating content with github links. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree with even temporary blacklisting of this. Sure, there are some papers there that shouldn't be, so what? We might just as well blacklist Wikimedia Commons because it also has some content that is copyvio, ditto for Wikipedia itself. Volunteers/staff here and there are doing their best to remove infringing content. That should be sufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Personal use". Elsevier. Retrieved 6 November 2018.
  2. ^ "Editorial: APS now leaves copyright with authors for derivative works". APS. Retrieved 6 November 2018.
  •  Reopening this discussion was blacklisted as emergency measure and meant to have a resolution discussion. It would not appear that this has had a resolution that would be a consensus for blacklisting prior to being archived. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think we can justify any blacklisting without specific problematic cases having been brought up. In the case of Zenodo, its very purpose is (to quote from enwp) "to deposit data sets, research software, reports, and any other research related digital artifacts", so no surprise seeing any of these in there. Even large numbers should not come as a surprise, as depositing in repositories like Zenodo is a requirement by some, not only by journals but also funders and institutions. As for copyright, publishers are not the only ones having a say in this — funders and institutions are included in that as well, as is the country of Switzerland, where Zenodo is hosted. I checked a number of usages on enwp and could not find any that were pointing to problematic content. Based on that, I think we should lift the blacklisting immediately and then discuss on the basis of concrete examples as to whether there is any need for further action. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not in favour of (temporary) emergency measures, then walk away. I agree with Daniel Mietchen that this should be removed (emergency over), and if there is reason to blacklist, then ahve the discussion to do so. I have no personal opinion on the site itself. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Mietchen, Piotrus, Billinghurst, JzG, Gah4, AManWithNoPlan, and Nemo bis: Seen the TBAN that is in place on Nemo bis, I am going to remove this as the 'emergency' that lead to this has been resolved. I do urge people to be careful with what is exactly linked to on this site, and how it is being linked to (it is nice to link to freely accessible copies, but it is not a necessity). Our copyright policy is more strongly worded than what is legally needed ("if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" (my bolding)), but this is not the place to fight over that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention in my previous message that I actually minus Removed this from the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I asked here first when I saw many from articles on my watch list going away at (about) the same time. I suspect that there are sites with the specific goal of hosting papers that they don't have copyright for, but I didn't think this was one. Also, the ones I was noticing at the time were many years old, which matters to some journals. More recently (unrelated to zenodo) there is a paper that I actually got permission from the author, but one editor still keeps removing the links, and even threatening to block me. Gah4 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

victor-mochere.com[edit]

victor-mochere.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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

Non-RS blog/news aggregator persistently being added to William Ruto as a source of content suggesting misdeeds on the part of the subject. See victor-mochere.com/about-me for confirmation that it is a personal blog (on steroids).General Ization Talk 18:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was as a result of a shared computer that initiated the persistent changes, that has been resolved and won't happen again. The site has information that is very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talk • contribs) 05:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

femina[edit]

Seems to be an attack website. --Moxy (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: This is the website of Femina (India). Also subject of a current discussion Here on RSN. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The archived noticeboard discussion at "Use of blogs for sourcing height in BLPs" indicates that Femina is a usable source. The domains don't appear to be compromised by attackers, or attacking other subjects. Perhaps this filing was a mistake? — Newslinger talk 09:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

molbase.com[edit]

