Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2011-07c

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search and[edit]

en:Special:Contributions/OnideusMH – Purely disruptive and intentional distasteful redirects to Onideus also threatened to spam these links everywhere. Vandals would also have a field-day if they realized these domains exist and work. --Michaeldsuarez 13:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Added Added. --Trijnstel 13:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez 14:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC) and related[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

X mark.svg Not done. Stale. --Abd 15:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Content fork of Encyclopedia Dramatica, with the vindictiveness ratcheted up another notch. Has already been used for harassment on en.wp. See also en:MediaWiki Judgment there was to defer to here. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 22:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • {{LinkSummary|}}
  • {{LinkSummary|}}
As suggested in the request below. Thanks--Hu12 15:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
prematurely archivedmay want to correct. also related;
  • {{LinkSummary|}}

Thanks, --Hu12 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Isn't this supposed to be a spam blacklist? Is anyone spamming this link now? Will blacklisting it reduce the nonexistent spamming or provoke people to do so? What you're seeing is the overflow from a content dispute on en.wikipedia about whether to link to the site or admit its existence at all. It is not Meta's role to impose this as a global content restriction, based on the argument that individual users of a wiki are harassing people or (possibly) violating a U.S. law or (very dubiously) infringing copyright. Wnt 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Nope, we're seeing more than that: [1]. The earlier two edits to the same talkpage by the same user ([2], [3]) were equally as insulting and also used the link. Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 20:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Support. I agree that it isn't Meta's job to enforce Remedy 1, but there's already been enwiki spam, as noted above, and there's bound to be more. I also note Spam blacklist/About which states: "URL redirection domains will be added uncontroversially, as they provide an exploit used to bypass the blacklist and serve no useful purpose on our projects" and "Domains hosting copyright violations, or other legally problematic may be blacklisted on a case-by-case basis, provided there is strong justification and consensus to do so exists". "Legally problematic is an understatement in this case. 05:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Support I (Silver seren) have also been asking for it to be blacklisted here on ANI. 08:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There may be some uses of it now, but is it truly persistent global spam? I don't see any redirection domains here, and there is a debate rather than a "strong justification" about copyright violations. Further, doesn't get me anywhere, and according to Netcraft it hasn't been pointing anywhere - but blocking it could hinder 43 other sites that end in[4] links to a quite inactive site (see Recent Changes there, the first page of which covers three days, and they have no article on Australia) and is unlikely to be an issue of any kind. points to a more active project with some archived article text but not pictures, but I still get back to yesterday on the first page of Recent Changes. I think that at least the first two, possibly the third, could be struck from this discussion non-controversially. Wnt 13:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Theres not excessive amounts of spam occuring. Just a few incidents by I think the same person. JV Smithy 19:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Meta admins: You may wish to consider this comment I made that reveals some new info about the above discussion. Thank you. (Silver seren) 07:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Misleading URL redirect (meant to resemble the SFW Redirects to's NSFW "Offended" page. --Michaeldsuarez 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: This not only is forked content, it is forbidden per link policies and fails as a reliable source. These links are actively being used to attack and harass wikipedia and its users, as stated above...therefore
Websites outside Wikipedia that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors and those who choose to edit the encyclopedia is a serious matter. It discourages participation, and may put people in danger.
An attack site is a site outside Wikipedia that engages in any of the following
  1. Compiles or sponsors efforts to obtain evidence that may be used to discover the real world identities of Wikipedia contributors;
  2. used to impugn a person's character
  3. Harasses or sponsors harassment of Wikipedians;
  4. Makes or sponsors legal threats toward Wikipedians
  5. An attack site might be run by an individual, in the form of a private website or a blog, or it could be a virtual community, such as another wiki or discussion forum.
Previous consensus, rulings, practice
  • "Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves." See #Combating harassment
  • "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." See #Links to attack sites
  • "Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions." See #Support of harassment
  • "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances." See #Outing sites as attack sites
ArbCom rulings[5]
  • Harrassment
1) It is unacceptable to harass another user. (Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Combatting harassment
2) Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves. (Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Links to attack site
3) Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking. (Pass 5-0-1 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Solidarity
4) Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action. (Pass 5-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Support of harassment
7) Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks. (Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Outing sites as attack sites
11) A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances. (Pass 6-0 at 02:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Linking to external sites as harassment[6]
4.2) Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another person so as to harass them is unacceptable. (Passed 7-0 at 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
Blocking would not only be uncontroversial, it is Supported by Previous consensus, rulings, and practice. --Hu12 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
So are you asserting that it is uncontroversial that the en.wikipedia ArbCom has the power at any time to make binding, everlasting decisions about what sites any Wikimedia project is allowed to cite as a source or otherwise reference? Because I say that ArbCom had declared quite many principles that I don't agree with, which I don't want to override community consensus on policy issues even on en.wikipedia. Wnt 00:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Its not an assertion, nor a vote. Blocks exist to prevent coninued abuse and protect the project and its users from harm. There has been significant ongoing disruption, abuse and in this instance(again), repeated attacking of the same individual[7][8][9], for which these exact community agreed rulings came about. Ironicaly Uncontroversial--Hu12 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, the entire site is a copyright violation so no link would be allowed anyway. End of, really. JzG 14:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This has been debated at the ED article talk page. The edits making up ED were contributed by individuals who agreed to a Wikipedia-like license about 'merciless editing and redistribution'. They are released to ED, but what is ED? If the owner of the website had moved it, no one would say the license no longer applied - but nothing in the license said ED corresponds to one website owner either. As long as someone is hosting a copy of this work, generally known as Encyclopedia Dramatica, this material should be licensed to them. Also, since the site is actually based in the U.S., there is no doubt that a court could shut it down at any time should it decide it is a copyright decision. I don't think that it is up to Wikipedia to hand down an expansive and premature copyright verdict on its own --- especially when the impact of that verdict is that you can completely suppress all the works of countless members of a Wiki - perhaps even Wikipedia - based on some technicality! Wnt 00:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Encyclopediadramatica is already blocked here on meta in its .com, .net, and .org incarnations. There should be no problem (or even much discussion) about adding the .ch TLD to that regex. Related aliases should also be blacklisted, of course. Amatulic 23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The "spam blacklist" is a Meta response to severe spam. As some have pointed out, this is not truly run by the same people as It currently has a smaller readership and user base. Therefore, it is by no means certain that it would pose any similar problem - and certainly, blacklisting now would be premature. Wnt 00:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Wnt, particularly since Wnt seems to be rather involved with ED. I have listed on XLinkBot over at the English Wikipedia for now, but I agree with Hu12 above that blocking it here would be uncontroversial and supported by prior consensus and rulings. Amatulic 13:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Striking – is gone, was spammed (by rival beyond repair, and doesn't exist. is now the only fork of relevance. --Michaeldsuarez 23:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The 500 "Recent Changes" for Encyclopedia Erratica go all the way back to its creation on April 16.[10] I don't think it is accurate to say it was "spammed beyond repair" by anyone. Wnt 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
That was meant as a hyperbole. --Michaeldsuarez 01:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Another example of link spam / inappropriate linkage --Michaeldsuarez 16:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Addendum – We probably should allow links to the .ch Main_Page as we presently allow with .com (encyclopediadramatica\.(?:com(?!/Main_Page)|net|org)), but I don't see any reason to allow links to specific .ch articles. --Michaeldsuarez 16:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Perhaps in the case where the link is an official page of the article's subject, however ".ch" is not.--Hu12 16:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
        • The edit to wigger article on seems like good fait more than spam or vandalism.

