aiouupdates.com: 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
Continued despite warnings, while mainly on Allama Iqbal Open University they have spammed link to other articles. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
We are trying to create page Clickexcel.com on wikipedia but shows that site is black listed please go someone through this and help us to create page and remove domain clickexcel from blacklist— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatikdm ( talk • contribs)
I just tried to create a reference to sermonaudio.com. It told me this site was blacklisted and it would not allow me to save the page. This seems clearly wrong to me, as Sermon Audio is not a spammer but a well-respected source of sermons and other Christian podcasts. Thus, I went to the blacklist log to see why it was blacklisted, and sermonaudio.com does not exist on that list. Is there something wrong with the blacklist check, or is this site actually blacklisted but does not appear in the log, so I should log it in the requested removal section? Fool4jesus ( talk) 16:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Fool4jesus:
In short, this was repeatedly added by IPs, and re-added after they were removed. It involves here in the mentioned edits a period of 3 years. I see multiple reports, with multiple IPs. That is enough to get this listed as blocking the IPs likely is not resolving anything, reverting them (botwise (which was tried) or humanwise) has shown not to work. I can combine that with the observation that in 8 years no-one cared enough to have it linked anywhere (as there are no whitelisting requests). Again, for specific links, Defer to Whitelist .. lets see if some of these stick. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
dyingscene.com: 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
OK, this is long — really sorry about that. But this has been discussed a few times, and I wanted to do it the right way, and hopefully have all the material here so it's easier to see why I think we should take this site off the blacklist and doesn't take too much effort to go through the history.
Dying Scene is a punk music website with reviews, news, interviews, sessions with musicians, that sort of thing. Since I edit some punk-related music articles, I'd like to cite reviews and interviews from the site (as would quite a few other people, see below). It was blacklisted in November 2009 by User:Ohnoitsjamie ( link) for "repeat spamming of NN zine" — from digging through the record I think everyone agrees that the site spammed Wikipedia around 2009 and so the initial blacklist was deserved. (I'm definitely not defending any of his behavior in spamming Wikipedia, and I have no connection to Dying Scene myself other than as a punk fan who wants to write about punk articles and cite some of their pages.)
Links from the site have been whitelisted on a couple of occasions ( whitelist discussion 1, whitelist discussion 2), which implies to me some acceptance that there is citation-worthy material on the site (see also #2 below). There have been discussions about potentially taking it off the blacklist since the owner of the site admitted to spamming, apologized for doing so, and said he wouldn't do it anymore ( discussion 1). This was denied, with one of the admins stating that if a "trusted, high volume editor" requested that the site be removed from the blacklist, it would be "considered favourably". This was restated in the next discussion with the original admin who blacklisted the site ( User:Ohnoitsjamie) denying the request as a "trusted, high-volume editor" did not make the request and questioning the value of the site ( discussion 2, see also discussion 3). A few more editors with more history on the site requested that it be removed from the blacklist, which were again denied ( discussion 4, discussion 5). Specifically, one of the admins ( User:Beetstra) asked "whether the community, at large, finds individual links useful". The request was again made in 2015 to take it off the blacklist again, which was again denied due to concerns of notability ( discussion 6).