Just wondering, why is molbase.com on the list? I tried to link to a chemical formula there. As well as I know, chemical formulae can be patented, but not copyrighted. Gah4 (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From June 2014 blacklist log: \bmolbase\.com\b # Materialscientist # spamdatabase for selling chemicals OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gah4: I think you misunderstand the general purpose of the spam blacklist. This list is here mainly to avoid additions of links that are being spammed (i.e. where there are editors that are adding these links for promotional purposes where it is difficult or useless to control by other measures). This list is not primarily here for blocking offensive or spammy content - by far most of the material blocked here is because of abuse, we do not go around the web looking for links which are deemed not useful or offensive. Zenodo was (emergency) blacklisted because of one editor adding those links where many were deemed inappropriate, this was likely also added because one or multiple editors were just here to add such links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I first found out about this page from zenodo (see above). I wanted a page to link to with a chemical structure, and molbase.com came up in a web search, and had nice diagrams. If I knew how to make nice chemical diagrams, I might have just done that, but I don't. (I think there is special software to do it.) After zenodo, I thought it was copyright related, and couldn't figure that out. They do give nice structure diagrams, and other properties of each chemical, with a large collection of chemicals on one site. There are links about buying them, but I wasn't interested in that. I don't do a lot of chemical links, but it would be nice to have a good place to link for chemicals. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gah4: that is why I clarified: most of the material on this list because it was being pushed onto Wikipedia and this is then the last control measure. Copyright violations are only rarely the main issue. Regarding molbase, there are many, many alternatives, including drawing it (there is a request page for chemical drawings somewhere) and linking to non selling-focused sites. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't know about a drawing request site. I ended up linking to nih.gov, which seemed a little strange, as I don't know why they are doing photographic chemistry. I tend not to think about link spamming by others, since it isn't something I think about doing myself. It is sometimes nice to know about how much something costs, though. The ones I was linking were for color developer chemistry, where it is much easier, and usually cheaper, to buy them already mixed. Gah4 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

alsterworthia.wordpress.com[edit]

At Aloeae, the journal article at [alsterworthia.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/alsterworthia-v15-1.pdf] appears in a blacklisted notice. I've never encountered this before, but this is a respectable journal whose back numbers are online at [alsterworthia.files.wordpress.com]. I can see no reason for it to be blacklisted. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, it's not the "alsterworthia" part of the domain name that's triggering it, but rather the "files" part. I'm assuming there was some abuse involving directly linking to file resources from within Wordpress domains (maybe to circumvent blacklisting of the main domain). In any case, it's probably easier to defer to the whitelist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead and Ohnoitsjamie: As you were able to link to it, clearly not blacklisted. Likely something else there that was a problem. If it is just a notice, just remove it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: ok, have done. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

victor-mochere.com (Removal)[edit]

This website was blacklisted. The issued was as a result of a shared computer that initiated the persistent changes. It seems like an attack on the site. The site has information that is very useful.