And Why should .com consensus be used to blacklist .ch when the discussion on ED's talk page determined it doesn't inherit notability? JV Smithy 21:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • What does notability have to do with the blacklist? We're not writing an article here. ED content is blacklisted, yet content duplicated from the original isn't blacklisted. If users could link to .ch content, then that defeats the point of having .com on the blacklist. Having .com blacklisted while leaving .ch free to link to makes the blacklist. Blacklists are meant to serve a practical purpose, and not including .ch makes the blacklisting ineffective. --Michaeldsuarez 03:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • @Hu12, there is now a valid link to in the enwiki article. I don't see any reason to disallow links to the .ch Main_Page. This blacklist shouldn't be used to settle a content dispute; it should be used to protect users from harassment and to ensure that external links are fulfilling an encyclopedic role. --Michaeldsuarez 14:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Close these, please. There are many apparently legitimate usages of the URL with articles in various language 'pedias on w:Encylopedia Dramatica. The .ch domain was blacklisted on Wikipedia, eventually.[11][12] Per blacklist guidelines, global blacklisting based on other than spam or clear necessity is not advised. However, these requests should not be left open forever! Other than the general comment, this is not a rejection of the arguments above. I intend to archive this, however, if there is no action within a reasonable time. --Abd 22:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • There are legitimate links to .ch's Main Page, but what of every other link? Most links to anywhere besides the Main Pages are used in off-topic comment, complaints about off-site activity, personal use, and baiting. These links don't aid in the construction of an encyclopedia. I also see an example of being used as reference, and that link wasn't replaced until I saw it. If we allow .ch to be used whenever wherever however in our articles, Wikipedia's credibility will be jeopardized further than it already is. --Michaeldsuarez 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
      • In order to provide some context for the link I've entitled "baiting", I suggest reading en:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive704#Making_ED.ch_pages_on_user_after_article_dispute. h64 is an .ch sysop who created an ED article on Silver_seren in order to punish Silver_seren for opposing the addition of links to .ch on enwiki's Encyclopedia Dramatica article. Several days later, h64 made this comment in order to lure Silver_seren into an argument he could exploit and to convince the gullible that Silver_seren opposed the link's addition due to an ED article that, in reality, didn't exist when Silver_seren initially entered the dispute (basically rewriting / revising history). The link to .ch in h64's comment is another example of how linking to .ch is disruptive. --Michaeldsuarez 16:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Sigh. This request is the oldest request on this page. Admins stop reading these things after a while. If you want this request granted, you may need to do three things, and really you ought to do four:
          • Ask for this to be closed and archived. Basically, agree with me above.
          • If it is not closed with a listing, but is closed as not done, look for serious cross-wiki spamming, and collect evidence if it exists.
          • Refile a new, fresh request with the evidence of recent "widespread, unmanageable spam," as stated in the blacklist guideline. I recommend avoiding language attacking the site. "Vituperative," for example, in the original request, was distracting, even if true.
          • Offer to do any cleanup needed with respect to used links on pages, because the existence of a blacklisted link may make a page uneditable for a user who won't know why. (Or has that problem been fixed?)
        • This site is blacklisted on; that's a local decision. The original request here was filed because it was used for "harassment," but it was not shown that this could not be handled by local means, or, if cross-wiki, by blocking harassing users and IP. Notice the guideline on the blacklist page itself: Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam. In practice, the blacklist is sometimes used for lesser spamming, but usage for other than spam can cause problems. This request seems to have been filed here from a suggestion on That was an error, unless serious cross-wiki spamming was taking place, and it simply created unnecessary conflict (wasted time in discussion) here. --Abd 22:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed removals[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for archiving proposals that a website be unlisted.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) Ruy Pugliesi 01:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

