Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. For a description of the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. For instructions on administering the spam blacklist, see Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.
    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 1254267568 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    [edit]


    pakmag.net

    [edit]

    pakmag.net: 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

    This self-published source was added to hundreds of articles. It took me several days to remove them all so It's best to blacklist this to prevent future inclusion. --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Saqib: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    halmblogmusic.com

    [edit]

    halmblogmusic.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

    AI generated articles, using Wikipedia as the source, then linked into Wikipedia (Special:Diff/1237527530/1238370082). -- GreenC 15:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @GreenC: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    sclpackersandmovers.com

    [edit]

    sclpackersandmovers.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

    Website spammed on Éric Guillemain for advertising purposes. User:page named after company, SUNEETA CARGO LOGISTICS AND PACKERS AND MOVERS, was responsible for edit and taken down via speedy deletion. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined I only see a single instance of spamming. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    viraje.ir

    [edit]

    Spambots, see also:

    Only 2 so far, but it will probably get worse. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @ClumsyOwlet: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    breakingbattlegrounds

    [edit]
    Link

    Almost 40 IPs flagged for spamming, it's probably time for blacklisting.-KH-1 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    thepiratebay.org

    [edit]

    This link is in the infobox at: The Pirate Bay. Apparently it is also used in some articles as links to download copyrighted material, but I haven't looked at them. I used this link a couple dozen times using three browsers, with and without incognito, using the direct link and Google, and using a sandbox to protect my PC when I clicked on popups. Problems included: Several times immediately redirected to nudebay.org. Popups claiming that I had different numbers of viruses according to McAfee and Norton (neither of which I use) and to click to resolve. This is a common method used to install malware. A warning from Windows Defender of a blocked attempt to install a keylogger. A warning from BitDefender (which I use) of a blocked attempt to load a trojan. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are quite a lot of existing links in mainspace; I personally do not like to blacklist when doing so will immediately start triggering blacklist hits when someone tries to edit any of those articles. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah problematic. I looked at some and basically they looked like links to download copyrighted material illegally which is, I think, against policy. But I haven't looked at all that many. I originally wanted it removed from The Pirate Bay article before realizing the extent of usage. When attempting such removals in the past, I've run into a great deal of resistance from editors who don't believe in copyright. Tis a problem beyond my ken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Links to copyrighted material can be deleted on a case by case, according to rules. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are links to torrents that link to copyrighted material. We can try. But we will have a long battle with the anti-copyright editors even though Wikipedia respects copyright. And didn't you just !vote to retain the link in The Pirata Bay article? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a link to main page of the website. Completelly different. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find little difference. Like saying you are not guilty of murder if you hire a hitman. The courts and/or governments in multiple countries found no difference either. Why ignore this? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is your opinion.
    Guidelines disagrees, other courts disagrees, consensus disagrees. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What? O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nit: if an article already contains a link the spam blacklist does not block edits to that article that don't add another blacklisted link. But it's still unideal to have articles with blacklisted links because if a vandal blanks part of the article and removes the link then you know what happens. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Caratbee

    [edit]
    Link
    Spammers

    Persistent spamming.-KH-1 (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    More.-KH-1 (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    autokhabari.ir

    [edit]

    Spambots. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @ClumsyOwlet: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    polevaulter.ai

    [edit]

    Self-published source that is being added by various IPs and accounts. Diffs: [1] [2] and half of this guy's edits. --Un assiolo (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Un assiolo: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    callbiotec.com

    [edit]

    callbiotec.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
    Website for a company repeatedly added to our Crime scene cleanup article. The website is purely promotional, and in no way supports anything it is supposedly being cited for. This has been going on for some months, using multiple accounts and IPs. [3][4][5][6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @AndyTheGrump: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    directmacro.com

    [edit]

    Persistent spamming by multiple accounts. Annh07 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Annh07: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SEO spammer group

