MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

Archives (current)→

The Spam-whitelist page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist and the local spam-blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (web pages to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to reblock), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Please enter your requests at the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and not at the very bottom of the page. Sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

Also in your request, please include the following:

1. The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
2. The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
3. An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
4. If the site you're requesting is listed at /Common requests, please include confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you still desire to proceed with your request

Important: You must provide a full link to the specific web page you want to be whitelisted (leave out the http:// from the front; otherwise you will not be able to save your edit to this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar with nothing after the / character) are likely to be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked please visit the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Note: Do not request links to be whitelisted where you can reasonably suspect that the material you want to link to is in violation of copyright (see WP:LINKVIO). Such requests will likely be summarily rejected.

There is no automated notification system in place for the results of requests, and you will not be notified when your request has a response. You should therefore add this page to your personal watch list, to your notifications through the subscribe feature, or check back here every few days to see if there is any progress on it; in particular, you should check whether administrators have raised any additional queries or expressed any concerns about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in the request being denied.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|293452686#section_name}}

Note that requests from new or unregistered users are not usually considered.

Admins: Use seth's tool to search the spamlists.

Indicators
Request completed:
Done	{{Done}}
Stale	{{StaleIP}}
Request withdrawn	{{withdrawn}}
Request declined:
Declined	{{Declined}}
Not done	{{Notdone}}
Information:
Additional information needed	{{MoreInfo}}
Note:	{{TakeNote}}

Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)

Kippreport.com

Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

Kippreport is a daily news website based in the Middle east and provide interesting fact about this region. They are not using press release and are creating their own content. It's a platform were people are able to talk about the problem of the region. The website was block because somebody from the team make a mistake trying to add some of the page of Kippreport.com has reference and didn't follow the rules of Wikipedia. Now the content of this website is great an can really be taken as a reference in some way like the one listed in the link section. If I take this example kippreport.com/kipp/etisalat/, I think it's interesting to add has reference for the Etisalat page

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

UAE, Flickr in this case, people from the middle east because there is study about them, company from the middle east like Rani, EPPCO, Etisalat, Du, Emirates,....

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

1. kippreport.com/ 2. kippreport.com/kipp/2009/03/16/flickr-is-banned/ 3. kippreport.com/kipp/2008/11/23/dont-stop-the-press/ 4. kippreport.com/kipp/etisalat/

80.227.53.134 (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to remove this from the blacklist, as it seems like a reasonable source. I'd like another opinion first though, so can whoever sees this next chip in? Stifle (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

this provides further information on why it was blacklisted (last section). Stifle (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I recommend not removing or whitelisting any of this until an established editor requests we do so. Here's the background:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jun 1#spam.kippreport.com
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2008#spam.kippreport.com

Additional deleted page:

• User:Kippreport

Additional account:

• Kippreport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Cross-wiki spam:

• w:fr:Spécial:Contributions/80.227.53.134

Since at least 4 usernames + an IP persistently spammed the link in spite of multiple requests to stop, I am pessimistic this company won't abuse us in the future. The requesting IP was one of the same accounts spamming the link. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine.  Declined. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

blog.hubpages.com

HubPages is a popular web site that allows anyone to write articles called "hubs".

I am a member of the staff of HubPages and I can assure you that we take spam very seriously. If you would like to report to use that one of our pages is violating the terms of Wikipedia, we would appreciate the feedback and take the appropriate actions.

For example, we have a strict rule that users cannot have two external links to the same domain in their article unless the domain is a well known one such as wikipedia.org.

Independently of whether you add HubPages.com to your whitelist, I would respectfully request that you add the url "blog.hubpages.com" This is the url used officially by the HubPages staff. If you take a look at the content there, you will see that it is not spam.

It consists of official HubPages communications, feature details, and snapshots into the life of hubbers and hubpage staff.

Wikipedia currently has an article on HubPages. That article cannot link the relevant blog articles that can help to clarify the relationship of hubs vs blogs etc. If you check it out, there is a reference without a link because blog.hubpages.com is not allowed.

Here is the link that I believe would be useful to add: blog.hubpages.com/2008/10/hubs-versus-blogs/

If you feel that blog.hubpages.com is not appropriate for wikipedia links, it would really help to know the reasons why. I will take this as positive feedback and respect your decision.

At HubPages, our goal is very similar to Wikipedia and Wikia. We seek to aggregate high quality of content that will be of interest and of value to our readers.

Thanks very much for consideration of this request. Feel free to contact me. My contact information is readily available at hubpages.com/help/about if you have any questions about this request.

Cheers,

-Larry

 Not done Please read our conflict of interest policy. Hubpages is blacklisted for the same reason as many other "publish yourself and make money!" sites are; conflict-of-interest and reliable sources issues. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jamie,

Thanks for the response. I appreciate the link to Wikipedia's policies.

Based on your response, I will modify my request. I agree with you that it is problematic to include HubPages in the whitelist. At best, it probably makes sense to request approval for specific articles only.

In light of this, I would request only that you allow the link to the blog.hubpages.com url on the HubPages article. I added the link in an effort to clarify the difference between a blog and a hub. I would ask you to take a look at the blog entry and the HubPages article.

If you feel that this link is conflict of interest in that it overly promotes HubPages as opposed to clarifying the HubPages article, just let me know and I will remove the link to the blog entry. I added it solely with the purpose of clarifying the article.

Thanks very much for considering this request,

-Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryfreeman (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

epillpharma.com

1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

The above site is a Bio Medical firm official wesite, the firms' name is E-Pill. This company has developed a novel oral drug delivery platform that replaces drug delivery by injection. Its establisher is Yossi Gross, an innovator and entrepreneur. I would like to add this link as part of the list of companies he has established based on his patents.

1. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

The entry of Yossi Gross is planned to be using this link as part of listing his patents and firms he initiated

1. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yossi_Gross Thank you very much. Marjieruthhadad (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

•  Not done. You can name the company without having to link to it. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org (3)

The links below would be useful as convenience links for documents already cited at Cold fusion. See prior discussions on this page for reasons to consider that these links do not violate WP:EL or WP:COPYVIO. (permanent link) Please whitelist these links, which are perhaps half of the links that would be presently useful, or please whitelist the entire site, so that editors don't have to come back here for each link; ordinary editorial process at Cold fusion is easily adequate to handle appropriateness of use.

• http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf permission from publisher explicit
• http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BockrisJaccountabi.pdf permission from publisher explicit
• http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushBFheliumprod.pdf Elsevier, no logo, may not be direct copy
• http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf preprint, permission from author presumed
• http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GozziDxrayheatex.pdf copy from actual Elsevier
• http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/HublerGKanomalousea.pdf slides, not published paper
• http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYelementalaa.pdf explicit author permission, Japanese publication, unknown situation with original publisher
• http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JosephsonBpathologic.pdf slides, not published paper
• notes added on apparent permission situation. My opinion is that we may presume permission for all except the Elsevier paper I struck. The other Elsevier paper appears not to be an original publication but probably an edited preprint, which Elsevier permits (see below comment by Enric Naval). I now suspect that the Elsevier paper with the logo was a possible error on the site owner's part, that he may not have actual permission from Elsevier for that paper and possibly some others; the author would have sent the paper to him, and may have represented that permission to use existed, some authors may not understand Elsevier policy. --Abd (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is also an original document at lenr-canr.org, a bibliographical study, which is highly useful for discussion of the topic, though usage in the article would be more controversial and possibly not appropriate. (Almost all of what is in the document is verifiable, because it is a list of published papers plus graphical analysis.) Because I expect extensive discussion and review of this document on Talk:Cold fusion, I also request that it be whitelisted for the convenience of editors.

• http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf

Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mention that lenr-canr.org is blacklisted at meta, there is reference to that in prior discussion. The reason for the meta blacklisting is unclear, but suggested procedure for delisting there involves a showing that the site may be needed for some purpose, and we can effectively neutralize the meta blacklisting by whitelisting the entire site here, or any specific links as requested and reasonably useful. While there was "promotion" alleged with the original blacklisting in January, that was not on the basis of evidence, there was no linkspam alleged.

I have today become aware of a mainstream review in the field that mentions this site, E. Sheldon, An overview of almost 20 years' research on cold fusion, Contemporary Physics, Volume 49, Issue 5 September 2008, pages 375 - 378.[1]. This is a book review of Edmund Storms, The science of low energy nuclear reaction, World Scientific, 2007. From that review:

... a major Web site on this topic is to be found at www.LENR-CANR.org ...

Ed Storms, who in the past has authored several review papers and articles, is to be commended for gathering the salient timely information between the covers of this quite up-to-date book, which provides a comprehensive overview together with its copious references. He has also been instrumental in helping to set up, with assistance from Dieter Britz and its current administrator, Jed Rothwell, the extensive resources of the Web Library on the LENR-CANR site. Thereby, he has provided a gateway to an in-depth study of the status of cold fusion and transmutation investigations and theories.

There are other mentions of the site in the review, and in many other reliable sources. Dieter Britz is an electrochemist who is a skeptic on cold fusion (as E. Sheldon remains), the bibliography on lenr-canr.org appears to be as complete as possible, it isn't cherry-picked positive reports.