URL shorteners are not permitted because they may be used to bypass the spam blacklist. No reason for delisting is given. Oppose Denied

. MER-C 11:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Declined Declined. --Trijnstel 12:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


eHow is obviously not a spam website. It may be a content mill, and some may think links to it aren't appropriate, but that's an issue for the individual articles on which those links are used, not a reason to abuse the global spam blocklist. unsigned 00:58, 24 June 2011 by, note by Abd 12:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Declined Declined - nothing to remove here. -- Dferg ☎ talk 13:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


This is a cultural center of Barcelona. We are starting a GLAM-wiki relationship with them. They are a reliable source and a probable good future GLAM partner. We have talked with them about their past misuse of Wikipedia and they understand it now--Kippelboy 16:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed, hopefully this won't be an issue in the future and Wikipedia and the CCCB can work together within GLAM. --Erwin 14:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done by Erwin. --Abd 13:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Charles Web Proxy[edit]

This is a widely used piece of softare that seems to be blocked because the domain has the word "proxy" in the domain. It's in the meta blocked list because of this block: (ninja|fastfree|getmyspace|school|myinternet|ship|water|les|grand|dirty|cgiweb|arandom|angry|fully)proxy\.com. I think it should be an exception. (Btipling 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC))

Declined Declined and Deferred Deferred to enwiki whitelist. -- Dferg ☎ talk 12:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Links to metapedia were globally blacklisted in January 2008 (see the request at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-01#metapedia) due to spamming of the URL on the de and fr Wikipedias and also because the article en:Metapedia had been deleted and recreated 6+ times on en and a few times on sv. The article has since been recreated constructively on en and this website being on the spam blacklist is preventing linking to Metapedia to cite things such as statistics for Metapedia. I'm suggesting that this be moved off the global blacklist and onto the local blacklists for sv, de and fr so en's article on Metapedia can actually directly link to statistics, etc. Currently, links must point to WebCite archives, which contain (slightly) out of date information and readers not very familiar with the Internet might not understand how to navigate to the actual site from the archive.