Sorry to rehash all that history, but I wanted to try to make this a little clearer since it took me a long time to figure out why this was blacklisted in the first place and I wanted to make it easier on you all when thinking about whether to take this off the blacklist or not. To specifically address the points above that led to this site remaining on the blacklist in previous discussions:
So that's my argument for taking it off the blacklist. I think the most likely scenario is that people like me and the above posters are able to use material from Dying Scene to improve Wikipedia, but if it becomes a problem in the future then you can put it right back on the blacklist and be done with the topic for good, since they'll have received their (in my mind, reasonable) second chance. If that doesn't happen, I think people are going to continue to post here asking for it to be taken off the blacklist as they have been intermittently for the last few years. Thanks for considering, Kyle Barbour 06:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This looks to be a valid link for the page of L. Fletcher Prouty (I think he'd be known as the Mr. X of the movie JFK to many people). As far as I can tell, it was his website prior to his death and has been maintained for his legacy. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 05:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, gotcha. That was all I was trying to do was include that link anyway. Thanks @ Beetstra:! I've been around for awhile, and I don't normally see a plain personal website that's blacklisted. If this needs to be re-examined, fine, but I don't need the whole domain. I don't see the point in a blacklist of this entire site, but so be it if it's got "serious problems." I like to saw logs! ( talk) 18:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
ikancomel.tk: 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
Garbled blog composed of copyvios from across the net, repeatedly refspammed into species articles. AT least one IP globally blocked [3] but comes back under new IP, most recent here: [4] -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Trying to link to this site, to display of a petition that is mentioned in an article. I can't see where the site was ever blacklisted, but I do think it holds historical data that can be beneficial to readers. There are currently 100's of links to change.org, not sure why I can't add this one to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Forever_(U.S._TV_series)
-- Saariko ( talk) 11:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
ddfreedishnews.com: 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
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KhaasBanda ( talk • contribs)
Also:
-- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Beetstra: Reporting ddfreedish.blogspot.com spam link which redirects to ddfreedishnews.com. KhaasBanda ( talk) 04:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This site "triggered a protection filter" while i was trying to use it as a source. I would like to know the reason why it was blocked. Is there a list that shows blacklisted sites with the reasons that we can see? If there is, we may use it before using those sites in the first place. It seemed awkward to me, because there are lots of sites that are similar to this site that are not blocked. Thank you. - Avatar 9n 13:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
IP found it necessary to spam a redirect shortly after having been given a final warning. User blocked, but lets see how far this reaches. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
And attempting to add bit.ly/2fXnJi3 and bit.ly/2eIcGf8.
Not of use to Wikipedia. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a totally fake news site (for profit, not satire). However, it is easily confused for the legitimate news site http://abcnews.go.com/. Kaldari ( talk) 22:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
presidency.edu.bd: 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
It is the official website of a bona fide university in Bangladesh. It was blacklisted in June 2012, swept up in a sockpuppet investigation that was linked to a CITESPAMming case.
Whatever spam links to other websites may have been inserted, as far as I can see, the edits of the hypothetical sockmaster, User:Rayhanwm and a hypothetical puppet User:Tanviranik (neither one confirmed or blocked), as well as those by IP addresses, used presidency.edu.bd in a reasonable way, as a reference/external link for Presidency University, Bangladesh. Based on off-site searches, it is likely that one or more of the editors was an alumnus of the university, and at least one was on the university's IT staff at the time (a position they left in mid-2013), so Wikipedia would have strongly preferred that they not edit the article at all to avoid a conflict of interest. Their edits were sometimes unhelpful, even disruptive, but in a bumbling don't-know-any-better way. Neither of the registered suspects has been active in 3+ years.
I believe the original blacklisting of presidency.edu.bd was an overreaction. It was associated with the wrong people at the wrong time, but was never spammed to Wikipedia. Four years later, continuing to blacklist it hurts the university and Wikipedia for no clear reason. It is difficult to source Presidency University, Bangladesh without referencing their official website. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 21:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It is difficult to source Presidency University, Bangladesh without referencing their official website." Do you mean that there are no independent, secondary sources for this subject? As it stands, the article is completely unreferenced, and you now say that the only way to verify anything written there is by primary sources? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