So whitelisting the entire site may indeed be the most appropriate action. Generally, the site would not be used as reliable source, but as an external link for further research, or for convenience copies, because a good chunk of the literature has been hosted there with permission, but there are a few original documents by notable authors that are published by lenr-canr.org, which editors at Cold fusion or related articles might decide were usable. --Abd (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I disagree with this whitelisting for the reasons given in previous discussions here (I think Abd has linked the discussions) and on various talk pages, and the fact that this website has been abused in the past, is not a RS, and the copyright status of these "convenience" links is unclear despite Abd's claims. Providing the DOI is as convenient as we need, give the reliable and published version, and avoids these issues. This short summary of oppose reasons is not exhaustive. I'm not convinced that Sheldon's review can be considered mainstream, I'd have to look into that further. Verbal chat 08:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Verbal. Prior discussions here have gone in two directions. The first discussion was probably ready to conclude that there was no copyvio problem, but was closed as moot because of the meta blacklisting, which was basically a result of clandestine forum-shopping. The other conclusion has been to whitelist convenience links. Verbal has, for a whitelisted link, attempted to remove it, at Martin Fleischmann, so he's flogging the same horse. The site need not be an RS for convenience links; the paper, published elsewhere, is the source, not the site. There has been no linkspam abuse. There have been links to this site that were arguably inappropriate, but that doesn't constitute abuse. The copyright status of the pages listed is clear to this extent: lenr-canr claims permission from copyright owners (authors and publishers). To verify it beyond this would require contacting publishers; given that, from the context, we know that lenr-canr only hosts a fraction of the papers in their bibliography while they would love (and I'd love!) to host more, from their prominence -- they are highly visible -- it is highly unlikely that they are knowingly hosting any violations, we are completely safe linking to them, legally, and the more extreme wording of the external link policy that seemed to require "proof" has been removed. It was utterly impractical, for starters. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not ignoring this (in case someone complains that I've handled all the other requests); I am just too undecided to accept or decline. I would lean towards declining on WP:LINKVIO grounds (anyone can claim they have permission to host anything, and this site has been known to host material in violation of copyright), but whoever takes the final decision should consider all the factors. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Stifle. There is no credible allegation that this site has hosted anything in violation of copyright, that was simply something repeated frequently by an administrator who was later admonished by ArbComm, and then it has been repeated by others without checking, you aren't the first, but this has been discussed to death. On the other hand, if you know of a violation, please share the evidence. Further, sites which do occasionally have violating pages, think YouTube, are not blacklisted. WP:LINKVIO currently states: if you know 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. This satisfies the legal requirement for linking to copyvio (it must not be knowing). And while it's true that anyone can claim permission, if they don't have permission, they are inviting prosecution, it would turn a remediable error into a crime. Are you seriously proposing, Stifle, that we require proof? What kind of proof? How much red tape would you require? Who would certify it? I've done international adoption, I know red tape very well. --Abd (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stifle, and Abd may have discussed it to death but I'm not sure the rest of us did. Verbal chat 11:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'll have to go with the copyvio problems. I still see no explanation of how papers copyrighted by Elsevier are reproduced in Jed's site, despite User:JzG (who works with scientific publications in an university) asserting that Elsevier never gives permission to reproduce anything for free in a website. There is also no explanation of how the author can give permission to put a copy of their paper when they have submitted that same paper to a publication that doesn't allow reproduction without their own permission. As it has been pointed out, Jed (the owner of the website) appears to be "playing fast and loose with copyright".

No objection for individual links if the permission can be shown to exist, either through a post in a public website, a post in a mailing list with public archives like vortex-l, or a private submission of proof to the WP:OTRS system.

I oppose the whitelisting of the bibliographical study, as totally useless for the article or for discussion, as an unpublished paper of unknown reliability coming from a source known to be heavily biased. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The avenues suggested above have come up before and have been rejected as cumbersome and unnecessary. JzG's assertion that Elsevier never gives permission is simply based on JzG's experience, and he cannot know what contractual arrangements might exist between Elsevier and individual authors or what exceptions Elsevier management might allow. Many Elsevier publications would be hosted on lenr-canr.org that aren't, however, highly desirable papers. We do have email from Jed Rothwell, copied into prior discussion. If you read back over the prior discussions, you will see that many editors have considered the issue, the first to do so in detail was DGG, an administrator who is a librarian. What Enric is doing is attempting to place a roadblock against making sources accessible to readers, based on no policy at all, but rather, the same apparent cause as was the case with the admin who is named here as raising the issue; that admin fabricated one reason after another to justify blacklisting. When a link was whitelisted -- at Enric Naval's request, by the way -- and it was put in the article, JzG edit warred to keep it out, raising one objection after another. And they were all rejected, by consensus, at Martin Fleischmann. Now, it's true. It's possible that we could say that the Martin Fleischmann decision was for that specific link, where the copyright holder was not Elsevier, but Tsinghua University. However, if lenr-canr.org would lie about permission from Elsevier, why not about Tsinghua University? Why, indeed, would we trust any statement of permission, anywhere? There is an answer: because some editors believe that Jed Rothwell is a "kook," (JzG's word), nothing from him can be trusted. And that is how our POV can come to affect all our judgments. I'm suggesting caution, for sure, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that inappropriate links would end up in Cold fusion for more than a few hours, because that article is highly watched by editors who will reject anything shaky. After newenergytimes.com was delisted, I put a link into Cold fusion as a convenience link to the crucial Mosier-Boss paper. It was immediately reverted as copyvio. Because I hadn't researched the situation with permissions there, I was ready to rise up in umbrage, based on assumptions. But then I checked. Lenr-canr.org has a generic permissions page that makes the claim about permissions. I looked for one at NET. What I found is that NET, for a certain set of documents, claims fair use, not permission, yet hosts the complete papers. They may be able to get away with that legally, or not, or only for a time, but this took that paper outside of what WP:LINKVIO prescribes as a boundary. So if Enric, or anyone else, wants to object to a specific paper based on Elsevier publication, then I'd investigate that one, even if I personally thought it unnecessary. Otherwise, I'm not going to investigate permissions for each and every paper, demanding that Jed Rothwell or publishers spend time providing me or OTRS with proof that isn't needed for them. Bad idea. (If I were the publisher, I might ignore the letter, I'd gain nothing by answering it.) --Abd (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the claims of consensus, all I saw were looong posts by Abd and some discussion. I may be wrong as it's hard to read all those lengthy posts and short replies. And as Abd often notes, consensus changes. To give Abd what he is asking for, I, specifically, object to all of the proposed links. Needless to say I endorse Enric's view. Verbal chat 17:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The proof is in the edits. Take a look at the history of Martin Fleischmann, and compare that with the discussion of the lenr-canr.org link on the Talk page of that article. A number of editors participated in the Talk page discussion of the lenr-canr.org link, over time, some of them having been attracted by an AN/I report over JzG edit warring to keep the link out. These was not a formal RfC; it was, rather, an organized discussion, guided to come to a conclusion. I closed the sections, yes, but without objection and only expressing consensus, and, in the end, there was one objection from one editor, which was satisfied and the link stood as qualified by a disclaimer that that editor accepted as satisfactory and I accepted as unnecessary but harmless, as did at least one other editor. Verbal then showed up later and presented a new argument, something like "We don't do disclaimers." So I took the disclaimer out, tentatively, asking to be reverted if someone objected. Instead Verbal removed the link entirely, apparently paying no attention to the prior result. I didn't notice this for some time. When I did, and in full view of the community, I'm watched quite closely, that's obvious, I put the link back and the other editor who wanted the disclaimer put the disclaimer back and there it sits. Many editors have commented on this copyright issue. What is clear from the history is that copyvio is a red herring, a plausible argument that can gain some traction, but the real purpose isn't protection of the project from copyright violation (there is no hazard of that here) or from loss of reputation from linking to a copyvio site (if there does happen to be a violation on lenr-canr.org, it still isn't a site with heavy copyvio and thus doesn't violate EL policy), it is that some editors are strongly of the belief that cold fusion is pseudoscience or fraud and that any site devoted to resources for the study of it is, per se, objectionable. Verbal is active in pursuit of an anti-cold fusion agenda, and so is Enric Naval, but Enric, at least, has been helpful. He is the one who proposed the whitelisted link that was previously edit warred over. --Abd (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As to the bibliographical study, this is self-published by an expert in the field (notable enough for an article, but I haven't gone there yet) so it's even possible that under some conditions it could be used in an article, but that's not why I'm proposing it. It's a list of reliable sources, and, as such a list, it is all verifiable, and if it is incomplete, completed, or incorrect, corrected. I'd simply copy the list here, except for one problem. Copyright. We need to look at this information in order to better assess due weight; otherwise we have conflict of sources, with many otherwise reliable sources making assertions that are blatantly false, looking at the actual publication evidence. Suppose, as an example, some newspaper reports say, "No claims have been made that X exists." Yet there are primary sources claiming that X exists, peer-reviewed, independently published. How do we determine due weight for mention of X in the article? Do we use the reliable secondary source, or can we consider the primary sources? My position is that we would want to look at those primary sources, and exercise caution about leaning on a secondary source which is easily impeachable with reliable primary sources. Is there just one paper? In this case, there are 153 listed. Note that this would be enough to establish that X exists. Indeed, the secondary sources carry weight on that, even if they are wrong. What we would report is both the secondary source conclusions, which, in this case, vary, some saying X exists and some saying that it doesn't, and the primary evidence, where it is clear and verifiable by a reader of ordinary skill. We don't come to a conclusion ourselves. --Abd (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Most of the links listed are papers, but two (JosephsonBpathologic.pdf and HublerGKanomalousea.pdf) are simply slides from presentations, and therefore are unlikely to be of any value as references. - Bilby (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the links are proposed as convenience links for references that are already present in the article. Bilby, if this editor thinks they are of no value, could demonstrate this by removing them from the article. Being whitelisted here does not establish that the links will be used, but that the references have been used in the article, probably for a long time, does establish that some editors, at least, believe them useful, or at least accept them, and we should not allow the blacklist to be used to support content positions. Blacklist administrators should not have to make content judgments, absent active linkspamming (in which case we would be balancing protection against linkspam against content necessity), or other clear harm, and this is where our blacklist policy is moving with the recent decision by ArbComm. If there is any question about that, please ask! --Abd (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Josephson is fine, it sources the opinion of a Nobel laurate who supports cold fusion. Anyways, it's moot because using archive.org it can be sourced directly from the official website of the meeting summary slides. I'll add these links when the protection expires. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine then. Josephson doesn't need whitelisting, and HublerGKanomalousea is debatable, I suppose. - Bilby (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that HublerGKanomalousea isn't being used in the article. (The slides that are proposed here, that is, not the article itself - the article isn't being proposed for whitelisting). I can't imagine that it would be used, so I'm not sure waht the value of whitelisting that one would be. - Bilby (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop this nonsence - the Arbitration Committee has spoken:

“ Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions. ” — Purpose of the spam blacklist

This case has never been about anything else than attempts to enforce POV by blacklists. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. It isn't about enforcing POV. See comments above, and see WP:AGF. Verbal chat 20:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If the value of the links isn't an issue, then that's fine. It just seemed to me that the rules for proposing whitelisting a link said you need to show three things, the third of which was "Explain why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper". If I missread that, then apologies, but if that's the case then there's a problem with the process. - Bilby (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That explanation is necessary when there is linkspamming, where balance is required. There was no linkspamming here. This blacklisting was the action that led to the reprimand of JzG at the case cited above, because of his involvement, and the original accusations of copyvio came from him. The blacklisting would be gone if it had remained here; but JzG forum-shopped to meta, and is well-respected there. He didn't tell us that he was requesting blacklisting there, even though the matter was being debated here. As to usefulness, that is asserted: these links are being requested as convenience copies. The references are already there. Convenience copies, where a topic is controversial and hotly debated, are very useful. We satisfy WP:V with the references, technically, but we get far higher levels of actual verification if we have convenience copies. --Abd (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. In that case, an explanation as to why links are needed is probably warranted. It was originally listed for linkspamming, although copyvio was raised, and it was denied de-blacklisting from the meta list because of spamming, not copyvio. I note that JzG was reprimanded for failure to recluse, not because the decision was necessarily incorrect. At any rate, I'm only commenting on two of the links. - Bilby (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, linkspamming was alleged, but the only evidence that has been presented wasn't pointing to links, it was pointing to a signature by Jed Rothwell, librarian, lenr-canr.org. As you will notice, the blacklist doesn't stop this! It is just a title, and does not violate any policy. (If it were a link, it would.) Indeed, it's commendable, because it discloses COI. In most places, however, this was called "promotion," not linkspam, but that was said in a context where editors would easily assume it meant "linkspam." Yes, the reprimand was for failure to recuse, i.e., for acting when involved. However, that should raise a red flag about trusting the reasons given. If you review the evidence presented in the case, there is plenty of reason to suspect strong bias and selective or even distorted presentation of evidence.