Oppose While the site may have "information that is useful", it is (and advertises itself) as a personal blog (built in WordPress) under the control of one individual (Victor Mochere). As such, it is not a reliable source for any content in Wikipedia. See User generated content. Links to the site were being used by multiple IPs in multiple articles to make otherwise unverified and potentially defamatory claims concerning a number of African political figures. Hence the lack of reliability of this source is not trivial. Presumably if someone sees something on this site they think should be discussed in Wikipedia they can find the information on the Web site of a reliable source and use that source here, rather than a personal blog. General Ization Talk 17:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't see where the site advertises itself as a personal blog and the secondly, the link that was being re-added was not to "a number of African political figures" but one political figure. The link did not contain a "defamatory claims" but a list of properties owned by the individual. I think more should be done on curbing site attacks by IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the site has been rebuilt in just the past few days. However, due to the wonders of the Wayback Machine, we can see what I saw on 8 April here. "This is my personal blog where I offer my own musing on topics periodically.I do not restrict myself on topics that I write on." That's pretty definitive, don't you agree? Secondly, please review the following diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I won't argue about the whether the content at all of these links was accurate and/or defamatory, frankly because I don't have time to read through all of the content at the links or their archives. However, links to the site were clearly not all on a single topic, nor all placed by the same IP, nor all placed within the same week. I think we can agree that the phrase "[Ruto's] fortune can be attributed to a tyranny of companies he owns and major stakes he has in some of the best grossing companies in Kenya. Though some are of the opinion that he has used uncouth means to acquire his vast wealth." is potentially defamatory. And, most importantly, the very nature of the site does not meet the requirements for reliable sourcing here. General Ization Talk 19:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The blog might have been a personal blog before, which later become an informational blog. The nature of content it has is not of personal opinion despite using a name of a person, just like 'Perez Hilton'. And what can't be disputed is that the information can be verified from media/research/news outlets and often references to the sources have been used. Such information can be material and of use, now and in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have both fully stated our cases; at this point, it is up to the admins who manage the blacklist. However, and with all due respect, do you have any relationship with the Web site and/or its producer(s)? It does seem peculiar that you appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, to challenge the listing of the site, having made no other edits using this account. General Ization Talk 19:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no relationship whatsoever with the site or its owners. I don't know if the IPs used were blocked or not, but there's a loophole being used to site attack websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talk • contribs) 20:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the only edits you have made have been to try to get this website off the blacklist. Usually, an editor who isn't involved with the website directly doesn't come here with a one-track mind to try to reverse the blacklisting the moment it happens. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Authors subpage was informative about the nature of this site. Retain on blacklist. Ravensfire (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I own a cyber cafe, and I have seen this guy who comes and engages in some sort of vandalism on pages using different stations. I got concerned because I have benefited from the site before when I was stuck and thought this was unfair. Regardless, if the blacklist is lifted or not, it doesn't matter to or benefit me. But, I think people can easily use loopholes on Wikipedia to try and attack or block out sites or people. And that is very wrong. You should work out on mechanisms to prevent that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talk • contribs) 05:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that multiple IPs - which generally means multiple physical locations, at the least - were involved in this, as was indicated above, and your full-throated efforts to defend the site - which would pretty much never be usable on Wikipedia save for (maybe) an article about the blog's author (for which we have a whitelist) - I'm afraid none of that statement really washes what-so-ever. I'm not buying the "cyber cafe owner" claim, since if that's the case, why go to such great lengths to try to unblacklist a website that has no impact on your business other than a regular uses it to spam Wikipedia, which would in turn lead to the cybercafe's IP being blocked?
And that's the whole thing here. The explanations you give would require absurd logical leaps and bounds, and for that I see your claims of "loopholes" and such to be little more than a diversion. If it is as you say, that you are a cyber cafe owner, than you gain absolutely nothing from trying to get a website that has been spammed un-blacklisted almost immediately after the blacklisting, since the alternative to blacklisting is to block all IPs involved (which by your own admission includes your cafe's), and this entire exchange - which, mind you, is publicly viewabale (even if this page is NOINDEXed) - shows that you're perfectly happy to allow someone to spam Wikipedia from your cafe, and a page that's essentially an attack ad, no less. So forgive me for being blunt, but you're quite blatantly lying to us. What is your actual connection to the website? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 06:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also – assuming that anecdote is true – do your customers know that you, as the owner of the cyber cafe they are patronizing, are looking over their shoulders? That's a good way to find yourself out of the cyber cafe business. General Ization Talk 01:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done No evidence that the site has any value for Wikipedia at this time. Pretty obvious WP:COI in removal request. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevinwanzira: no Declined, as I explained here: it does not matter how the links were added, our only concern here is to stop unwanted additions of links. Removals are only entertained if there is value to Wikipedia in having the links beyond a level that can be handled by occasional whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

immigrationvoice.org[edit]

This entry was swept into the blacklist in March 2017, purportedly as part of a list of websites that sell legal services related to immigration. However, this website belongs to a registered not-for-profit advocacy organization that has worked on introducing bills[1] and has intervened in litigation related to immigrants' rights[2][3]. Research published on this website has been cited by many others including the U.S. Congress[4] and the director of a U.S. Government agency[5], presenting a strong case that the content on this website would be useful to link to on Wikipedia.

This website does not sell legal services. Because of the nature of this website and the non-profit organization that runs it, lumping it with the other entries was inappropriate (any perceived superficial similarities notwithstanding). A blacklist addition proposal for this website alone would not be strong enough to withstand scrutiny, because of the historically low level of spam relative to other entries on that list, and because the stated reasons for the other entries (selling legal services, SEO, and all valid content being available elsewhere) do not apply here.