sccaprotontherapy.com: 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
I am writing a Wiki article on the SCCA Proton Therapy Center and discovered that their website SCCAprotontherapy.com appears to have been blacklisted which I believe to be a misunderstanding. It appears as though the site was blacklisted in June 2015 as part of a mass blacklisting on behalf of # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craytonconstanceb - though no specific reason is given with a # next to the listing, I am assuming that someone accused of Sockpuppeting had used this link as a false citation. However, as a Master's level qualified mental health professional (QMHP) I feel confidant in the validity of this website as a source for valid information supported by scientific research. As a Cancer Treatment Center and Medical Facility, there should be no known association with Spam or questionable material, and most importantly, all of their content is scientifically supported with evidence based practices. The SCCA Proton Therapy Center is a part of the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance in partnership with the University of Washington, Seattle Children's Hospital, and John Hopkins, all of which have active and successful Wikipedia pages that would benefit from the Whitelisting of the SCCAprotontherapy.com website because of their partnerships. This is my first request and I hope I am doing this appropriately. Thank you in advance Emilyrbolen ( talk) 01:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I've found at least two people spamming this at articles recently, Varietycinema and IamVaishnavKB. Both have been indeffed, links have been removed, but we should probs blacklist. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
A new guy, Alwaysvaishnav has appeared. [8] [9] [10]. Indeffing him and I'm adding the link to the blacklist, since that's the only thing that's going to dissuade this guy. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
alexwiremesh.com: 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
Repeated spamming over a couple of years. Bouncing IP suggests that individual blocks aren't going to cut it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
onlinefree.xyz: 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
"Watch free TV shows online" type spam. It has been inserted by multiple spam accounts, (possibly socks?) and has no legitimate purpose on Wikipedia. Sunmist ( talk) 02:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Spammed, and added to this page. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
IP-hopping editor from Stockholm, Sweden spamming two external links. Has continued past level 4 warning, and has persisted even after blocks. Deli nk ( talk) 16:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding:
-- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
one more. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
dyingscene.com: 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
OK, this is long — really sorry about that. But this has been discussed a few times, and I wanted to do it the right way, and hopefully have all the material here so it's easier to see why I think we should take this site off the blacklist and doesn't take too much effort to go through the history.
Dying Scene is a punk music website with reviews, news, interviews, sessions with musicians, that sort of thing. Since I edit some punk-related music articles, I'd like to cite reviews and interviews from the site (as would quite a few other people, see below). It was blacklisted in November 2009 by User:Ohnoitsjamie ( link) for "repeat spamming of NN zine" — from digging through the record I think everyone agrees that the site spammed Wikipedia around 2009 and so the initial blacklist was deserved. (I'm definitely not defending any of his behavior in spamming Wikipedia, and I have no connection to Dying Scene myself other than as a punk fan who wants to write about punk articles and cite some of their pages.)
Links from the site have been whitelisted on a couple of occasions ( whitelist discussion 1, whitelist discussion 2), which implies to me some acceptance that there is citation-worthy material on the site (see also #2 below). There have been discussions about potentially taking it off the blacklist since the owner of the site admitted to spamming, apologized for doing so, and said he wouldn't do it anymore ( discussion 1). This was denied, with one of the admins stating that if a "trusted, high volume editor" requested that the site be removed from the blacklist, it would be "considered favourably". This was restated in the next discussion with the original admin who blacklisted the site ( User:Ohnoitsjamie) denying the request as a "trusted, high-volume editor" did not make the request and questioning the value of the site ( discussion 2, see also discussion 3). A few more editors with more history on the site requested that it be removed from the blacklist, which were again denied ( discussion 4, discussion 5). Specifically, one of the admins ( User:Beetstra) asked "whether the community, at large, finds individual links useful". The request was again made in 2015 to take it off the blacklist again, which was again denied due to concerns of notability ( discussion 6).