I urge reading the complete decision by Mike.lifeguard in deciding not to delist "at this time." Here is his summary:

The reason for my decision is primarily that the link is being pushed inappropriately on multiple wikis. Editorial reasons are secondary, and arguments concerning them are immaterial to the primary reason. That said, I think the spamming and editorial reasons dovetail nicely here, making blacklisting an attractive outcome for all. Those who rail against this decision simply fail to realize this.

Whitelisting specific URLs for specific uses as required and permitted by local wikis' policies should be sought. The domain will remain blacklisted on Meta until such time as the issues identified here have been resolved and the use of links to the domain are required by an established editor for the betterment of our projects.

He does not explain what "pushed" means. However, I assume it would mean the same as Beetstra meant in his arguments before ArbComm, that links were used that were inappropriate, i.e., that shouldn't be in the articles. But what was the reason for deciding that they were inappropriate? The specific links removed by JzG as part of his blacklisting process had been accepted by consensus. Mike's comment that "spamming and editorial reasons dovetail nicely here" is an acknowledgment that he was supporting an editorial position, one which is not actually that of most working with the articles, when decisions are made carefully. There is currently one link at Martin Fleischmann, though Verbal has been edit warring to try to remove it, and one link at Cold fusion, which was accepted recently without objection, plus another link at Michael McKubre, requested by Enric Naval. The copyvio issue, if valid, would apply to all of these.

Mike, in his full explanation of his decision, shows that he does not consider convenience links important. That's a generic content position, and one not supported by our actual practice. Convenience links, which allow any reader to quickly read a source, cause far higher levels of actual verification. Once, when I suspected a problem with a reference that had been standing for over a year, I actually went to the trouble of going to a medical library, and got a copy of the source. It had been drastically misrepresented. That would have been discovered, probably within days, if there had been a convenience link. But usually those links don't exist for published papers. Lenr-canr.org has gone to very substantial trouble to get permission to host what they host. Their bibliography is generally complete, and you can see from it that most papers are not hosted. You can also see that there are papers that are critical of cold fusion that are hosted. Some very important papers, where Rothwell could not obtain permission, aren't hosted, such as the recent Mosier-Boss finding of energetic neutrons from a cold fusion cell. That paper is hosted at newenergytimes.org, under a claim of fair use, though they host the entire paper. (I.e., newenergytimes.com, which we delisted, does host probable copyvio, though it's possibly legally harmless, and apparently their lawyers must think so. They have money and they would be an attractive target for a copyvio lawsuit. Linking to that article was prevented by ordinary editorial process, which works.) Lenr-canr.org, though it is also nonprofit, doesn't make that fair use claim. They claim explicit permission from authors and publishers. We should accept that claim, routinely. It is a legally hazardous claim to make if it isn't true, being a separate offense under U.S. law, which would apply.

Inappropriate use of a site does not justify not whitelisting specific links where they are appropriate. All of the links proposed are as convenience links for pages already referenced, so we can presume that they are useful. Whitelisting does not support the use itself, except in a minor way. I.e., if copyvio is known or reasonably considered likely, copyright law would suggest we not link, though, in fact, there is no decision, ever, against a site like Wikipedia for linking to copyvio unless it was clearly willful and designed to defeat copyright protection; thus, I have argued, whitelisting is an implicit rejection of the copyvio claim, by the deciding admin. That doesn't mean that there is proof of no copyvio, but only that one admin has reviewed the link and did not find sufficient evidence of copyvio to exclude it. There were attempts to insert a requirement for "proof" in our guidelines, raised by Verbal in his recent discussion at Talk:Martin Fleischmann. That wasn't sustained, and the reason is clear: it would create a tremendous burden for doing something that should be easy: making it possible to easily verify a source. --Abd (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of that is compeletly irrelevant. All that I'm saying, which is supported by what you quoted above, is that the site was blacklisted for linkspam. And based on what you said, "explanation is necessary when there is linkspamming, where balance is required". From on what I read of the articles, I can see that most will be useful. Two links will not. HublerGKanomalousea.pdf, as the link you are requesting is to a different document than the one referenced in the article, and, being only the slides from the presentation, would be unlikely to be of any value anyway; and JosephsonBpathologic.pdf, which seems to have been incorrectly used as a reference in the article, is also merely slides, and, as Enric Naval pointed out, can be better linked to the archive of the official site. - Bilby (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That analysis ("linkspam") is unsupported by the evidence and the deciding admin's closing statement. The existence of allegedly inappropriate links isn't linkspam, even if they were promotional (they weren't added by the site owner, unless rarely and long ago, this site is close to the top return from Google searches involving cold fusion, it is utterly unsurprising that editors will link to it, and nobody has been warned or blocked for linkspam over this, the linkspam allegations are actually preposterous). The decision on actual use of the links will be made, as it should be, at the article, not here. Thus a closing admin here need not worry about actual content decisions, only if the links could be considered useful. I would argue for the slides, with a note explaining that it's not the actual lecture text. It's better than nothing. Absolutely, if there is a better link, we should use it, not lenr-canr.org. That's easy. But it wastes a lot of time to debate these content issues here and, in the end, the site will be, I predict, totally whitelisted here, and then delisted at meta, and then, as it should be, and as it is normally done, each link will be considered on its merits by editors at the article, and we will be able to bury this dead horse and get on with the business of writing and editing articles, unfettered by unnecessary and inappropriate blacklisting. It is quite clear that this is what the community wants, overall. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue discussing this here, as this sin't pprogressing, and I don't wish to continue to add to what the closing admin needs to wade through. But in the interests of accuracy, you stated: "that analysis ("linkspam") is unsupported by the evidence and the deciding admin's closing statement". I note that the closing admin wrote: "Contrary to the claims, I do see evidence here of the domain being pushed inappropriately by the domain owner." So no, that claim is supported by the closing admin's statement. That aside, you cannot reference the paper and link the reference the slides - it does't work that way. The HublerGKanomalousea.pdf paper will not be of any value in the article. The others may well be, though. - Bilby (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Linkspam" isn't merely the addition of "inappropriate" links, or the "domain being pushed" (as with non-link text), it's addition of links, appropriate or not, in quantities sufficient to overwhelm ordinary editorial review. I'll add a link to the definition. --Abd (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose With all the questionable material we already host, you want to add more potential copyright problems? Give a DOI, stay in the established channels, and eat your vegetables. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we host a lot of questionable material. This isn't. 2over0 should review WP:ELYES. There is no evidence that this site hosts one piece of copyright violation, and, rather obviously, there are a number of editors who would like to make it seem so, you'd think that at least one of them would have written a publisher to verify the claim of permission. My guess is that it's been done, but because the goal of these editors (not 2over0, whose comment I take at face value as concern over copyvio) is to keep content out, they didn't tell us that (a) the publisher ignored the warning, or (b) -- worse, and I make this claim with respect to no specific editor -- the publisher wrote that permission had been granted. We have email from Rothwell claiming permission from authors and publishers.[2] We have the known position of the site "father," Storms, and the manager, Rothwell, in the cold fusion community, these are not marginal figures. The site gets high traffic. The copyright claim is preposterous, has been shot down many times, and is still being asserted. I conclude the same as Petri Krohn above. Which is why determined efforts to keep this content out will be met with Arbitration Enforcement if necessary. I urge any admin closing this with a decision to review the arguments and evidence carefully. --Abd (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that Elsevier and other companies sued some publishers because they "routinely duplicated and distributed copyrighted materials without obtaining permission from the publishers directly or through Copyright Clearance Center". See also settlement. This other article has a longer explaination and says that Copyright Clearance Center is "[the] licensing agent for all five publishers".