For the aforementioned reasons, this website should be removed from the English Wikipedia blacklist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.38.241 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ https://lofgren.house.gov/media/press-releases/lawmakers-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-eliminate-arbitrary-country-limits
  2. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/04/07/more-than-200000-foreign-spouses-could-lose-their-right-to-work-under-trump/
  3. ^ Save Jobs USA v. United States Department of Homeland Security (D.C. Cir, USCA Case #16-5287).
  4. ^ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45447
  5. ^ https://cis.org/Transcript/Immigration-Newsmaker-Conversation-Director-USCIS-Francis-Cissna
Opposed was black listed because it's self-generated Wiki style Pages were being placed everywhere.....//immigrationvoice.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page immigrant voice wiki . --Moxy 🍁 14:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If your concern is about wiki pages hosted there (WP:ELNO), then I would propose resolving this by changing the blacklist entry to immigrationvoice.org/wiki/ and not the entire domain. I noticed the blacklist does contain several entries that are similarly limited to subdirectories that contain user-generated content (not the entire domain), so there is plenty of precedent for this kind of resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.35.142 (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@172.58.38.241: no Declined. Declared paid editing ring spamming a lot of these. No real foreseeable use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other than links to that website's front page (WP:ELOFFICIAL), all past links were pointing to a wiki hosted on that website, and a majority of them were to one specific page on that wiki. When a fellow contributor specifically pointed this out, I proposed an alternate resolution in good faith to only blacklist the wiki subdirectory, rather than the entire domain.
I couldn't help but notice you said "a lot of these", without responding to any of my reasoning on why this website (which belongs to a registered not-for-profit organization advocating for immigrants' rights in the United States) should not have been lumped in a category of other websites that are run for profit. When explaining my reasoning, I took care to cite sources listed as reliable on WP:RSP, as well as public-domain research undertaken by a non-partisan U.S. Government agency which specifically links to pages on this domain, in order to show that this website has useful content. Seeing as reliable sources consider the content on this website (outside its wiki) useful, you should explain your reasons as to why you still believe that all content on this website would have "no real use" on Wikipedia. Your reasoning should stand on its own for this website, and not based on superficial similarities with any other domains (and must be consistent with WP:WORLDVIEW).
My proposed alternate resolution of only blacklisting the wiki subdirectory on this domain (and not the entire domain) meets the guidelines for blacklist removals, does it not? It can be useful on Wikipedia because reliable sources have found the content useful; and future spam/abuse will not occur because the data shows that past spamming was limited to the wiki subdirectory (which would still be blacklisted). Where is the point of disagreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.148.101.134 (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@204.148.101.134: I know that your reasoning was like that, but my point of 'a lot of these' was that they were all immigration related sites. The editing ring was also adding material that was not immigration related. To expand: these were declared paid editors, which means that someone was paying them to create wikipedia pages for a specific goal. This is one of the websites that we saw them adding. Do you have any reason to believe that this was just collateral damage, or whether people with an interest in this site actually paid these editors to make sure this was linked? This has nothing to do with the point that some material on the external site may be 'bad', this has only to do with who added this site and under which premises they were adding this site. To me, there is a significant chance that these editors were also paid to add this specific site.
I still need to see whether this will get some real use, and for now a couple of whitelist requests should suffice (for that:  Defer to Whitelist). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

foodbycountry.com[edit]

This an extremely useful website for people researching cuisine of different countries. It should be removed from the blacklist, as it does not have any questionable content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prachigaur (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prachigaur: Advameg advertising sites. no Declined, spammed (note that I found discussions going 12 years back regarding these sites). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dynamiclinic.com[edit]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that 39.41.1.79 (talk · contribs) deleted this section. - MrOllie (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mangauk.com[edit]

Official site to the UK branch of Manga Entertainment, appears to be a false positive as the US branch's website (Dispute sharing the same name and logo, is owned by a different company) works just fine. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LTPHarry: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain, this was large-scale spammed to Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemawoods.net[edit]

Cinemawoods.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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

5 Months ago, I made a Mistake!! I DONT KNOW HOW TO EDIT Wikipedia PAGES. I clicked edit and I Randomly placed the news articles links in References on Wikipedia Pages.

I'm Extremely Sorry About That and My website Cinemawoods.net is added to Spam list... I Don't Know What to Do... The Links that I added are 'Not Spam links'.. It just News article about upcoming Tamil Movies. My website is added to the spam list because I Just don't know the proper way to add the References. Please Help Me to remove my website from the Spam list.