    [edit]
    memer.studio
    50.74.251.187 (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)
    72.68.161.29 (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)
    203.190.9.73 (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)
    70.23.48.235 (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)
    108.6.80.24 (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)
    100.2.37.8 (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)
    brandywineestateandelderlaw.com
    108.6.6.200 (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)
    67.245.40.34 (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)
    72.89.150.11 (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)
    173.70.53.216 (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)
    execcapital.co.uk
    108.28.123.7 (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)
    108.30.180.212 (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)
    68.160.217.175 (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)
    68.160.217.175 (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)
    donaldsonweston.com
    68.132.96.239 (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)
    108.41.197.194 (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)
    96.250.177.117 (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)
    karaapts.com
    100.37.109.58 (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)
    96.232.102.249 (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)
    108.30.37.193 (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)
    96.246.184.118 (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)
    gameone-casino.com
    100.2.118.202 (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)
    70.107.214.64 (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)
    108.21.251.35 (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)
    108.17.53.177 (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)
    108.46.33.104 (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)
    caratbee.com
    103.101.99.56 (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)
    98.116.225.81 (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)
    152.59.49.175 (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)
    152.59.49.175 (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)
    220.146.216.145 (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)
    66.115.118.53 (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)
    147.235.198.18 (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)
    81.183.38.70 (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)
    1.36.129.250 (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)
    190.53.248.61 (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)
    95.91.196.186 (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)
    31.35.141.27 (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)
    152.0.34.125 (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)
    182.177.110.72 (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)
    182.177.100.234 (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)
    182.177.119.217 (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)
    182.177.106.63 (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)

    Mass spamming by proxies. Please look at the contribution history of the most recent IP addresses. You'll notice a common pattern, suggesting that these domains might be spammed by the same individual or group. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @XXBlackburnXx: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    manualslib.com

    [edit]

    Used to link to copyright violations, which is exclusively what the site is hosting. See LinkSearch. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are too many existing links/references to that. Those need to be cleaned up first. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohnoitsjamie, no more links in mainspace thanks to @GreenLipstickLesbian (thank you!). 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    litarchive.online

    [edit]

    Spamming by rotating IP addresses, one edit per IP, apparently to avoid scrutiny. Some of these links are to copyright violations. - MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    More from spam ring

    [edit]

    Noticed this from spamming hitting blacklist on previously blacklisted links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    bhaktvatsal.com

    [edit]

    Earlier users have been blocked, so latest ones are block evading. Has taken to mixing spam link additions in with lots of edits adding Wikilinks. - MrOllie (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    scotlandkiltcollection.com

    [edit]

    Being added by multiple IPs today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @HJ Mitchell: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    signconverter.com

    [edit]

    First two are blocked, so later edits are block evasion. - MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Obvious socks blocked, and a /64 applied to the IP. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    stefitalman.info

    [edit]

    --Wotheina (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Same as #crocsjibbitz.com, both domains added to the global blacklist. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    crocsjibbitz.com

    [edit]

    tenderalert.pk

    [edit]

    Persistent spamming by multiple IPs. Annh07 (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    priceinto.com.pk

    [edit]

    Persistent spamming by multiple accounts. Annh07 (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    innermasteryhub.com

    [edit]

    Persistent spamming by multiple accounts and IPs. Annh07 (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    betechit.co.uk

    [edit]

    Spam. ClumsyOwlet (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    aluvox.com

    [edit]

    Persistent spamming by multiple accounts. Annh07 (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    myinstafollow.com

    [edit]

    Three SPA accounts spamming this same URL in two days. --Belbury (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They are cross-wiki spamming; perhaps it should be deferred to meta? OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    bestbikeslab.com

    [edit]

    Some light but obvious socking to insert this link in various articles about bikes in general. Might be useful to nip it in the bud. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    wondersinspace.com

    [edit]

    Determined attempt to add this news aggregation blog from "a certified SEO and content writer" to List of astronomy websites. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam ring

    [edit]
    cellucarehq.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
    zencortex24.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
    internetmillionaire.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
    checkout-ds24.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

    Web of spammers related to already blocked domains. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC) OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    infogalactic.com

    [edit]
    infogalactic.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

    Yet another Wikipedia mirror, used for tendentious recreation and spamming of a deleted WP article. For details and diffs, please see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169#h-Spamming_of_deleted_article_mirror-20241017090600. Wikishovel (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    playmatesescorts.co.uk

    [edit]

    playmatesescorts.co.uk: 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

    Persistently added, often with misleading edit summaries: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Yuvaank (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    naganotonic-en.com

    [edit]