Now, lenr-canr.org has several papers where Elsevier has an "All rights reserved" copyright notice, obtained from this google search:

1. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangWSeffectsofe.pdf
2. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSthermalbeh.pdf
3. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcommentonp.pdf
4. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangWSsteadyconc.pdf
5. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakStheeffecto.pdf
6. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangWSvoltammogr.pdf
7. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangWSeffectsofsb.pdf
8. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangWSeffectsofh.pdf
9. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangWSresistance.pdf
10. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CisbaniEneutrondet.pdf
11. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSonthebehavb.pdf
12. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GozziDxrayheatex.pdf
13. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ZhangWSeffectsofs.pdf thirteen

Those are not preprints or drafts, those are published articles with the Elsevier symbol in the upper left of the page. Jed (the website owner) has never stated that he has gotten permission from Elsevier anywhere, just that he got direct permission from the authors. However, as seen by that lawsuit, that's not enough for copyright compliance, he has to get permission from the publisher or from the Copyright Clearance Center. As I said above, Jed seems to be playing "fast and loose" with copyright. It's possible that he is being tolerated because he isn't making commercial distribution in a channel where is damaging Elsevier economically, or because he is too small to get noticed, or because the publishers don't want to be accused of greedingly trying to squash a free service. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Enric, have you read his email? I believe it is cited above. He claims permission from authors and publishers and states explicitly that he doesn't host papers unless he can get both. Now, I've stated before, apecify one page that you'd like me to investigate specifically, and I will. But if it turns out that there is permission, I'd expect you to quiet your opposition. He's not too small to avoid notice, that's clear. Newnenergytimes is relying on fair use, possibly by the arguments you give. But lenr-canr.org has made explicit claim of permission, which is quite different. Really, this has been examined by experts and given a pass. --Abd (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I stroke that part out. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not start with the first, as I specifically object to all of them. I'd specifically like evidence from the copyright holders that permission is granted for l-c.org to host these without any restrictions, and not just some website owners word. Verbal chat 17:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The "first" refers, I assume to the first Elsevier link listed by Enric Naval above. I'll check that one out and report back. I'm not convinced that I should go to the owner (why should the owner bother to respond to me?) but will ask Rothwell first. Note that if Rothwell claims specific permission, and if that wasn't given, Rothwell would be committing a separate offense under copyright law in the U.S., where he lives and works, and, whereas he might satisfy the law merely by taking down the page on demand, that avoidance of liability would not extend to a false claim of permission. We may rely, I claim, on specific claims of permission by site owners, we do not have to tack on an impossibly burdensome requirement of generally asking for proof from owners. --Abd (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:LINKVIO more carefully... There are also more hidden problems, Hubler's paper was published at Surface and Coatings Technology, which belongs to Elsevier[3] Also, Elsevier's papers are not the only ones with dubious copyright: I see, for example, that Iwamura's paper has permission from the author, but the journal's permission page says that you need separate permission from the publisher. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, and others, the Arbitration Enforcement is indeed possible if the only reason this site was blacklisted was to enforce a content decision. However, the ArbComm has not said that the sites in that decision were actually blacklisted to enforce content ... and I am also not sure at all that that was the reason it was blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is correct, Beetstra, which is why we are here. ArbComm does not make content decisions. However, it is quite clear, I believe ArbComm would confirm, and will confirm if necessary, that the copyvio charges were raised due to an anti-fringe content concern, and that the strong resistance to whitelisting is based (for most involved editors) on the same agenda. What we have seen in the many discussions of this is that some neutral editors will initially agree with the concern, but when the evidence is reviewed, they end up approving the link. Copyvio is a content issue, and is only under unusual situations to be dealt with by blacklisting; two examples: a site that is mostly copyvio, where most links being added are copyvio, and it is not possible to deal with the problem by ordinary editorial measures, bots, or blocking the editors adding the link. The site might be blacklisted and then content arguments required for whitelisting. Another example would be a site that is being linkspammed -- there is no credible evidence for linkspamming for this site, only debate and argument that some links were inappropriate, and, indeed, some were! But then a specific link is needed somewhere, and so the need should be established. However, my position is that this should be easy, because that will be an examined link. The showing of need should be merely that assertion of need is reasonable. Whitelisting does not guarantee that a link gets actually used. I went to user RfC with the primary issue being blacklisting by an involved administrator, and tried to keep the issue to a pure matter of administrative involvement, but I was not supported in keeping it narrow, and ArbComm ended up ruling on the use of the blacklist. Absolutely, they haven't decided on the particular content matter (beyond a decision that found that JzG had used admin tools while involved. I did not push, and they did not decide, if his content positions were appropriate or,instead, POV-pushing).

If a decision to deny is made here based on copyvio, that position is sufficiently reasonable at this point that, unless the administrator is involved in the subject matter or has other involvement that should suggest recusal, there will be no danger to that admin, but the matter will, I predict, be reviewed. From precedent with the blacklisting of newenergytimes.com, however, the blacklisting supporters will not appeal; there, they made a flap over alleged involvement of the delisting admin, but that went nowhere. Any admin deciding to whitelist these links, or the site as a whole, should be prepared for criticism. A decision to deny these whitelistings will also be questioned, through standard dispute resolution, promptly this time, but no neutral admin should fear accusations of bad faith from my side. I simply request that the admin review the evidence and not decide based merely on preponderance of !votes, and present the reasons for the decision.

I have aimed for minimum disruption. I could have simply requested whitelisting the entire site, with no alternative suggested (and that is still a possible decision here). I could have requested whitelisting of these links one at a time, that would have been easier for me. Pick the strongest. Instead, I just went through the references and found convenience links in alphabetical order from the existing references, about half of them. There are other convenience links in the article, but no attention has been paid to them. Attention is paid to the lenr-canr.org links because of the attitude toward the site, connected with a POV about the topic, that's quite obvious, and that is why this would go, if necessary, to AE. A decision to delist the whole site would immediately defuse all this debate, here, and we could move on to meta. Without a delisting or substantial whitelisting here, approaching meta is premature. --Abd (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, per the ArbCom decisions referenced above (8, Imbalances in methods, quality and volume of communications) can you trim your excessive comment as it is impeding discussion and understanding, thanks. Verbal chat 13:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No. My comment here is on-point, precisely. However, if it flies over your head, you are welcome to ignore it, but don't ignore warnings from others, and you just got one on your talk page.[4]. That was step two in DR, totally unsolicited. --Abd (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Abd, the question to ArbComm if the link was blacklisted for a content decision would be a question to ArbComm to make a content decision, so I am not so sure if they would comment on that (as you have strongly defended that the question in the ArbComm if lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com were abused was a content decision). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The question ArbComm would be asked would depend on how this situation develops. At this point there are editorial behavior issues to be looked at, one of them involving Verbal and his role in this. They would not be asked to make a content decision, and it has not been interpreted that they made a content decision. They made a decision about a number of things, and policy over blacklist usage was part of that. They obviously cannot compel any decision here, but they might look at the reasons behind a decision, and arguments presented for a decision, both those that are stated and those that are sufficiently clear from behavior to form the basis of a conclusion. Beetstra, I hope you are never taken before ArbComm over something you've done, it's a royal pain. Nothing you have done, to make it clear, would be worthy of that, you have generally been helpful, and it's a bit of a mystery to me what you are arguing about here. You obviously don't buy the copyvio argument. Here is what I suggest. You know enough to make quick work of this. Consider it. As long as this issue remains unresolved, there is going to be continued disruption, because there are deeper factional disputes involved. ArbComm has advised me to proceed more quickly, and I am. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose i see no rationalization for the inclusion of the links, at most they would be convenience links to papers that can be accessed through other channels - purchase/library/university/mail to author etc. With the potential for copyright violation, and no need for the links - its hard to come to another decision. (and yes - i have read the various arguments). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I have no experience with this black-/whitelisting business and this site is in a grey area, so I am not going to !vote. But I participated in an earlier discussion at Talk:Martin Fleischmann – my only involvement in the cold fusion topic so far – and I hope I can help to focus this discussion on the real issues:

• Lenr-canr.org hosts scientific and non-scientific publications and references to such. The site makes an effort to stay legal. [5] In case of any copyright violations it is obvious for the publishers who to turn to (and, presumably, ruin).
• The results above of Enric Naval's Google search indicate that in some cases the site either misunderstands what it is allowed (not) to do, or intentionally operates in the grey area between what a publisher allows and where it intervenes. Elsevier is quite liberal about distribution of articles outside its own channels. [6][7][8] Basically the only reasonable thing that is not allowed is distributing the article in the journal layout commercially or widely, e.g. on a web server. Lenr-canr.org is doing this in some cases, and to me even after reading Jed Rothwell's email it doesn't seem plausible that they have adequate permission to do so.
• Two of the links in this request concern Elsevier articles. One is very likely legal (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushBFheliumprod.pdf), the other very likely not (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GozziDxrayheatex.pdf).
• Nobody wants to use lenr-canr.org as a source, so the question whether it is a reliable source does not arise. The question is whether documents hosted on lenr-canr.org can serve as freely accessible convenience links instead of / in addition to the authoritative pay version at the publisher's server.
• In the past it was asserted that lenr-canr.org has a track record of manipulating the documents it hosts. This was based on a single instance (since fixed, I believe) where a hosted document was prepended with an editorial comment. One of the links under discussion, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GozziDxrayheatex.pdf, is another example. The full version is available here and makes it explicit that this is the corrected version of the article.

These being the real issues, and with the example of YouTube in mind, I believe that there are three options; I am not familiar with the rules for black-/whitelisting, so I won't opine about their relative virtue.

1. Take the site off the MediaWiki blacklist. (Obviously not something to be decided here.) Spread awareness that free copies of articles in the publisher's layout are generally not legal.
2. Put the site on the whitelist. Spread awareness that free copies of articles in the publisher's layout are generally not legal.
3. Whitelist only those articles that appear to be legally hosted by lenr-canr.org on a case-by-case basis, when needed.

--Hans Adler (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much my thoughts. Where I take them:

1. Whitelisting here is the first step to deal with meta. If I can't get whitelisting here, it's hopeless to think that meta will change and delist, nor should they. So the only issue is how many links would be needed. We have three so far.
2. Site-wide whitelisting is ideal, because there is no special reason to think that this site frequently hosts copyvio. If the Elsevier allegations turn out to be accurate -- I will investigate -- I certainly wouldn't use a link to such a page, nor would I permit another to use it. However, there are over 500 papers hosted there. Some that might seem to be problematic are preprints, which Elsevier allows, and they also allow authors to edit their preprints to match the published text. But if the text has the Elsevier logo, that is going to require investigation, starting with a more specific question to Rothwell. He's stated he has permission from publishers, and Elsevier is not obligated to enforce their own rules, i.e., they might grant permission for some reason. One thing is quite likely: if there are violations, they are errors, not "playing fast and loose."
3. Whitelisting links as needed, and excepting specific papers for specific reasons, i.e., "Elsevier logo," is certainly okay. But it adds work and more discussion. I'll do what I can to keep it down if this is the way we go. Precedent, though, is that a few bad links doesn't justify blacklisting a site, consider YouTube.