Note: In case this comes up, no, I don't agree at all with the politics of Metapedia (I'm actually vehemently opposed to Metapedia and its politics). Oh, and when someone replies, would you please leave a talkback or a link to this page on my talkpage over at en? I'm a bit on the forgetful side... Cymru.lass 23:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Declined Declined. Would be better to convince an enwp sysop to whitelist it locally. --Courcelles 10:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[edit]

This is the official website of the project PERSONAL STRUCTURES an international art project involving many important artists, and now it is also part of the 54th Biennale di Venezia as a Collateral Event. The Website offers many interesting text and images that could be used in Wikipedia.--Artiuav 9:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Background: this is an old addition. The specific report is this. -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears User:Artiuav is an SPA account for PERSONAL STRUCTURES, promoting (ie.en:WP:REFSPAM) over multiple language wikis
Previous attempts at removal earlier this year, showed attempts to curcumvet blacklisting by adding their related site see en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/ Clearly evidence that ongoing use of Wikipedia for promotion continues.--Hu12 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Hu12. Request Declined Declined for now. -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[edit]

This is now the address to the webpage to the Bulgarian Embassy in Sweden so it can be removed from the blacklist. See the list on the Swedish governments diplomatic list here (direct link to the file here). -- Tegel (Talk) 19:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- the link could be useful for Wikipedia articles, and will not likely be spammed. /NH 09:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Removed Removed. --Trijnstel 11:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


this is a literary magazine, which is a reliable source for reviews, literary work.Slowking4 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The link was added per this report. Given the cross-wiki abuse I'd suggest that those projects that want to use the link should seek local whitelisting on that specific project and as such I'm declining this removal. For example, for enwiki that page would be w:MediaWiki Talk:Spam-whitelist. -- Dferg ☎ talk 10:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Declined Declined. --Trijnstel 08:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC) is being erroneously entirely blocked instead of partially[edit]

The site provides tools for identification and bird song clips. I found an error in the sound file on the w:Common Snipe Wikipedia page and wish to point to the sound file from, on the discussion page, as an aid to whomever can fix the Wikipedia page. There is no reason for a ornithological reference website to be blacklisted. I can only guess that there is some glitch somewhere.-- 17:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

EDIT:now that the template is in place I see there seems to be an issue with, that is indeed a sales page, but the bulk of the website is through which is strictly reference material and is linked on other occasions.-- 17:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Declined Declined. --Trijnstel 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[edit]

This is a official web site of anime ben-to,so I don't think that wiki need to block a official web site of anime without any reason ,please unlock it.--Andywong19 11:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I could not find "" in the blacklist, but it is being caught by the spam filter and it looks global to me. Regex problem? Or what? --Abd 16:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the problem is that the dash counts as a word separator, and thus is affected by the block of (a url shortener). My proposal would be to change the \bto\.net\b entry to \.to\.net\b - Andre Engels 00:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • That's not going to work, that would make linkable. MER-C 03:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This will work:


We solved the same problem recently over at en-wiki for a different domain, where a regex like \bbar\.com\b was incorrectly blocking when the intent was to block only and * See the discussion at w:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May ~Amatulic 14:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I changed the regex in the suggestion of Amatulic. Trijnstel 08:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


ht*p:// ... I need this link to be removed from the blacklist, please. I am about to write an article abut Necropolis Records for the german wikipedia and without this link a proper article will very likely not be possible. Thanks! --Sheep18 12:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This would be best suited for whitelisting. The German Wikipedia's whitelist request page is located at de:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. MER-C 02:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. --Sheep18 08:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Declined Declined. --Trijnstel 08:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry Watch[edit]

This site should never have been blacklisted, it is not a spam website. It contains articles about Freemasonry topics. Masonic Wiki-Users may have had something to do with getting this site blocked to prevent any links to it's article pages being referenced because the content and articles posted on the site often contradict those on official Masonic websites, multiple links to which have been placed on most Wikipedia Freemasonry related pages by Masonic Editors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2011