    Persistent spamming by multiple accounts and IPs. Annh07 (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    gilmorehealth.com

    [edit]

    Continuous ref spamming on several Wikipedia pages in the last 3 weeks. Check here Spamcheck for the 9 spam edits made in the same manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOGLA (talk • contribs)

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    capckutapk.com

    [edit]

    Persistent spamming by multiple accounts and IPs. Annh07 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    igrowthful.com

    [edit]

    An article on this website, as well as a thread on Threads, describe that this page recreates dead links without having copies of the dead links' contents, only to generate backlinks to its website. 1612elphi (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    searchmycolleges.com

    [edit]

    It's been a long time since I last came to this page (9-10 years) See:

    Note that the username doesn't end in "s" but the domain name is plural: searchmycolleges.com --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    theplantmother.com

    [edit]

    See:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    [edit]

    Remove BiglyBT.com

    [edit]
    The disruptive adding of the content that caused the blacklisting in 2019 has ceased, as you can see with the activity of the accounts on the COIBot page. There's also rough consensus at Talk:Vuze#May 2024 (pretty much the only recent discussion of the topic) that BiglyBT has or may have notability enough for its own article, and I'm preparing a draft for it at Draft:BiglyBT. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose There is no rough consensus. Just two people desperately trying to push BiglyBT after it being shot down I don't no how many times for lack of notability and spamming. The Banner talk 23:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You presented no arguments against its notability other than your OR of limited market share removing notability. I'm not sure if I could have a chance of going through AfC if I cannot link to sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing prevents you from linking to sources. You don't need a link to a primary source to pass AFC; the blacklisting is irrelevant. To pass AFC, you need multiple citations to secondary sources that are independent of BiglyBT. We have plenty of articles about blacklisted websites. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article would also use the homepage, which would theoretically be used by spammers if The Banner's claimed spamming still continued. I don't think there's a per-page whitelist. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2024
    @Aaron Liu, have you read my decline remark? ‘…for specific links on this domain…’. Please read instructions at the whitelist. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra Yes, I have. By "per-page whitelist", I meant per Wikipedia page. I don't think anyone would approve whitelisting pages the spammers use. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so we whitelist specific links to use, not the whole domain or de-list it completely. So again, no Declined for delisting. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much the only thing I need to link to is the homepage, which obviously has been used in the spam campaigns in 2019. If the homepage is whitelisted from the blacklist then the blacklist entry wouldn't have any use. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We generally whitelist a website's "about" page if it's available. The closest thing in this case would be www.biglybt.com/features.php ~Anachronist (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I pointed you to the instructions on the whitelist, it states there that we generally do not whitelist root, rather specific pages. And there have been cases where we do not whitelist at all because spamming or abuse would pursue (we had a website repurposing their about page …). We are not obliged to show a suitable link, IAR to make the encyclopedia less bad … Dirk Beetstra T C 04:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove change.org

    [edit]

    Request to Remove Change.org from Local Blacklist for Use in References

    I am writing to request the removal of the change.org from Wikipedia's local spam blacklist. This link is intended to be used as a reference in the article about the Economically Weaker. Below is a case that highlights the platform's credibility and significant impact (www.change.org/UpliftmentofEconomicallyWeakerSection):

    Extended content

    Case Study: Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) Reservation Petition

    [edit]
    • Petition Overview: On December 11, 2018, a petition was launched on change.org advocating for a reservation system based on economic status, addressing the limitations of the caste-based reservation system.
    • Public Support: The petition quickly garnered over 82,000 signatures, reflecting substantial public backing.
    • Legislative Impact: The widespread support for the petition played a crucial role in influencing public discourse and shaping policy. This led to the introduction of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) bill in the Lok Sabha on January 8, 2019, its passage in the Rajya Sabha on January 9, 2019, and its enactment on January 12, 2019.


    Justification for Removal

    [edit]
    • Verifiable Impact: The petition's role in the rapid enactment of the EWS bill is well-documented, demonstrating change.org's influence on legislative changes and making it a reliable reference for significant events.
    • Credibility: The petition's success highlights change.org's capacity to mobilize public opinion and drive substantial societal and legislative changes, validating its credibility.
    • Information Accuracy: The documented impact of this petition meets Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, ensuring the accuracy and relevance of references to change.org.