I will not do this again. Next Time, I will do in Proper Way by adding info/Updates about the Movie and add Reference for the Source. I will Help with what i can by updating Upcoming Tamil movies Pages on Wikipedia.

Please help and Thank You..

Websites are not removed from the blacklist at the site owners' request. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help Sir.. I don't have any motive of Spamming.. this all happened because i don't know to edit the page... i am Just an average 15 years old kid Sir..

 Not done We don't add links to the blacklist because someone "accidentally" added one link to a page. We added it to the blacklist because you spammed the hell out of it all over the place. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I saved the Same page (Sandakozhi 2 and Adhik Ravichandran) Again and Again with some minor edits.. i am really Sorry about that.. and i will not do this again.. Please Help

Your last account was unblocked on the condition that you would stop trying to add links to your website and make other edits instead. You agreed, saying "yes, i can do that without adding my website." Now you are wasting our time bugging us about your website? This account and your former account will be indefinitely blocked if you waste any more of our time on this topic. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i am saying it agian, I will Edit pages without adding my website Links. What if someone wants to add a news article from wesbite in References for Source ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayaMari860 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now i Know my wesbite is small, I am sure in Future it will grow big in my Niche (Tamil Cinema) and i will make my site become one of leading tamil cinema news portals.. and i dont want my site in wikipedia spam list because of mistake i made..

@JayaMari860: If someone else want to add this site, they will either ask for whitelisting of that one link only, or they will ask for de-listing. That request will be evaluated on the merit of that current request. We are not delisting because of some possible future use, we are not de-listing because of requests made by the spammer in the first place. There is no use in persisting further, this is plainly no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


OK Sir.. Thanks for Your Time and Sorry for wasting your time... and i m not a spammer.. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayaMari860 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Business Research[edit]

Looks like the URL wbresearch.com was added to blacklist page because a Wikipedia page was created for Worldwide Business Research in 2007 that was too promotional and not informative enough.

Worldwide Business Research (WBR) is a conference company that creates and runs B2B conferences and their brands. It is also referenced as the organizer of one of its brands Etail Conferences.


Trying to have it removed from the blacklist so that a request can be added to have a neutral and fact driven page created for this company. Thank you for your help, and happy to provide any additional information.

ckarayannides [[User talk:ckarayannides|Talk 16:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wasn't blacklisted because the page creation was "not informative enough." It was blacklisted because multiple accounts attempted to spam links to it, mostly to wbr.co.uk (links to the same site). OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, I see. Thanks for your comment. Sorry, I had read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Worldwide_Business_Research that there was an issue with the material. There might be another page with more details.

I never saw the original page, but my assumption is that whoever spammed the page back in 2007 will not spam it if is removed from the blacklist. Let me know if this is appropriate. Thank you! ckarayannides Talk17:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined At present, there isn't any use for those links in Wikipedia. If you just want to remove it from the blacklist to create an article about your company, your best bet would be to submit the article first to WP:AFC, providing the necessary 3rd party reliable sources to indicate how the company meets WP:CORP notability criteria. If the article is accepted for submission, we could whitelist a link to it or unblacklist it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will do! Thanks for the info. ckarayannides Talk 14:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ad2brand.com[edit]

Repeated spamming and advertising for a SEO. Several warnings and a block (see Chachitmang) have been ignored. New spam attempt (hidden as Wiki-link) in Kharadi. GermanJoe (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

freesoftware99.com[edit]

See User:Mdtanvir99, where Mdtanvir99 added promotional spam to their userpage for the site in question. The userpage has been marked for G11. See diffs on their userpage first diff (with 104 links to the site) and second diff (they removed and replaced with just one link). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

company-histories.com[edit]

The noticeboard RfC at WP:RSN § Rfc: company-histories.com showed strong consensus to blacklist the domain as a copyright violation of Gale's International Directory of Company Histories. — Newslinger talk 19:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --— JJMC89 (T·C) 03:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2019

Leave a Reply