• What's clear is that whitelisting the whole site will stop the discussion here, beyond a possible short bounce, as there was with the newenergytimes.com delisting. (There were complaints that the delisting admin had an ArbComm sanction prohibiting him from reversing JzG's actions, which the complainers claimed that this was, though, in fact, it wasn't him being reversed, it was the administrator after him who had refused delisting on the first request. Note that the newenergytimes.com example shows that even if a site hosts copyvio, and with an article watched as intensely as Cold fusion, removing it from the blacklist doesn't create violating links, because I'd missed that NET hosts entire papers on a claim of fair use, which almost certainly means there is copyvio. (NET also hosts a much larger amount of original material that they own.) So when I put a link in the article, it was reverted immediately, and properly so. So if lenr-canr.org is whitelisted, in toto, I would personally refrain from actually using a link as described here (original publisher marks), unless I have better evidence of permission. At this point, an explicit claim of direct permission from Elsevier would be adequate. (It's possible that an author told him that the publisher has given permission, but was in error on the exactly policy. That could be fixed: the Elsevier copy could be replaced with an author working copy edited to match the changes made in peer review and editing, which they explicitly allow, as I read the document. --Abd (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear: So you are no longer asking for http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GozziDxrayheatex.pdf to be whitelisted? (This one has the Elsevier logo and is not even a complete file, so it probably breaks copyright both for being distributed in this way and for being distributed in modified form.) --Hans Adler (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I am asking, in fact, for the entire site to be whitelisted, because even a few copyvios on a site don't justify blacklisting in the absence of actual linkspam; however, I had not noticed the incomplete file issue. I think I've read that sometimes Rothwell gets permission to host part of a paper, and that might be one of these, in which case the link would still be useful, and would not be violating, but it should be noted that it's a partial copy. If a closing admin decides not to do a whole-site whitelisting, but just whitelists individual links, thus postponing the final decision to a future discussion, that's fine, and omitting the Elsevier links would be reasonable, pending outcome of a specific investigation of that. I wouldn't want to delay a close here, but would instead extend the discussion if new evidence comes up justifying that (or ask the closing admin about it). --Abd (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a remark, Abd, you seem to imply that if you get enough documents here whitelisted, that that will almost automatically mean that it will be removed from the meta blacklist. That is not an argument for de-blacklisting! There are sites where there are several whitelisted documents here, but which will as the situation is now not be removed from the mediawiki blacklist - the problem is for some sites bigger and different then here (spamming campaigns, spam incentives, etc.), but it does not mean that there is no good info on such sites. It may help the case, but it is not a necessity, there are also removals which are not preceded by whitelisting. Whitelisting was IMHO merely mentioned as a solution for those documents which were necessery, not to replace a de-blacklisting. De-blacklisting is generally done on other merits, general: when (from several local wikis) established, knowledgeable editors in the field request removal. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra, you should know me well enough by now that I wouldn't believe such a stupid thing as you imagine I might be implying. Do remember that

• I already requested removal once.
• I have experience with requesting removal at meta, and it varies somewhat from your description of the ideal.
• I'm describing a process that is minimally disruptive, probably, while ensuring that those closest to a topic have first crack at a decision, with wider discussion then being founded on evidence. One never knows for sure. I.e., simple process can become disruptive when tenaciously opposed. If site whitelisting is done here, the matter is over, I predict, for en.wikipedia.
• It is up to us what we want blacklisted here, not meta. My primary concern is this project. If this project supports continued blacklisting, I'm not about to go to meta to try to do an end run around consensus here.

If we do whitelist here, as de.wikipedia whitelisted Lyrikline.org did to deal with a persistent blacklist decision at meta, in spite of plenty of requests from "established, knowledgeable editors," then further process at meta may be explored (as it will, eventually, for lyrikline.org. That meta blacklisting is actually preposterous, you know and I know that there are better ways to deal with a lyrikline linkspam problem; there was linkspam, of the "actually good links" kind, with very few debatable exceptions, but it ceased and would not have resumed even without the global blacklisting, or if the blacklisting were lifted. De.wikipedia, where linkspam would be most likely (it's a well-known German site), whitelisted in toto and has seen no linkspam result. We (Beetstra, actually, as I recall) effectively whitelisted the whole site by whitelisting the english language interface. Note to other editors: "linkspam" includes "good" links, the term can be misleading. To decide that there is linkspam, it is not necessary to decide that the links are bad, and if you look at normal blacklisting reports, you will see that there is frequently no content argument at all. --Abd (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Probable copyvio, history of spam by the website owner both on the talk page (by my count, 82 of the 85 instances of "lenr-canr.org" on Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 20 were placed by the website owner) as well as placement of links to his own website on the article space [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32], including linking his own editorial content onto the article page[33][34][35][36][37]. At one point, he violated 3RR to add his own editorial commentary, adding his 'news' page here and reverting four times in 24 hours to keep a link to it. [[38]][39][40][41] The website owner has since been blocked indefinitely as, in spite of abandoning his logged in account, he "continues to engage in disruptive behavior and advocacy via various IP's". I have serious concern that his previous disruptive and self-promoting behavior would return if his website were whitelisted.--Noren (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a huge pile of irrelevant evidence, from back in 2005 and 2006. The editor, after 2006, abandoned editing the article, what he did back then is moot. Apparently he became aware of the COI rules and so he then confined himself to editing the Talk page, as is recommended. The ban was issued by an admin who was admonished for action while involved, and that matter hasn't been cleaned up yet. JedRothwell was blocked even though there was no current activity, it seems to have been done to make a point. Rothwell is abrasive and might not be suited to edit Wikipedia, but that is an entirely separate matter. He wasn't blocked for adding links to his site, he wasn't adding links to his site at all. For an expert in the field and host of a web site on the very subject of the article to occasionally suggest links to pages there isn't any kind of violation at all. There is one argument raised in the discussion here which is of importance, which is the copyvio issue, which will need to be addressed (and which, in my opinion, is still no reason to blacklist, just not to whitelist specific links). The rest of the above is moot, it's a shame that Noren wasted time putting it together. Whitelisting the site would have no effect on Rothwell's "return," that's preposterous. --Abd (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

New evidence and explanation from Hans Adler re copyvio.

• [42]. This really should ice the copyvio claim, and we can prevent further disruption by whitelisting the whole site, that is what I advise and request; whitelisting individual links is more cumbersome but would satisfy the immediate request while effectively requiring further requests and thus more opportunity for beating dead horses. From my point of view, though, any decision works and will bring us closer to a final resolution of this mess. --Abd (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see what's new about this, or why it ices any copyvio claim. I find the recent comment added by 2/0 to your talk page here useful too. Hans' post doesn't answer the questions, it just points to a discussion that apparently stalled. Verbal chat 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Adler describes why he concludes -- and warns -- that the matter has been resolved. If you don't see that, well, blindness, by itself, is no offense. The discussion didn't "stall," it was done, and the status quo, at that time, accepted. I've responded to 2over0 and I hope that this editor is satisfied, it's what I expect. I recommend reading the Adler post carefully. It's brief and to the point, summarizing and confirming what I've been writing here. Sure, anyone can still raise a copyvio claim, but evidence would be required, Verbal has adduced no new evidence that hasn't already been considered, and more than once. --Abd (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the new evidence? I'd already responded to Hans before you posted this link here. I see no conclusion in the linked discussion. If you could highlight that I'd be grateful. (Do it here rather than my talk page please, thanks, and thanks for shortening your replies) Verbal chat 16:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I always shorten my replies when no new issues are raised and the matter has become crystal clear. The new evidence is the email correspondence Adler refers to, and his description of why the allegations were set aside. It's because the allegations of copyvio were not substantiated, other than by repeating speculative personal opinion, which you have echoed. You have not presented any new evidence. Given a standing consensus, substantiated by the active support of many editors -- not just me! -- the burden of proof is now on you, or else your repeated raising of this issue is disruptive. --Abd (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Hans would describe a short summary of a complicated, excessively verbose, discussion as "new evidence" (I'll ask him) - I certainly wouldn't. If you're referring to the private email, that really has nothing to do with this in general, or these links in particular. Hans gives no details and it isn't "evidence" in any way. This isn't about Jzg or the link referred to in that post. Verbal chat 16:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Verbal that this is no new evidence. I have a lot of respect and sympathy for Guy. I contacted him privately because I felt it was transparent his position was not supported by what he had made public. I hoped he might help me to understand things, and I warned him that what looked like his obstinacy might damage his reputation. I did get some additional information from Guy, but I don't remember the details well and I don't think they were particularly important, especially not for the question at hand. I am not sure they changed how I saw the situation in any way. The reason I mentioned my email exchange with Guy to Verbal was to make it clear that from my side this is not at all about a fight with Guy, and that I made a real effort to see the issues with the convenience link from the Fleischmann article.

Now that Verbal has alerted me to this thread, I have a number of comments if they haven't been made yet. It will take some time to check this, though. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hans, thanks for showing up here and commenting. It was new to me that you had email communication with the administrator in question over this, and your statement of why the allegations were dismissed was accurate, in my opinion, but I hadn't seen that stated by anyone else but me, before. As you may know, the administrator was admonished over his use of tools in this and related matters, but that, by itself, establishes nothing. So this process, here, is necessary. The administrator's prior actions are now moot except that the existence of the blacklisting should not create a presumption that it's legitimate (whereas ordinarily, that presumption would be reasonable). We still should make the best decision for the project, regardless of what happened in the past. --Abd (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

thomascarlyle.eu

Dear Sirs,

Please could you make available the link to www.thomascarlyle.eu so that I can link to it from the wikipedia pages craigenputtock and Thomas Carlyle. It would be a very useful aid to the articles as thomascarlyle.eu has much material on craigenputtock and Thomas Carlyle and is Thomas Carlyle's official European site.

Many Thanks

Jim Souther

This specific domain does not appear on the blacklist for either this blacklist or the meta blacklist; I suspect it's accidentally caught by another filter. The site looks useful and relevant.

 Added -- now whitelisted. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Was originally added based on m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/thomascarlyle.eu. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

digitpress.com

Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

It contains interviews with game designers which may be used as article references.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

Cube Quest

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

digitpress.com/library/interviews/interview_paul_allen_newell.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.89.235 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to grant this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the history:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2008#www.digitpress.com repeated spam on Wikipedia

For some reason, we have 41 of these links.