    Conclusion

    [edit]

    Given the documented success and credibility of change.org in facilitating meaningful societal and legislative changes, I urge reconsideration of its inclusion on Wikipedia's local spam blacklist. Allowing references to change.org would enable Wikipedia to provide a more comprehensive and accurate account of significant public advocacy efforts in the article about the Economically Weaker Section.

     Defer to Whitelist Change.org is blacklisted for a good reason. For cases where a link may be appropriate, you may request an exception at the whitelisting page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have raised my request on adding a particular link (change.org/UpliftmentofEconomicallyWeakerSection) on the whitelist, please get it added to the whitelist as it is my only corroborating primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:6007:80E3:24CB:E3B4:9A79:D1EF (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    piratebayo3klnzokct3wt5yyxb2vpebbuyjl7m623iaxmqhsd52coid.onion: 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

    This is the official onion The Pirate Bay link. It is useful to access the site from the TOR network and I don't see how it relates to spam in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinemaandpolitics (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Of all the sites we might want to whitelist, this has to be one of the last. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The founders of The Pirate Bay were convicted, lost all appeals, and jailed. Since then, the site has moved from country to country to avoid repeated bans in each country. I do not see a reason why we should make an exception to our blacklisting of Onion links for this particular site. That blacklisting was not related to SPAM. Onion links are blacklisted because Edge, Chrome, FireFox, Safari, etc. cannot access the dark web and we do not include dead links. Readers who wish to use the site can easily Google it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. Absolutely not. There is absolutely no reason to link to thepiratebay anywhere on Wikipedia. It cannot be used as a source, and is not necessary in the article about it. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? And what's the difference with other torrent websites? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, after I removed the non-Onion link to TPB, Cinemaandpolitics restored it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    betterauds

    [edit]

    Hello, my website url is Global wikipedia Block. UnBlock my website Url https://betterauds.com Marksmes (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Global blacklist This has been blocked globally across all projects, not just here on the English Wikipedia, since it was abused across several different projects. You'll need to make a request there. Please follow the instructions there carefully; you've completely failed to provide any of the requested information here.Sam Kuru (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove rugbydatabase.co.nz from blacklist

    [edit]

    rugbydatabase.co.nz: 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

    Requesting the removal of rugbydatabase.co.nz from the blacklist. It was blacklisted due to being spammed by unregistered users based in Australia.
    This site is the biggest, most reliable, accurate and up to date source of all international & domestic rugby game/player/team stats and data available online, after ESPN's Statsguru (espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/stats/) database was shut down at the end of 2020. It's therefore an essential source in keeping rugby teams and players pages up to date (caps, tries, game starts, points breakdown, etc, etc). There's simply no other reliable and accurate alternative.
    Blacklisting Rugby Database means needing to find articles online to source all the different information for each player & team, instead of simply using those sources supplementally, secondary to RD. It's a lot more work to maintain all of these pages if there isn't a database available to cite that has all the info reliably in one place. I can't say that the spamming by unregistered users will completely stop, as I simply don't know, but even to reference a specific page from Rugby Database (which is all I want to do) would mean getting each differing page whitelisted, I believe. Please help me and the rugby community in maintaining rugby pages by removing rugbydatabase.co.nz from the blacklist TazMcPunty (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone have any resolution or insight for me here, please? Thanks. 05:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC) TazMcPunty (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to support this request to remove rugbydatabase.co.nz from the blacklist for the reasons given by TazMcPunty. This website has grown into a very good resource that is now often more useful and reliable than sites like itsrugby.co.uk, large parts of which are now behind a paywall and also not always complete. IMO the spamming that occurred last year by a few unregistered editors, does no longer justify the website being blacklisted now. Ruggalicious (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is infosecinstitute.com blocked?

    [edit]

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

    I have no involvement in this website, but wanted to use a page of theirs (can't link it here either...) as a reference about white-box penetration testing (White-box_testing#Hacking). Link with space in the middle: https://www.infosec institute.com/resources/penetration-testing/what-are-black-box-grey-box-and-white-box-penetration-testing/

    Using WikiBlame, I found that it was added by User:Hu12 in 2008. The website looked a bit different back then (link with space again: https://web.archive.org/web/20081220105151/http://www.info secinstitute.com/ ) but seems fundamentally similar.