Sorry to rehash all that history, but I wanted to try to make this a little clearer since it took me a long time to figure out why this was blacklisted in the first place and I wanted to make it easier on you all when thinking about whether to take this off the blacklist or not. To specifically address the points above that led to this site remaining on the blacklist in previous discussions:
So that's my argument for taking it off the blacklist. I think the most likely scenario is that people like me and the above posters are able to use material from Dying Scene to improve Wikipedia, but if it becomes a problem in the future then you can put it right back on the blacklist and be done with the topic for good, since they'll have received their (in my mind, reasonable) second chance. If that doesn't happen, I think people are going to continue to post here asking for it to be taken off the blacklist as they have been intermittently for the last few years. Thanks for considering, Kyle Barbour 06:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
and Dying Scene has a similar level of coverage and reliability to comparable sites like Punknews.org and AbsolutePunk, both of which are allowed" - Allowed per what? If their reliability is similar to Dying Scene, then WP:RS and WP:V would indicate that Punknews.org and AbsolutePunk should be used similarly. However, the difference is, that punknews.org and absolutepunk were not spammed/abused (to the best of my knowledge) and hence were not blacklisted. Also, if Dying Scene has a similar level over coverage, then it is not needed, as the reverse is then true and punknews.org and absolutepunk is not blacklisted either. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Kyle Barbour and IllaZilla: Your 'Washington Post/New York Times' comparison runs afoul from the point that neither were pushed by people with a declared conflict of interest, and both are a reliable source. The site was spammed, not found of much use, and it was blacklisted. And now the argument seems to be 'I want to use yet another unreliable source, since it is mostly carrying the same content as other unreliable sources (and some info is only available here), and this unreliable source is blacklisted' - the only arguments that carry weight around here is that we absolutely need a site (something that I am not convinced off - reliability is questioned), and we have reasonable evidence that the spamming stopped (though I am in for experiments, I do not spend my volunteer time to have the spamming reoccur, having to cleanup and then having to blacklist it again, and then cleanup all good-faith edits as well - especially is it is an unreliable source anyway). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Just as a note, people related to DyingScene.com were here in July 2015 (some 6 years after blacklisting) promoting material related to them. That probably shows how convinced I am that blacklisting is really not needed anymore. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@ IllaZilla: I've only now started to look further into the situation, but now see pretty continuously people involved in the site being here trying to get their links in, creating pages here, etc. etc. The last editor was accused of harassment in the process. Unfortunately promotion of their information is so important to site owners, that they hardly ever cease their actions, and this is yet another example of those. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
myentranceexam.in: 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
Spammed by several IP's into multiple articles. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a shortener for google.co.in. Found in Akasa Singh, see reference 3. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
solarmovie.tvhotnews.info: 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
Spammed over the past 30 hours by at least two new users with no other contributions into multiple articles regarding TV shows. Links are created in the form of a section heading: [11]; [12]; [13] are some examples. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
These sites are respectively a fansite and a blog and are mainly being used as sources to provide statistical information about living people. I have tried removing them in the past but they have proliferated to such an extent it is impossible to tackle it manually. Both websites contravene WP:SPS and an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? concurred with this interpretation. I think the easiest way to deal with the problem would be to proscribe their usage. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
aiouupdates.com: 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
Continued despite warnings, while mainly on Allama Iqbal Open University they have spammed link to other articles. Ravensfire ( talk) 19:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
We are trying to create page Clickexcel.com on wikipedia but shows that site is black listed please go someone through this and help us to create page and remove domain clickexcel from blacklist— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatikdm ( talk • contribs)
I just tried to create a reference to sermonaudio.com. It told me this site was blacklisted and it would not allow me to save the page. This seems clearly wrong to me, as Sermon Audio is not a spammer but a well-respected source of sermons and other Christian podcasts. Thus, I went to the blacklist log to see why it was blacklisted, and sermonaudio.com does not exist on that list. Is there something wrong with the blacklist check, or is this site actually blacklisted but does not appear in the log, so I should log it in the requested removal section? Fool4jesus ( talk) 16:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Fool4jesus:
In short, this was repeatedly added by IPs, and re-added after they were removed. It involves here in the mentioned edits a period of 3 years. I see multiple reports, with multiple IPs. That is enough to get this listed as blocking the IPs likely is not resolving anything, reverting them (botwise (which was tried) or humanwise) has shown not to work. I can combine that with the observation that in 8 years no-one cared enough to have it linked anywhere (as there are no whitelisting requests). Again, for specific links, Defer to Whitelist .. lets see if some of these stick. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
dyingscene.com: 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
OK, this is long — really sorry about that. But this has been discussed a few times, and I wanted to do it the right way, and hopefully have all the material here so it's easier to see why I think we should take this site off the blacklist and doesn't take too much effort to go through the history.
Dying Scene is a punk music website with reviews, news, interviews, sessions with musicians, that sort of thing. Since I edit some punk-related music articles, I'd like to cite reviews and interviews from the site (as would quite a few other people, see below). It was blacklisted in November 2009 by User:Ohnoitsjamie ( link) for "repeat spamming of NN zine" — from digging through the record I think everyone agrees that the site spammed Wikipedia around 2009 and so the initial blacklist was deserved. (I'm definitely not defending any of his behavior in spamming Wikipedia, and I have no connection to Dying Scene myself other than as a punk fan who wants to write about punk articles and cite some of their pages.)