I recommend whitelisting this specific page since it contains a lengthy interview with the designers. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

patagonianexpeditionrace.com

1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

The site that I want to whitelist is the official site of the race that the article talks about, so it's important to add it as an external link to provide information and guidance related to the article.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

It is the article of the patagonian expedition race : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patagonian_expedition_race

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

The link of the page is patagonianexpeditionrace.com

200.72.157.72 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

This link was widely spammed across multiple Wikimedia Foundation projects, leading to its blacklisting at the Global Blacklist on Meta-Wiki. Here's the report:

• meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/patagonianexpeditionrace.com

On the English Wikipedia, the Patagonian Expedition Race article was created and edited by several single purpose accounts. External links to the web site and/or internal links to this article were added to every remotely related article; for example see Special:Contributions/PORTORico.

This race may or may not be notable; I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile#Patagonian Expedition Race asking for help with the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I also left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orienteering#Patagonian Expedition Race. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I am inclined to reject this request as no specific page has been suggested and the request is not from an established editor. I will leave this open for a few days in case a reason to do otherwise arises. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile#Patagonian Expedition Race. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

nochex.com

Until recently used as a citation on Nochex, thus: <ref>see, for instance, point 3.11 of the {{cite web |url=http://help.nochex.com/messages/?Action=Q&ID=278 |title=Terms and Conditions - Nochex Personal Account |accessdate=2008-02-28}}</ref>. WP:ELYES allows "link[s] to the subject's official site". However, this is a low-importance page and if there have been severe spamming problems from the site please retain the block. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Merged to request below. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nochex.com (2)

1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

This site is a main homepage for Nochex and having seen the edited version for 'Nochex' on Wikipedia it makes sense to back up and cite someof the references to fees and account types as discussed within the article. I appreciate Old Moonraker (as noted above) has some issues with the site however I fail to understand what he means by it has been the cause of spamming problems. If it could be explained then I can gladly accept his wishes for the blacklisting but I cant understand what he means. How does is cause problematic spam? I would therefore like it whitelisted as I see no problem with the site and it is essential in providing grounded evidence for the article.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

'Nochex'

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

There are a number of useful pages within the site that relate to the article however in particular I feel these pages are valuable - especially as they clearly explain the sorts of charges and terms that people are concerned over and have commented on in past versions of the article: (I have put a space in between the http: and the // as Wikipedia will not allow the published blacklisted addresses)

• http: //esupport.nochex.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=31
• http: //www.nochex.com/partners/auction/
• http: //help.nochex.com/messages/?Action=Q&ID=271
• http: //help.nochex.com/messages/?Action=Q&ID=273

Thanks Ssh85 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to permit these links (and/or www.nochex.com/merchant-services/) and will add them unless I hear a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the original record:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2008#MattSEO and Nochex spam on Wikipedia

I count at least 10 ignored warnings. Ssh85's only edits to date have been to make this request and to scrub adverse information from Nochex article.

With this history, I'd proceed carefully with nochex requests. Having said that, these proposed whitelist entries look useful to the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

trymasak.my

1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted. I here by request that you could consider whitelisting site www.trymasak.my. This is because this site is very helpful in giving the readers like me the recipes on how to cook in easy and simpler way and the best thing is that it also demonstrates the recipes in video form. Besides, it also gives readers the tips and guides and also glossary plus the readers can communicate with each other through forums and blogs. This site is very helpful and useful. All resources are free and users have option to register and become member to participate.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. I think the contents in TryMasak are carefully match with the content in Wikipedia. For instance, the article about "Kuih Koci" in Wikipedia is linked to Video Recipe of "Kuih Koci" in TryMasak.my.

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. Therefore Wikipedia readers can see visually how to make cooking "Kuih Koci". The link in TryMasak is:- http://www.XXtrymasakXX.my/view-video-recipes.php?lang=EN&VID=TM-63788fea030401e1b1e6f9bd79e11ab9 (Remove the XX because I need to add the XX in order to be appeared here)

Thus, I hope for trymasak.my to be given enough consideration to be whitelisted/unblocked. As a frequent visitors I find this website very interesting and resourceful. I'm sure it will add value to Wikipedia article as well. Farah syazana (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

 Declined We rarely whitelist sites per the site owner's request, per conflict of interest policy. Also, Wikipedia is not a cookbook. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Approved Requests

TourMyCountry.com

Hello, I'd like to be able to include:

http://www.tourXXXmyXXXcountry.com/austria/theresianum-diplomatic-academy.htm

(remove XXX's to read; I put them because otherwise I can't even post this!)

Reason: the article Gottfried van Swieten mentions the Theresianum as where van Swieten was schooled. The web page cited gives a pretty good history of the school, not otherwise available AFAIK.

Note: I don't know why TourMyCountry.com was blacklisted, so if you need to turn down this request I will understand.

Thanks for your help, Opus33 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• This report explains why it was blacklisted. I am inclined to whitelist the requested link unless I hear a reason not to in the next day or two. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Done Stifle (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Stifle. Opus33 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

vbs.tv

vbs.tv: 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 VBS.tv should be linking to the official site. The domain was spammed, but whitelisting for this use should be acceptable. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be OK to whitelist \bwww\.vbs\.tv/\b ? Stifle (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I plan to (only) link http://www.vbs.tv from VBS.tv (& remove the misleading links).  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, does not work, this would enable everything after it, as the final \b is here the word boundary of a possible beginning further url (after the unescaped '/', which should be a '\/'). Is there an index.htm or an about.htm we can use? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to escape /s, the system does that automatically. Awaiting further reply from Mike.lifeguard. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.vbs.tv/about.php would be acceptable.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that perhaps http://www.vbs.tv/about.php may apropriate considering the overwhelming evidence of abuse
:Accounts

Cazzer t (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
VBS.tv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Gabrielleshaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Vicklane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Vicebs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Stickitminister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Calibrated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Aslan2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
99.233.110.46 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
66.17.190.246 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
132.170.34.38 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
74.99.254.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
69.236.188.94 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Dgbarnes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Myshkin66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Subsystemm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
98.193.129.118 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
CorridorX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Cross Wiki spam Accounts
es:Special:Contributions/Melanieh
de:Special:Contributions/Vicegermany
de:Special:Contributions/MaiTaiMünchen
de:Special:Contributions/Pepples
de:Special:Contributions/84.191.237.45
de:Special:Contributions/87.187.85.203
de:Special:Contributions/87.187.101.45
fr:Special:Contributions/Maryone
en:Special:Contributions/201.210.238.52
de:Special:Contributions/Buchumhang
de:Special:Contributions/213.39.149.77
de:Special:Contributions/MaiTaiMünchen
fr:Special:Contributions/90.39.216.247

Related

• viceland.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
• vice-recordings.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
• vicerecords.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
• heavymetalinbaghdad.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
• theraveonettes.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

redirect site

• vice.tv: 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

--Hu12 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I did say it was spammed, didn't I? 9.9 Can we get this done one way or another please?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine,  Done. If you were that bothered you could have done it yourself :) (no need to reply) Stifle (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You know I'm not allowed to :D  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Suite101.com "Safety - Is it more important than Authenticity?"

Explain why the site should be whitelisted. Safety is obviously an important consideration which often weighs agains authenticity in historical reenactment, but it is rarely discussed, and even less frequently written about.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. Certainly Authenticity (reenactment), and possibly other articles dealing with historical reenactment.

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. Probbably the best is suite101.com/article.cfm/historical_reenactment/58426/1 Another option is suite101.com/print_article.cfm/historical_reenactment/58426 which displays the entire article in a single window.

Requested by cmadler (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Stifle (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org

This site is globally blacklisted. This request is occasioned by a single page: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf is hosted under plausible claim of permission from author and publisher (that issue has been thoroughly discussed at Talk:Martin Fleischmann and elsewhere). The purpose of linking to it is to provide a convenience link for readers of Cold fusion and for editors working on the article. The paper is very important in the history of Cold fusion, being a more thorough second report, published in 1990, than the original 1989 publication, which was famously sketchy. I am unaware of any other site hosting the paper for free access and under a plausible claim of permission.

I see no reason not to whitelist the entire site here on en.wikipedia, there was no linkspam here in the first place, but, short of such a whitelisting, please whitelist the single link (and this request may then be closed without further fuss from me, excepting other whitelist requests as the need arises). Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Whitelisting the entire site is most definitely  Declined (see WP:LINKVIO). Can you please give us a non-TLDR explanation of on what information the "plausible claim of permission from author and publisher" is based? If it's limited to "some WP editors think so", then I am afraid that will be declined too. Some offwiki proof would be necessary I think. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tl:dr? Moi?

Oh, okay, if you insist: see the extensive discussion of the lenr-canr link at Talk:Martin Fleischmann, where copyvio was extensively considered. It's not just a few editors, it's consensus. You might also see the extensive discussion of blacklisting at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Stifle, what is the basis of your claim that WP:LINKVIO applies? This is the evidence that it doesn't, beside all the opinions that have been expressed: They explicitly claim permission from authors and publishers. They host only a fraction of the papers they would prefer to host. In the original delisting request here, closed only because of the meta blacklisting, evidence was presented that lenr-canr.org had permission for what they host, including an email from Rothwell, the site manager. They are highly visible and stable. Another site which hosts some important papers that they do not host (and which was just delisted here), newenergytimes.com, does so under claim of fair use, and I've interpreted this as disallowing links to that site (for those papers) because suspicion of copyvio is reasonable; they may be able to get away with a claim of fair use, but lenr-canr.org is claiming explicit permission, and they have been doing so for years, and they are widely publicized (in reliable source, in fact) as a library of documents on the topic of low energy nuclear reactions. Enough? --Abd (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

One more point. I asked for a specific page whitelisting, or, in the alternative, the whole site. To what did your decline refer? --Abd (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the "plausible claim of permission from author and publisher", as it comes from lenr-canr.org and not either the author or publisher - the holders of the copyright. Of course the site itself would claim it isn't infringing copyright. Verbal chat 08:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As I noted, this issue has been very extensively discussed and the conclusion has been that a claim of permission from a notable web site is adequate. It doesn't make sense that we have to run an off-wiki confirmation process for every convenience link; this idea would make adding convenience links so cumbersome that few would be added. It's simply not true that a violating site will claim permission as some sort of obvious move, and the case of NET was mentioned precisely for that reason. NET doesn't claim permission, probably because they can't get it. They claim fair use. Lenr-canr doesn't host those same papers and, in fact, when NET cites a paper as prominent, it typically links to lenr-canr.org instead of hosting it itself; it only hosts papers, we may readily conclude, when permission can't be obtained, either by them or in general. I'm willing to track down permission for a single paper, if needed, but I want an understanding that this isn't going to be demanded for each and every link. --Abd (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The decline relates to "I see no reason not to whitelist the entire site here on en.wikipedia" only. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced enough of the issue to approve this request, but also not convinced enough on the other side to decline it. I am deferring to another admin. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Stifle. That avoids WP:BIGMESS, a guideline that's not even written. --Abd (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf is a copy of "Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Mark W. Anderson, Lian Jun Li and Marvin Hawkins, Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 1990, 287, 293-348, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0728(90)80009-U. I am whitelisting this, consider  Added. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Beetstra, this time was a little bit easier. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org (2)