    For the page I will simply look for a different reference, but don't understand why this was blocked. It does not look like a spam site and the company has a Wikipedia page without mention of any controversy. Should they be unblocked?

    80.187.122.174 (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist You can use the search near the top of the page to see the previous discussions. We don't blacklist links due to the sort of "controversey" that might be mentioned in an article; we blacklist sites if they have been spammed abusively, or sites that that may be added in good faith but have no encyclopedic merit.OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove suecalandia.com

    [edit]

    Request to Remove suecalandia.com from Local Blacklist for Use in References

    I am writing to request the removal of the suecalandia.com= from Wikipedia's local spam blacklist. This link is intended to be used as a reference in the article about the Suecalandia - Jogos Online de Cartas e Tabuleiro article in PT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fegfpdj (talk • contribs)

     Not done. This domain is blocked on the local blacklist of the Portuguese Wikipedia. It does not impact editing here on the English Wikipedia. If you're trying to create an article there, you can make a request there.Sam Kuru (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove themoviedb.org/tmdb.org

    [edit]

    Request to remove themoviedb.org from Local Blacklist.

    This is a widely used resource for information about movies and television, similar to imdb. Although not completely user contributed, like tvdb.com, it does rely on a lot of user contributions for metadata, images, posters, etc. From looking at the stuff I could find at the links provided, it appears that someone from the site (User:Travisbell) tried to add a link in the external section to a handful of pages (looks like about 10 or so) back in 2008.

    Eight years later, in 2016, it looks like Travisbell attempted to have the blacklist removed, which was denied with the only explanation being that it was a misguided request. I'm not sure what that means and couldn't find anything on Wikipedia that defines misguided requests.

    We are now in 2024, eight years after the removal request from 2016, and sixteen years since the original blacklist in 2008. The website is used by millions of people every day and due to the open nature of its data (kind of like Wikipedia), it is the primary source for multiple other sites that show movie or tv data. It has even been used as a data source for scientific research. One example is the article "Image-based Product Recommendation Method for E-commerce Applications Using Convolutional Neural Networks" at http://dx.doi.org/10.18267/j.aip.167.

    I can see no good reason to keep a site blacklisted that is so widely used because of a number of links posted when Wikipedia itself was only 7 years old.

    Azuravian (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Defer to Whitelist I don't imagine many (if any) cases where this site would be an appropriate WP:RS; for those cases, whitelisting may be appropriate. OhNoitsJamie Talk 11:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we blacklist all sites that aren't an appropriate WP:RS? We have multiple pages for sites that utilize the API provided by TMDB, but can't link to it because of one person's mistake 16 years ago? Its level of being an appropriate WP:RS is equal to any other site listed under User-generated content on WP:RS. Some examples:
    1. IMDB: linked to from at least 60,000 pages.
    2. TheTVDB: linked to from 945 pages.
    3. TVTropes: linked to from 3,339 pages.
    What is it about tmdb.org that makes it less worthy of being allowed than those sites? Just trying to understand the rationale behind users jumping through hoops instead of admins removing roadblocks. Azuravian (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's user generated data, so at best it's going to be an external link and as you've noted, we've already got IMDB as a good external link on many film / TV articles. This isn't going to add much beyond what's already there. Ravensfire (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still trying to understand not removing the blacklist. I understand the question of tmdbs validity as WP:RS. What I don't understand is the purpose in 2024 of tmbd.org being blacklisted?

    Why are we limiting users to a single source for movie information. We allow both IMDB and thetvdb for TV shows, but for movies, it's IMDB or nothing. It almost seems like someone has a vested interest in keeping tmdb off of Wikipedia without any legitimate reason.