  • Original blacklisting by Dmcdevit 22:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC). Only usage alleged, global blacklisting may have been inappropriate. Denial of delisting by JzG, 21:20, 29 June 2007. Whitelist request on en.wp (misplaced since the site not blacklisted there -- if so, not logged) shows how whitelisting of pages is frequently a lost cause. The magazine (Gnosis) in which the article originally appeared would have been independent reliable source for this kind of topic. The freemasonrywatch site would then be for a convenience link, I have not investigated issues like copyright, and this is not an argument for the legitimacy of the site, only that this was [should be] entirely an en.wp issue. --Abd 14:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Abd, when will you stop with your immediate ideas that something was inappropriate. In the beginning of 2007 there were no local blacklists (the first edition of the English Wikipedia blacklist appeared at 14 July 2007), so blacklisting here to stop local spam was totally appropriate, it was the only way. It could have been moved there but that is also out of the question. Also, requesting whitelisting on a local project is never misplaced, whether a site is globally or locally blacklisted, whitelisting can always be asked for locally. I am sorry, but that type of remarks is not going to win over anything. Could you please address the facts, how was it (allegedly) abused, and are those issues now likely to have ceased (sure, spamming has ceased, but is this a site which is (still) spam-prone and of little general use, or has significant use while being spam-prone, or is it not spam-prone anymore).

If it has ceased, I would suggest to de-list it (it has been 4 years .. maybe worth a removal), otherwise (if the use is minimal), I would (again) try a specific whitelisting request (for a specific link) on en.wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 11:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Beetstra is correct, I'm striking what was inappropriate. Of course local whitelisting is always okay, I don't know what I was thinking, beyond somehow confusing whitelisting (fine!) with delisting (not appropriate if no listing!). I was unaware of the history, that the blacklist was that new. I'll stick with the position that the original blacklisting may have been inappropriate. I did not state inappropriateness as a fact, i.e., "was inappropriate." Thanks for the information, Beetstra. --Abd 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Removed Removed. Per Beetstra's last sentence. If spamming reoccurs locally it can be blacklisted on that project.--EdBever 18:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Abd's comment - Abd, the remark 'may have been inappropriate' could in some cases be seen as an assumption of bad faith on the admin who added it. Please consider that the blacklisting was necessary, even if the additions pre-date the current database of additions, also, it is sometimes impossible to trace it back for sites which have been there for 4 years - what was really bad then may now be fine because our perceptions changed, because sites have cleaned up their act, sites may now have hidden what was previously visible and 'incriminating', or have changed policies dramatically (there are some sites which have changed their policies dramatically due to the upgrade of the Google algorithms, and hence may need revisiting in the future ...). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 23:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems.


Symbol comment vote.svg This section is for archiving Discussions.[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