• http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/KUERinterview.htm

(totally unrelated to request above) A transcript of a radio interview, for Michael McKubre. It can be used to source his postdoctoral research fellowship under mentoring of Martin Fleischmann. Also has some info of his funding, which is a relevant matter due to the funding problems in his field of expertise (cold fusion). --Enric Naval (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It would seem better to cite the original recording, no? Stifle (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I will link both the audio recording and its transcript. The text transcript is much better for people who is not proficient in English language, and it can be verified more easily. (I'll also listen to the recording to cite the time when the declarations are done) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems a much more reasonable request than that above, and barring a better source I would support this individual whitelisiting. Verbal chat 08:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Stifle has deferred to other admins in the "lenr-canr.org" section above, can some other admin take a look and do the whitelisting or deny it? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to whitelist this one as well. Could we have a link to the radio interview as well (if there is an online version of that available), just for future reference. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

http://audio.kuer.org:8000/file/rw112702.mp3 P.D.: Argh, it's broken, and the archive.org copy is also broken >.< --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already  Added this, could an admin add a permanent link to this entry when the radio interview link is presented, just to have the log complete? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that is funny, how do we check if the audio recording is the same as the original? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the charge of alteration was made against lenr-canr.org in the past, I need to take this question seriously. Unless there is a reason to think that a site is altering documents, i.e., taking original text and changing it in some significant way, we routinely accept copies as accurate, just as we accept edits citing obscure and unobtainable books on the word of an editor that the source contains what the editor claims it contains, and until and unless that editor is impeached for misrepresenting sources, we assume good faith and even allow, normally, for some level of error. Lenr-canr.org has built a reputation as a library of documents on cold fusion. If they were found to be altering documents, it would be devastating to that reputation. The previous charges of alteration were not alteration, they involved a case (unusual, actually, for lenr-canr.org) where Rothwell had prepended an editorial comment on the document, a U.S. government report, the 1989 DoE review of cold fusion. There was no alteration, there was framing, a totally different matter. I've cited text to an organization that prepended comment when there was no other source for the text; in the particular case, lenr-canr.org had provided a link to their source, and that other source didn't have editorial comment, but only the name of the web site (which was apparently hosting the document because of their skeptical POV). Editorial consensus was to use the less editorialized copy, which was a proper decision, and it wasn't controversial. But the "alters documents" charge was then repeated over and over, was still being raised this year. What could be done if someone really wants to check is to ask McKubre. Is it worth it? I doubt it. By the way, Dirk, thanks for this one also. --Abd (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is not that I am afraid of editorialised interviews, wrong interpretations etc., it would be good to be able to check. Linking to mp3's is not the best practice (bandwidth, availability of codecs etc., unsuitable for deaf people), though here it is the proper source and it certainly should be mentioned in the reference. Adding the transcipt would make the availability wider (also suitable for deaf people, etc.) and I would encourage that. It is just too bad the original seems to be gone, and written transcriptions might be less informative than the original (loss of intonations e.g.). I think it is fine this way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. An inferior source is better than no source, as long as the problems with the source do not rise to the point that the harm outweighs the good. for example, had there been no other copy of that editorially framed document on lenr-canr.org, we could have linked to it, in preference to no link. That's explicit in the guideline, which establishes preference for clean documents, no framing. And preference for linking to neutral sites. Etc. --Abd (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a point about the changed document problem: Jed didn't change the original text, but he did modify the original pdf to add his own editorial at the top, and he linked to his modified pdf instead of linking to the unedited original pdf that was also available in his website (thus the complaints that he was linking to promote his POV instead of linking to provide neutral access to documents for the sake of neutrally improving the article) I have never seen any complaint or indication that Jed had actually falsified any document in his website, so it's unlikely that the transcript has been falsified.

Given this, I think it's reasonable to assume that this transcript would contain at most innocent errors in transcription. (and, as Dirk points out, we lose information like entonation, pauses in speech, and such). Given past experience, the only concern would be that the page contained some framing, with introductions that interpreted the linked sources like in his DOE review page http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm, but that's not the case for this specific link, and should be checked in a case-by-case basis because not all pages in his website have introductions.

(Note: the link that we use for DOE 1989 also has an editorial, but the link goes to a neutral title and copyright page, the editorial is in a different page and you have to choose to click in a link labelled "NCAS Introduction" instead of clicking in a link labelled "CONTENTS". And, yeah, it's not an ideal situation.). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

losethegame.com

Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

Site is obviously relevant to an article on The Game (mind game), and is the most popular website about The Game. In fact, it's the first relevant result on a Google search for "the game". Because of this, I think it should be added to the article's External Links section.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

The Game (mind game), Jonty Haywood

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

losethegame.com/

--Zarel (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Whitelisting the whole domain would again give people the possibility to make others lose the game by including the link in questionable places (as the abuse that was done before the blacklisting to e.g. school pages and George Bush), a practice that is (was?) encouraged by the site. Please find a suitable, specific page on the site (e.g. an about.htm), which is suitable for whitelisting. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm only asking for it to be whitelisted on the The Game (mind game) and Jonty Haywood - I thought it was possible to whitelist the domain on some specific articles, while still keeping it blacklisted on other articles? Or do I request that kind of exception somewhere else? I mean, whitelisting the domain everywhere would just be removing it from the blacklist, and I'm not proposing that at all.

Furthermore, is it possible to whitelist only the home page at losethegame.com/ ? Alternatively, losethegame.com/index.htm should work. Their closest thing to an "About" page is losethegame.com/faq.htm , if you feel that's a better choice. --Zarel (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the plan of whitelisting the /index.htm. That should still hamper the general trick of replacing a school-page with the main domain. XLinkBot can keep an eye on it for some time, if this re-enables abuse, maybe the abusefilter will have to do something (actually, I'll do that as well).

OK, I am going to add \blosethegame\.com\/index\.htm\b, only for use on The Game (mind game) and Jonty Haywood (other pages should be impossible now anyway). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Although it's been done, I oppose listing the link even in that article. It's more self-promotion than relevant to the game, and doesn't serve a useful purpose in that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't whitlelist the main page, please someone be WP:BOLD and whitelist their FAQ page instead:

• http://losethegame.com/faq.htm

It's a direct link to factual information in how the game works. A much better choice than their main page, if I'm reading correctly the spirit of WP:EL. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

meenaonthenet.com

This is the (apparently) official site of the Indian actress Meena, aka Meena Durairaj. It is hosted on galatta.com, which is blacklisted. Can meenaonthenet.com be whitelisted for her article? Fences and windows (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That site is blacklisted at meta. If you want it removed, you'll have to ask there.  Defer to Global blacklist Stifle (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(And bearing in mind the reasons for the blacklisting, if you want to request a single page be whitelisted here, that would be OK, but you'll need to nominate a page.) Stifle (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Deciphering the reasons for blacklisting from the report on meta is beyond the capacity of ordinary mortals; the blacklisting was a mass blacklisting of alleged clients of the host, gallata.com, apparently. A specific page for Meena is http://www.galatta.com/actress/meena/main.html. Even though this is meta blacklisted, that's no reason for denying whitelisting here, by itself. We do not have authority over meta and they do not have authority over us. --Abd (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can whitelist the link Abd mentions for this one article without bothering meta, that'd be good. I have got used to the arcane workings of Wikipedia, but meta is an unknown to me. Fences and windows (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with whitelisting that page, as I said. But I couldn't whitelist without knowing which page to permit.  Done

On a side note, the statement that "[meta does] not have authority over us" may be debatable. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not debate it here. Thanks, Stifle. --Abd (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Fences and windows (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

eu-football.info

Please, remove this site from blacklist, because it has useful and detailed information. You may delete all earlier submited links, although all them were added to related pages... User, who submited them, didn`t know that it is not good. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleaser09 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This was blacklisted at meta due to spamming (see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/eu-football.info). How can we be sure it won't be spammed again, and also what Wikipedia article would benefit from links to this site? Stifle (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That user who spammed will not spam again. I hope others too.

This site may be useful for that users who want to get additional detailed information about played matches of the national football team. This unique detailed information contains line-ups with full names of players and their clubs. Users will be thankful to Wikipedia for this link to additional statistics.

Please, unlist at least one link eu-football.info/_list.php?id=123 at the page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_national_football_team,

although there is detailed info about all european national football teams on this site.

Pleaser09 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK,  Done. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Pleaser09 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Declined Requests

filmtaka.com

Site should be whitelisted because.