    For a FOSS style system like Wikipedia, it seems antithetical to block sites essentially permanently over the actions of a single user? Azuravian (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not any 'single user', the site owner. And it wasn't a one time mistake - the archives of this page include a request where the site owner showed up to ask for it to be removed from the blacklist so he could resume promoting his site - so there is reason to think abuse would resume if it were possible technically. Once something ends up on the blacklist, the burden shifts - there should be a good reason to remove it. And in this case no such reason has been presented - it is not a usable WP:RS, and it is redundant with other options as an external link. MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, it was a one time mistake. All edits were made on the same day and there were about 10. He came back after 8 years to see about getting it unblocked and even clarified his intent was not to spam links to the site, so I'm unsure where the "reason to think abuse would resume" comes from. During his request 8 years ago, you can see the rudeness of the responses he received were in fact so bad that another admin stepped in on his Talk page to apologize for the admin who was rude.
    The real issue I have with the burden shifting (which in general I agree with) is the fact that it was blacklisted with what appears to be zero warnings whatsoever. If you find the proposed addition from 2008, there is only the initial post with no responses or discussion and it was blacklisted. The entry right below it is for a site called crediblemusicreviews.com. This site had multiple IPs continually adding reviews to articles about albums that were assumed to be the same user. The admin who blacklisted TMDB (User:A._B.) responded to that proposal with a very reasonable response saying:
    "Blacklisting is a big step and potentially carries implications off of Wikipedia. We like to see the user get several warnings before we blacklist. If that doesn't stop the person, then we're happy to blacklist."
    They followed up this statement saying that they had given those IPs final warnings.
    If the original site owner had received multiple warnings and still continued to spam the site, I wouldn't even be here, because I would recognize the reasoning behind the blacklist in the first place. However, in this case instead of giving warnings as I would expect, the site was blacklisted immediately.
    It appears to me that the original blacklisting is an example of ignoring the principle of WP:AGF, seeing as there was no discussion or warning given. Azuravian (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember the specifics but it looks like User:Travisbell ignored multiple requests and warnings:
    After that, an editor requested the domain he was spamming be blacklisted; that's when I blacklisted it. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, I apologize for any pushiness on my part. I can tell you from a long time user, but only occasional contributor, that the vagaries of Wikipedia's processes and politics can feel like a bit of a black box. I just think it's a bit silly that because a user made mistakes (or even intentionally spammed, which I don't believe to be the case) sixteen years ago that a legitimate website (not some blog, or scam site) is still being blacklisted due to what essentially seems like red tape.
    Seeing the extra warnings just adds another wrinkle to the issue to me. That means the user was warned after adding a link to maybe five pages. That hardly seems like a case of excessive spamming to me, especially in light of other similar sites being linked hundreds or tens of thousands of times. Linking to that sort of external site is obviously not, in and of itself, an issue.
    Does Wikipedia have some sort of deal with IMDB and thetvdb or something? If not, why are they being given such preferential treatment? Azuravian (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Caveats: I was inactive for about a decade and gave up my admin privileges so I don’t remember any specifics and I don’t have any ability to add or delete sites from the blacklist or whitelist.
    The blacklist is primarily for controlling deliberate spam, not link quality.
    If someone ignores that many warnings, we blacklist the offending domain and usually any associated domains, even if the other domains haven’t been spammed yet. There’s no minimum number of spam links; we don’t wait until there are 50, 100 or 500. Waiting until there’s a lot of spam just makes more cleanup work for our volunteers.
    We have no deal with IMDb. IMDb is semi-officially considered an unreliable source and an unnecessary link but as you’ve seen, we have a bunch of those links. There’s the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which has a subpage (WP:RSNP) of major sites and editors’ assessment of their suitability as reliable sources.
    We have very particular standards for “reliable sources” that are unique to our mission. A site that we consider “unreliable” for our purposes may be great for everything else. Note that we officially consider our own site and other Wikimedia sites as unreliable sources because, like IMDb, our content is user-submitted with insufficient editorial oversight.