Links from the site have been whitelisted on a couple of occasions ( whitelist discussion 1, whitelist discussion 2), which implies to me some acceptance that there is citation-worthy material on the site (see also #2 below). There have been discussions about potentially taking it off the blacklist since the owner of the site admitted to spamming, apologized for doing so, and said he wouldn't do it anymore ( discussion 1). This was denied, with one of the admins stating that if a "trusted, high volume editor" requested that the site be removed from the blacklist, it would be "considered favourably". This was restated in the next discussion with the original admin who blacklisted the site ( User:Ohnoitsjamie) denying the request as a "trusted, high-volume editor" did not make the request and questioning the value of the site ( discussion 2, see also discussion 3). A few more editors with more history on the site requested that it be removed from the blacklist, which were again denied ( discussion 4, discussion 5). Specifically, one of the admins ( User:Beetstra) asked "whether the community, at large, finds individual links useful". The request was again made in 2015 to take it off the blacklist again, which was again denied due to concerns of notability ( discussion 6).
Sorry to rehash all that history, but I wanted to try to make this a little clearer since it took me a long time to figure out why this was blacklisted in the first place and I wanted to make it easier on you all when thinking about whether to take this off the blacklist or not. To specifically address the points above that led to this site remaining on the blacklist in previous discussions:
So that's my argument for taking it off the blacklist. I think the most likely scenario is that people like me and the above posters are able to use material from Dying Scene to improve Wikipedia, but if it becomes a problem in the future then you can put it right back on the blacklist and be done with the topic for good, since they'll have received their (in my mind, reasonable) second chance. If that doesn't happen, I think people are going to continue to post here asking for it to be taken off the blacklist as they have been intermittently for the last few years. Thanks for considering, Kyle Barbour 06:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This looks to be a valid link for the page of L. Fletcher Prouty (I think he'd be known as the Mr. X of the movie JFK to many people). As far as I can tell, it was his website prior to his death and has been maintained for his legacy. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 05:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, gotcha. That was all I was trying to do was include that link anyway. Thanks @ Beetstra:! I've been around for awhile, and I don't normally see a plain personal website that's blacklisted. If this needs to be re-examined, fine, but I don't need the whole domain. I don't see the point in a blacklist of this entire site, but so be it if it's got "serious problems." I like to saw logs! ( talk) 18:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
ikancomel.tk: 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
Garbled blog composed of copyvios from across the net, repeatedly refspammed into species articles. AT least one IP globally blocked [3] but comes back under new IP, most recent here: [4] -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Trying to link to this site, to display of a petition that is mentioned in an article. I can't see where the site was ever blacklisted, but I do think it holds historical data that can be beneficial to readers. There are currently 100's of links to change.org, not sure why I can't add this one to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Forever_(U.S._TV_series)
-- Saariko ( talk) 11:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
ddfreedishnews.com: 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
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KhaasBanda ( talk • contribs)
Also:
-- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Beetstra: Reporting ddfreedish.blogspot.com spam link which redirects to ddfreedishnews.com. KhaasBanda ( talk) 04:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This site "triggered a protection filter" while i was trying to use it as a source. I would like to know the reason why it was blocked. Is there a list that shows blacklisted sites with the reasons that we can see? If there is, we may use it before using those sites in the first place. It seemed awkward to me, because there are lots of sites that are similar to this site that are not blocked. Thank you. - Avatar 9n 13:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
IP found it necessary to spam a redirect shortly after having been given a final warning. User blocked, but lets see how far this reaches. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
And attempting to add bit.ly/2fXnJi3 and bit.ly/2eIcGf8.
Not of use to Wikipedia. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a totally fake news site (for profit, not satire). However, it is easily confused for the legitimate news site http://abcnews.go.com/. Kaldari ( talk) 22:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
presidency.edu.bd: 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
It is the official website of a bona fide university in Bangladesh. It was blacklisted in June 2012, swept up in a sockpuppet investigation that was linked to a CITESPAMming case.