Filmtaka.com is a daily based news website, who inform you celebrity gossip, latest movie news, upcoming casting calls details. the site is very helpful for those who want to start career or just start there career on Hollywood movies. we provide direct contact details of casting calls agents, directors, artist so strugglers can contact them directly.

site is blacklisted because one of my administrator try to add external links in wikipedia pages. My administrator is new for wikipedia who did not aware the wikipedia rule and unable to follow the rules. Filmtaka.com is blacklisted for last 3 - 4 months, i hope the punishment of the site will be over. --122.163.42.91 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

1. filmtaka.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.40.240 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• This page is for requesting one or two links from a blacklisted site to be permitted. If you want to remove a site from the blacklist entirely, you need MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. However, the request is unlikely to be approved if it does not come from an established user. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and  Declined. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

HosurOnline.Com

I here by request you to consider whitelisting the site HosurOnline.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.6.29 (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. Filed in the wrong place, no specific page mentioned, and no reason for whitelisting given. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

TryMasak.my

I here by request that you could consider whitelisting site trymasak.my. This is because this site is very helpful in giving the readers like me the recipes on how to cook in easy and simpler way and the best thing is that it also demonstrates the recipes in video form. Besides, it also gives readers the tips and guides and also glossary plus the readers can communicate with each other through forums and blogs. This site is very helpful and useful. All resources are free and users have option to register and become member to participate. I think the contents in TryMasak are carefully match with the content in Wikipedia. For instance, the article about "Kuih Koci" in Wikipedia is linked to Video Recipe of "Kuih Koci" in TryMasak.my. Therefore Wikipedia readers can see visually how to make cooking "Kuih Koci". Thus, I hope for trymasak.my to be given enough consideration to be whitelisted/unblocked. As a frequent visitors I find this website very interesting and resourceful. I'm sure it will add value to Wikipedia article as well. Farah syazana (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. Filed in the wrong place, no specific page given. You'll need m:Talk:Spam blacklist to request removal of the domain from the blacklist. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Specific page of ezinearticles.com

I would like to request a whitelist of http:// ezinearticles.com/?PSP-Blue-Screen-of-Death---Simple-Way-to-Banish-it-For-Good&id=2152154 (remove space after http://) — Supuhstar * § 14:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to grant this request and will do so unless I see a reason not to in the next few days. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

None of these ezinearticles are reliable sources -- they're self-published pieces used for SEO purposes by their authors. Here are previous discussions:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#ezinearticles.com links
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar#Spamming through ezinearticles.com to Wikipedia: James B. Allen spam
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-05#ezinearticles.com
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-09#David Ben-Ariel articles (original blacklisting)
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/09#ezinearticles.com
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-09#ezinearticles.com (removal request)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Sep#savingkitcat.com.au and ecashloans.com.au
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/11#ezinearticles.com/?What-is-Ergativity?&id=249623
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-05#ezinearticles.com (removal request)
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-09#ezinearticles.com (removal request)
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-09#boxing-memorabilia.com
• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2008#ezinearticles.com
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#ezinearticles.com

Here's a sample of the 860 ezinearticles that particular author has created (from http: //ezinearticles.com/?expert=Ashish_K_Arora):

1. 2 Remarkable Tricks to Copy PS3 Games Without Headaches
2. 3 Absolutely Essential Facts When Making Reliable Xbox 360 Game Backup Disks
3. 4 Top Tips to Backup PS2 Games With Amazing Ease
4. 5 Proven Tips to Track Cell Phone Numbers in Double Quick Time
5. A Sure Shot Way to Fix Xbox 360 Red Ring
6. Acne Home Cures - 5 Sure Fire Ways to Glowing Skin
7. Copy PS2 Games - 3 Simple Steps to Protect Your Investment
8. Easy Way to Learn Spanish - Learning Spanish Simplified For You
9. Gold Farming - 4 Top Secrets to Make Huge Amounts of Gold Exposed
10. Healthy Homemade Dog Food - 7 Simple Ways to Make Healthy Dog Food in a Flash
11. How to Solve PS3 Blinking Red Light Problem?
12. How to Choose the Best Chicken Coop Building Plans
13. Ironic Ways to Get Rid of Rosacea
14. Lose 10 Pounds a Week - Top 5 Techniques That Work Like Charm
15. Online Soccer Betting - 3 Amazingly Simple Tips For Making a Fortune
16. Poker Strategy Guide - 3 Tried and Tested Tips to Make You a Guaranteed Winner
17. Property Investment Advice - 3 Top Tips to Become a Successful Property Investor
18. Quick Income Blueprint Review
19. Save Money While Playing - Always Copy Xbox Game Disks
20. Simple Key Notes on How to Cure Gout
21. Soccer Betting Tips - 5 Amazing Tips Revealed For the First Time
22. Some of the Best Football Betting Advice
23. Stunning Tips on Getting Rid of Moles
24. Sure Shot Tips to Ovarian Cysts Treatment
25. The Best Solutions to Learn How to Hypnotize People
26. Top 4 Striking Ways to Cure Ringing Ears
27. Top Known Solutions For Excessive Head Sweating
28. Top Ten Solutions to Get Rid of Hemorrhoids
29. Top Tips to Stop Teeth Grinding
30. Treat Male Yeast Infections in a Natural Way
31. Tricks on How to Get Your Ex Boyfriend Back
32. Tried and Tested Ways For a Natural Cure For Insomnia
33. US Citizenship Test - The Best Strategy to Tackle it Successfully
34. Vegetable Garden Design - Variety of Choices Available
35. Want a Renewed Life? 6 Tips on How Can I Grow Taller
36. Want to Feel Confident? Cool Tips on How to Lose Weight Quickly
37. Ways and Means to Decrease Underarm Perspiration
38. Weight Loss Post Pregnancy - Reclaim Your Body
39. What Should Plans For a Chicken Coop Contain?
40. Wind Generated Power - The Easy Way to Produce It

I've got nothing against this guy and there are no indications that he has ever spammed us (although many ezinearticles authors did). Nevertheless, I don't see how this article meets the requirements of the Reliable Sources Guideline. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, A. B.  Declined Stifle (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

www.whale.to

This site seems to collect information and interviews from around the internet and as such should not be blacklisted itself. Whether one disagrees with the opinions or not on the site is not relevant imo since it is basically a news service and would be similar to blacklisting a newspaper that reported topics that some found uninteresting or even included bad reports about oneself (there is a page critiquing wikipedia on the general site).

With this in mind I thought it would be a good idea to have a basic external link to a short bio page with an interview (video) with the person associated with a wiki page. The link I'd like to add is www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner.html for including in the associated article Viera Scheibner. The link is both brief and informative about the subject person, and appears fair and respectful reporting. thanks. sunja (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason given for the blacklisting and I have requested clarification on that. Meanwhile, I am inclined to whitelist the requested link and will do so in a few days unless I hear a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Background:

• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-01#Whale.to
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-05#whale.to, vaccination.org.uk
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-06#whale.to
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-07#www.whale.to/b/ph2.html
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-10
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-02#whale.to
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whaleto
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whale.to

A random sampling of pages from 2007:

• whale.to/m/map.html "Medical Mind Control"
  • "The methods used by Allopathic Monopoly to suppress the truth. Mostly propaganda---lies, hypnotism and Fearmongering. Aka Mind Control"
• whale.to/w/nat.html "Natural Healing"
  • "80% of my patients were well just after doing my thorough bowel cleansing program."
• whale.to/a/medical_mafia.html "The Medical Mafia"
  • "The worldwide Elite (Boss) of Allopathy. Aka The Drug Trust, Medical Monopoly, Cartel or Industry. Think IG Farben and Medical Fascism. Only the top people in Allopathy know the whole truth on Allopathic medicine, and covert-vaccine agendas."
• whale.to/a/wikipedia.html
  • "The Great Lie of Wikipedia: "the....encyclopedia that anyone can edit.""

More whale.to-related stuff of varying degrees of relevance:

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ombudsman
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive92#Long term disruptive user, current excessive unpleasantness
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive70#Whale.to breaches of WP rules unabated by admin criticism
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219
  • Note the concerns about outing Wikipedia editors
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#User:Pansophia and article Kaiser Permanente, return after block, 9RR, personal attacks, blanking "on departure" of user talk page with warnings...
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence

User talk:Whaleto :

• User talk page history

I was not involved with all this controversy -- I'm just passing along the history. I suggest posting a brief note at WP:ANI apprising the broader community of this request.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The requested URL links to:

• www.whale.to/vaccines/viera_scheibner.html:
  • "This was taken from Wikipedia. The Whale editor created that page to her as you can see in the history page. The Allopathic editors tried to delete her page. and you can see their links to AMA shill quackwatch and other sites attacking her."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is one of those types of sites for which very little positive can be said. Conspiracy theories, extreme fringe POV, hatemongering, etc.. It's a classic example of the worst types of sites, sites which are eminently eligible for blacklisting. I can only think of a few others that would be more eligible for blacklisting. The only legitimate use for such a site would be in an article about itself, and it's so bad and unreliable that such an article would probably be deleted pretty quickly. It is listed at User:Tom harrison/BADCITES, among other sites that should be blacklisted. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough.  Not done as source is of highly questionable reliability. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

kinbacon.org

KinbaCon is the first European Convention dedicated exclusively to the Japanese art of erotic bondage. There are similar Conventions such ShibariCon and BoundCon, but their sites are not blacklisted. This year KinbaCon will be at the first time, in Lviv (Ukraine), on 23-24 May. Official KinbaCon website fully translated into 7 different languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian), that more visitors can read the info about Convention and can visit it. That's why we've created KinbaCon page on Wikipedia also on 7 different languages and for what have been blacklisted as spammers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenBDSM (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any page called KinbaCon here, so  Not done as there is no indication as to what page you plan to use the image on. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: this domain was blacklisted on Meta-Wiki and its removal was discussed today at:

• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#kinbacon.org (permanent link)

Here's the original Meta report:

• meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/kinbacon.org

I declined to delist the domain based on OpenBDSM's request but left open the possibility if our regular editors subsequently see a need for it.^[43][44][45]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

This is not good why not allow my link

Which link? Stifle (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

Troubleshooting and problems

• Not sure if this is the right place, but I tried tagging an article with being a copyvio of http://entertainment-indianetzone-com/... using subst:copyvio, and got a rejection. This seems like a bug. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The spam filter blocked a link I was adding in a discussion page. Fair enough, but in doing so destroyed an hours worth of edits, which I could not reload or go back to as they had "timed out". Bad show. Wiredrabbit (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

• I agree with Wiredrabbit's comment above. Isn't there some way to accept Talk Page edits but just break the link? cmadler (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

  Not at the moment. I agree that presenting the text submitted (same way as an edit conflict) would help, though. I'll see about raising a bugzilla. Most decent browsers will keep the text in the textarea as edited if you hit the back button, though. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

  Bugzilla:9416 deals with this. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This is a very low-traffic page, perhaps we should open a process for it in the Wikipedia namespace. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Other projects with active whitelists

What are you doing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svtuition (talk • contribs) 07:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• ar:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• bg:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• cs:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• de:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• el:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• eo:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• es:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• et:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• fi:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• fr:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• frp:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• fy:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• he:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• hr:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• hu:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• ia:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• id:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• it:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• ja:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• ksh:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• la:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• nl:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• oc:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• pl:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• ru:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• sk:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• to:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• uk:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• vi:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
• zh:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

I was unable to format this so as to fit in the left column where x-wiki links normally go. This, as well as a similar list for other local blacklists (on our blacklist's talk page) may be useful information. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)