    Wikipedia’s administrators have their hands full just fighting off deliberate spamming, let alone the zillions of inappropriate links innocently added by regular editors. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarifications.
    I think my confusion comes from the idea that "The blacklist is primarily for controlling deliberate spam, not link quality."
    This is the crux of my problem is that it seems like different admins have different ideas. Maybe a more solid set of rules around the blacklist would be beneficial. Almost every response I've received to removing the blacklist has been about link quality, not deliberate spam. The only evidence of deliberate spam happened sixteen years ago and there has only been one request to remove it in the intervening years. The idea that the users/creators of tmdb have just been waiting almost 2 decades for the opportunity to engage in deliberate spam is obviously ridiculous. With that in mind, it is understandable why the site was added, but not understandable why it can't be removed.
    I do understand and appreciate all of the work that the Wikipedia administrators do and do not envy the position that I'm sure they find themselves in regularly. Azuravian (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is added to the blacklist because of spamming (as it was in this case). Then link quality is a factor in subsequent removal or whitelist requests. MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Azuravian, a way to help build the case for removal from blacklisting is to start requesting it to be whitelisted as a source. The issues around user-generated data are going to be relevant (see WP:CITEIMDB) and will represent a challenge to whitelisting. Essentially, aside from personal preference, why should a given link to this site be added to an article? Ravensfire (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid question and I think the answer (for me, anyway) is that there is no reason aside from personal preference. I'd say that this answer is the same as the answer I would expect someone to give for a TV series when determining whether to link to IMDB or thetvdb.com, or having a preference for both.
    Here is a sampling of pages for TV series that link to both IMDB and thetvdb.com:
    Breakout Kings
    The Tick (1994 TV series)
    The Borderers Azuravian (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    because sometimes that is the only choice for some pieces of info and can be considered reliable enough? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    also, now that I remember how I got stuck into this, it was because I wanted to add a movie poster with a free image rationale that came from there. I couldn't link to it and had to find something else, even less good as a source. That was a clear exemple of when the ban hurts editing. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RavensfireLooking more into this. The WP:CITEIMDB says that using imdb for infos on movies is disputed but not banned. The majority of basic info (we are not talking about reviews here) are collectivelly gathered in both imdb or tmdb.
    Similarly to what Azuravian was saying, why ban one and not the other? I don't see any logic on the preferential treatement that imdb gets. Tmdb seems to me like an equally respectable source.
    @A. B. Oversight can be done collectivelly, Wikipedia *chooses* to not engage in personal research. There are many kind of reliable sources already in use on wikipedia, it's not like journalism is the only thing that we accept. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cinemaandpolitics There is absolutely no requirement to have a working link to the source of a non-free file, the requirement is that you clearly state where you get it (which actually is from the producers of the poster, not from the site that posts it und a same non-free use rationale). Moreover, you could have requested whitelisting for that purpose (though also there we would have sent you to the original source of the file). Dirk Beetstra T C 05:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutelly right, and I think I just didn't find it under a reliable producer website and had to use (from memory) another random site. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @RavensfireLooking more into this. The WP:CITEIMDB says that using imdb for infos on movies is disputed but not banned. The majority of basic info (we are not talking about reviews here) are collectivelly gathered in both imdb or tmdb.
    Similarly to what Azuravian was saying, why ban one and not the other? I don't see any logic on the preferential treatement that imdb gets. Tmdb seems to me like an equally respectable source.
    @A. B. Oversight can be done collectivelly, Wikipedia *chooses* to not engage in personal research. There are many kind of reliable sources already in use on wikipedia, it's not like journalism is the only thing that we accept.
    — User:Cinemaandpolitics 19:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