Whatever spam links to other websites may have been inserted, as far as I can see, the edits of the hypothetical sockmaster, User:Rayhanwm and a hypothetical puppet User:Tanviranik (neither one confirmed or blocked), as well as those by IP addresses, used presidency.edu.bd in a reasonable way, as a reference/external link for Presidency University, Bangladesh. Based on off-site searches, it is likely that one or more of the editors was an alumnus of the university, and at least one was on the university's IT staff at the time (a position they left in mid-2013), so Wikipedia would have strongly preferred that they not edit the article at all to avoid a conflict of interest. Their edits were sometimes unhelpful, even disruptive, but in a bumbling don't-know-any-better way. Neither of the registered suspects has been active in 3+ years.
I believe the original blacklisting of presidency.edu.bd was an overreaction. It was associated with the wrong people at the wrong time, but was never spammed to Wikipedia. Four years later, continuing to blacklist it hurts the university and Wikipedia for no clear reason. It is difficult to source Presidency University, Bangladesh without referencing their official website. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 21:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It is difficult to source Presidency University, Bangladesh without referencing their official website." Do you mean that there are no independent, secondary sources for this subject? As it stands, the article is completely unreferenced, and you now say that the only way to verify anything written there is by primary sources? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
sccaprotontherapy.com: 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
I am writing a Wiki article on the SCCA Proton Therapy Center and discovered that their website SCCAprotontherapy.com appears to have been blacklisted which I believe to be a misunderstanding. It appears as though the site was blacklisted in June 2015 as part of a mass blacklisting on behalf of # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craytonconstanceb - though no specific reason is given with a # next to the listing, I am assuming that someone accused of Sockpuppeting had used this link as a false citation. However, as a Master's level qualified mental health professional (QMHP) I feel confidant in the validity of this website as a source for valid information supported by scientific research. As a Cancer Treatment Center and Medical Facility, there should be no known association with Spam or questionable material, and most importantly, all of their content is scientifically supported with evidence based practices. The SCCA Proton Therapy Center is a part of the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance in partnership with the University of Washington, Seattle Children's Hospital, and John Hopkins, all of which have active and successful Wikipedia pages that would benefit from the Whitelisting of the SCCAprotontherapy.com website because of their partnerships. This is my first request and I hope I am doing this appropriately. Thank you in advance Emilyrbolen ( talk) 01:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I've found at least two people spamming this at articles recently, Varietycinema and IamVaishnavKB. Both have been indeffed, links have been removed, but we should probs blacklist. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
A new guy, Alwaysvaishnav has appeared. [8] [9] [10]. Indeffing him and I'm adding the link to the blacklist, since that's the only thing that's going to dissuade this guy. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
alexwiremesh.com: 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
Repeated spamming over a couple of years. Bouncing IP suggests that individual blocks aren't going to cut it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
onlinefree.xyz: 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
"Watch free TV shows online" type spam. It has been inserted by multiple spam accounts, (possibly socks?) and has no legitimate purpose on Wikipedia. Sunmist ( talk) 02:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Spammed, and added to this page. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
IP-hopping editor from Stockholm, Sweden spamming two external links. Has continued past level 4 warning, and has persisted even after blocks. Deli nk ( talk) 16:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding:
-- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
one more. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
dyingscene.com: 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
OK, this is long — really sorry about that. But this has been discussed a few times, and I wanted to do it the right way, and hopefully have all the material here so it's easier to see why I think we should take this site off the blacklist and doesn't take too much effort to go through the history.
Dying Scene is a punk music website with reviews, news, interviews, sessions with musicians, that sort of thing. Since I edit some punk-related music articles, I'd like to cite reviews and interviews from the site (as would quite a few other people, see below). It was blacklisted in November 2009 by User:Ohnoitsjamie ( link) for "repeat spamming of NN zine" — from digging through the record I think everyone agrees that the site spammed Wikipedia around 2009 and so the initial blacklist was deserved. (I'm definitely not defending any of his behavior in spamming Wikipedia, and I have no connection to Dying Scene myself other than as a punk fan who wants to write about punk articles and cite some of their pages.)