X mark.svg Not done. Stale. (Involved close based on long-term lack of response.) --Abd 16:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This was blacklisted due to repeated linking to copyright violations hosted on the site, as well as spamming of the site by its (banned) owner and several proxies. One of the proxies campaigned for removal from the blacklist, which was done at the nth request. Having been mainly absent from Wikipedia during the period of a topic ban from the topic area which is the locus of this dispute, one of his first actions was to link to... a copyright violation located at The tiny group of people advocating links to this site have repeatedly shown that they simply do not accept Wikipedia policy on linking to copyright violations hosted on external websites, citing "convenience" in their defence. Wikipedia policy cannot make such an exception because the law of copyright does not make any such exception. The site has been extensively abused in the past and the abusers have returned to abusing once it was removed from the blacklist, so I think it needs to go back on, please. JzG 15:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • There is no spamming, and there never was. JzG believes that there is copyright violation, though he does not cite any, and that has been discussed in depth many times, including in the successful delisting request. JzG has made many arguments against this site, all ultimately found to be irrelevant to the spam blacklist. All the arguments are false, but addressing them would complicate. No spam, no blacklisting, unless there is a very strong reason. The topic is getting hot from recent news, I expect many more legitimate or arguably legitimate links, both for articles and for discussion. If more fact is needed, please ask. --Abd 16:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The links I added after my topic ban expired were added before the delisting request here was granted. They had been whitelisted on, after specific consideration of the copyright issue. Jzg is rejecting consensus. He just unilaterally blacklisted the site on, without any spamming, based on that very stale action (my addition of whitelisted links), a single edit. Nothing he says about should be trusted, his claims should be carefully verified, he was admonished by ArbComm over his prior admin action re the site. --Abd 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Update: was delisted at en.wikipedia.[14][15]. Discussion on JzG talk.[16]. --Abd 01:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Support blacklisting per JzG. Ohnoitsjamie 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Any evidence of linkspam? For that matter, of copyvio? Need evidence of legitimate usage? What? --Abd 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose blacklisting. This is the classic case of abuse of the blacklisting process to push a POV on Wikipedia. JzG has already once been sanctioned by the arbitration committee for this abuse, he should learn when to stop! -- Petri Krohn 18:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The addition or removal of domains to this list is not a vote/!vote. Avoid using "support" or "oppose" because they will be simply plainly ignored. Instead, try to demonstrate why blacklisting is needed or not. Thanks, -- Dferg ☎ talk 18:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Dferg, I appreciate the point. However, your response seems to be to Petri Krohn's comment, but would equally apply to that from Ohnoitsjamie, right? If I'm correct, a "per JzG" comment with no other evidence or argument would be inappropriate, is that true? Likewise, Petri Krohn's comment that simply points out possible abuse by the editor? But, then, how about the evidence-free arguments that JzG has presented about me, and the evidence-free claim of copyvio? --Abd 20:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Maybe I should have outdented it, so it doesn't appear like a reply but my comment indeed applies to the whole thread and it is not intended to be a specific response to Petri Krohn, see here. Regards, -- Dferg ☎ talk 21:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Examination of copyvio claim. Because an isolated copyvio, even if shown, would not be a reason for blacklisting, I'll put the facts in collapse, just in case. I can't even imagine evidence for linkspam.
  • This is not a copyright court. I think that it is strange that Wikipedia solicits pre-publication material, shows Fair Use images, and even at times commendably takes positions some find controversial like with the PD-Art tag, yet the immediate impulse in proceedings like this is to assume that any site with content that resembles copyrighted material must be improper to link to. Hosting physics paper preprints is a very widespread practice, and this site even speaks of permission for various bits. [17] I'm not saying you have to have a BLP-like standard, but I don't think it's right to go branding and blacklisting websites as copyright violators without proof when they operate out in the open as a recognizable name with many visitors. Why should this be the one place in Wikipedia where you can slander somebody without a reliable source? Wnt 19:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • @Wnt. (not specifically about this site): True, you need to have proper proof for it, that is certainly true. But linking to copyright violations is one of the things that should NEVER be done, same goes for non-free material that is displayed without proper rationale (and actually, the Foundation has a stronger stance on images than fair-use laws would allow ..). If a site hosts a work which is (very, very likely) in violation of the original copyright, then thát document could be blacklisted if editors persistently push it - if a site hosts only, or a very large majority of, material in violation of copyright, then blacklisting the whole site would be an option - just to minimise the risk. And note, that for many sites where there is work hosted that is elsewhere available (and that is certainly true when the work is hosted in violation of the original copyright), then there is not a need to or must link (though maybe a preference/convenience if the work is not easily accessible in another way and not a violation of copyright), it should always be linked to the original place (which is always the safe option anyway, even if one knows that the hosted copy is the same as the original). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 09:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Beetstra. Yes, we should never link to a known copyvio page, anyone doing that could be dinged for contributory copyright infringement, but it's preposterous, from all the evidence presented, that there are significant numbers of copyright violations on this site, if any. Not one proven violation has ever been shown. It's all been libelous claim, assumption of lack of permission, without evidence, as Wnt notes. openly claims that every paper is hosted with permission from author and publisher, and for a very visible site like this, linked from many reliable sources itself, making a false claim, like that, could expose them to serious consequences. But isn't this all moot here, in the absence of linkspam? The issue here is the whole site, not some possible specific page. --Abd 23:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is a combined one: spamming by the site owner, linking by friends (including Abd) as proxy for the site owner, linking to copyright violating content, including by these friends of the site owner, use of the site to falsify material. The problem to be fixed is one of spamming and abuse, and the reason to fix it is that good-faith editors may be duped into playing a further part in this campaign to promote the website as a source. JzG 20:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No spamming has been shown, in spite of repeated requests above. The other arguments are irrelevant to the blacklist, though the copyright argument has been addressed above, and no examples of "proxy," or use to "falsify," or "duped," or "campaign" have been shown. --Abd 21:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrong answer, but I have given up all hope of you ever accepting anyone's interpretation of anything other than your own. JzG 06:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I won't try to determine the truth of that, but if we can't accept one anothers' ideas, that should inform us that, in general, it is immensely divisive and unproductive to use a global spam blacklist to implement them. Wnt 17:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There has been no links given (besides helpful ones by Abd) to show that there is any copyright violations going on whatsoever, nor any spamming. This just seems to be a discussion being used by Jzg to slander the website in question and debase any user that disagrees with his opinion. (Silver seren) 03:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please close this request, these should not remain open forever, surely almost three months is more than enough. Thanks. --Abd 22:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)