Links from the site have been whitelisted on a couple of occasions ( whitelist discussion 1, whitelist discussion 2), which implies to me some acceptance that there is citation-worthy material on the site (see also #2 below). There have been discussions about potentially taking it off the blacklist since the owner of the site admitted to spamming, apologized for doing so, and said he wouldn't do it anymore ( discussion 1). This was denied, with one of the admins stating that if a "trusted, high volume editor" requested that the site be removed from the blacklist, it would be "considered favourably". This was restated in the next discussion with the original admin who blacklisted the site ( User:Ohnoitsjamie) denying the request as a "trusted, high-volume editor" did not make the request and questioning the value of the site ( discussion 2, see also discussion 3). A few more editors with more history on the site requested that it be removed from the blacklist, which were again denied ( discussion 4, discussion 5). Specifically, one of the admins ( User:Beetstra) asked "whether the community, at large, finds individual links useful". The request was again made in 2015 to take it off the blacklist again, which was again denied due to concerns of notability ( discussion 6).
Sorry to rehash all that history, but I wanted to try to make this a little clearer since it took me a long time to figure out why this was blacklisted in the first place and I wanted to make it easier on you all when thinking about whether to take this off the blacklist or not. To specifically address the points above that led to this site remaining on the blacklist in previous discussions:
So that's my argument for taking it off the blacklist. I think the most likely scenario is that people like me and the above posters are able to use material from Dying Scene to improve Wikipedia, but if it becomes a problem in the future then you can put it right back on the blacklist and be done with the topic for good, since they'll have received their (in my mind, reasonable) second chance. If that doesn't happen, I think people are going to continue to post here asking for it to be taken off the blacklist as they have been intermittently for the last few years. Thanks for considering, Kyle Barbour 06:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
and Dying Scene has a similar level of coverage and reliability to comparable sites like Punknews.org and AbsolutePunk, both of which are allowed" - Allowed per what? If their reliability is similar to Dying Scene, then WP:RS and WP:V would indicate that Punknews.org and AbsolutePunk should be used similarly. However, the difference is, that punknews.org and absolutepunk were not spammed/abused (to the best of my knowledge) and hence were not blacklisted. Also, if Dying Scene has a similar level over coverage, then it is not needed, as the reverse is then true and punknews.org and absolutepunk is not blacklisted either. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Kyle Barbour and IllaZilla: Your 'Washington Post/New York Times' comparison runs afoul from the point that neither were pushed by people with a declared conflict of interest, and both are a reliable source. The site was spammed, not found of much use, and it was blacklisted. And now the argument seems to be 'I want to use yet another unreliable source, since it is mostly carrying the same content as other unreliable sources (and some info is only available here), and this unreliable source is blacklisted' - the only arguments that carry weight around here is that we absolutely need a site (something that I am not convinced off - reliability is questioned), and we have reasonable evidence that the spamming stopped (though I am in for experiments, I do not spend my volunteer time to have the spamming reoccur, having to cleanup and then having to blacklist it again, and then cleanup all good-faith edits as well - especially is it is an unreliable source anyway). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Just as a note, people related to DyingScene.com were here in July 2015 (some 6 years after blacklisting) promoting material related to them. That probably shows how convinced I am that blacklisting is really not needed anymore. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@ IllaZilla: I've only now started to look further into the situation, but now see pretty continuously people involved in the site being here trying to get their links in, creating pages here, etc. etc. The last editor was accused of harassment in the process. Unfortunately promotion of their information is so important to site owners, that they hardly ever cease their actions, and this is yet another example of those. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
myentranceexam.in: 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
Spammed by several IP's into multiple articles. Ravensfire ( talk) 13:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a shortener for google.co.in. Found in Akasa Singh, see reference 3. Ravensfire ( talk) 14:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
solarmovie.tvhotnews.info: 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
Spammed over the past 30 hours by at least two new users with no other contributions into multiple articles regarding TV shows. Links are created in the form of a section heading: [11]; [12]; [13] are some examples. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
These sites are respectively a fansite and a blog and are mainly being used as sources to provide statistical information about living people. I have tried removing them in the past but they have proliferated to such an extent it is impossible to tackle it manually. Both websites contravene WP:SPS and an RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? concurred with this interpretation. I think the easiest way to deal with the problem would be to proscribe their usage. Betty Logan ( talk) 16:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)