    @Cinemaandpolitics because tmdb was spammed with confessed site owner showing strongly that they intended continue to push for their links to be included over a long period of time. That narrative has not changed and is repeated (almost verbatim) in this thread by the current requester. In all these years there are no independent requests that this site is needed by editors who edit 'in the field', but there is a significant history of spam. Whitelisting specific links will do.
    Dirk Beetstra T C 04:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no connection whatsoever with tmdb owners, I don't have an account there, and I was not even aware of this conflict before finding out the hard way. I do plan to edit more cinema pages and I'll request a whitelist as you suggest. Still this whole approach seems sketchy to me, if tmdb spammed in the past but now it is a major player that is relevant, rules have got to change at some point. I understand that you don't want their link to be added en masse together with imdb, but still. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not you. And there is a huge difference between adding 'en masse' and spamming. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is 'xyz' blocked?

    [edit]

    There is a regular expression \bxyz\b in the block list. I did not find it's entry in the log. I think this is a mistake. It blocks any website with `.xyz` at the end. There is already a request to whitelist `hypercubing.xyz`, seems to be a website with innocent content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.111.20 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Experience with that TLD has shown that's it's mostly junk, unreliable sites that generated a significant amount of spam here. The initial discussion on it is MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2020#.xyz_TLD. For the low percentage of sites that are good sources, whitelisting has worked. Ravensfire (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (and it is properly logged, at the very bottom of MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2020#June_2020 * Pppery * it has begun... 22:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, it isn't the only blacklisted TLD. The .guru TLD is also blacklisted, for pretty much the same reason as .xyz is blacklisted. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    innermasteryhub.com

    [edit]

    May I know the reason of blacklisting innermasteryhub.com ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehwishqurayshi (talk • contribs) 10:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the notes field in the Special:BlockedExternalDomains entry: Spammed my many accounts -- Ohnoitsjamie, 2024-09-23 * Pppery * it has begun... 22:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this misplaced request: I see zero reason to justify removal of this domain, considering you have also spammed it inappropriately (see here and here) in the past. --Kinu t/c 03:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    [edit]

    A bunch of recent requests got archived Special:Diff/1239133035/1239171878 but no action was taken. In fact the log has no updates since May 2024: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log. Is this think on auto pilot? -- GreenC 04:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The bot will archive it after seven days with no comments, even if it hasn't been done (Another example). ClumsyOwlet (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing has been done since May... maybe we should increase the archive bot timer to at least 3 months. -- GreenC 00:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Increased to 90 days -- GreenC 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    SPAM mass removal

    [edit]

    Hello, Is there a method, such as a script or bot request, for mass-removing an unreliable source that is deemed Deprecated and is cited across multiple pages? --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Saqib not to my knowledge. Logically, this should be done manually or semi-autoamted basis as there are source deprecations that are partial, i.e. WP:FORBESCON (deprecation for a subset of articles written by a group of people) or WP:CNET (deprecation of articles written in a defined time period). Furthermore removal of deprecated sources without considering if the accompanying content that the source is being used for reference should be removed as well is troubling as it can make such content unverifiable now with the source removed and not reintroduced or replaced. – robertsky (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    geeksandgamers.com

    [edit]

    Looking at the references to this website across Wikipedia article, talk, and other pages, it appears that it's commonly used to push pro-Gamergate, Comicsgate (1, 2) or adjacent positions (1), with a number of the talk pages describing it as an unreliable source (1, 2).

    Searching for Alex Gherzo, a name that appeared in this recent edit, the very first DuckDuckGo result is a Medium blog post describing the person as the website's editor-in-chief and pointing at their alleged far-right interests, which is consistent with the aforementioned positions.

    Could the source be assessed for inclusion in the blocklist or any other action to reduce or eliminate the need for editors to repeatedly undo edits or talk about its unreliability if it is indeed generally unreliable? Daisy Blue (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    geeksandgamers.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
    @Daisy Blue, the discussions thus far have been locally done on individual Talk pages. A broader discussion to evaluate if the source should be deprecated projectwide should at least to be done at WP:RSN first. Putting on this list here is akin to using a sledgehammer as a nutcracker if it is not proven that the links from the site are being spammed on the wiki after considering edits made with good faith. – robertsky (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense! It's easy to get lost in the guidelines, so I appreciate the suggestion. I'll take it there. Daisy Blue (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Migration to Special:BlockedExternalDomains

    [edit]

    I'm here again asking you migrate MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist to Special:BlockedExternalDomains. At least for new entries most admins use the new system but some admins (e.g. User:HJ Mitchell User:Ohnoitsjamie) are adding to the old system. This is adding time to save to every edit in English Wikipedia because regexes are heavy and expensive. The new system has a lot of limitations (doesn't work with whitelist, you can't block based on path, e.g. linking to a youtube channel, doesn't work if the user adds the link in edit summary) but it's much safer, it's easier to read and keep track of and most importantly, it doesn't slow down edits. And the limitations of the new system doesn't apply to 99% of the cases you add (if you need to block something on the path, by all means, use the old system).

    On the speed, for example I copy-pasted the old Spam blacklist of Portuguese Wikipedia into testwiki and the result is 80ms slow down of every edit that adds one link (more if you add more links). They had only around 3k regexes, you have more than 6K. Ladsgroupoverleg 21:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I do use the new system for most one-offs, but it's much easier to process multi-domain requests from others here using the old system which integrates with User:Beetstra's blacklist handler gadget. If someone makes a request with 10 domains it's very slow to add those using the new system without some sort of helper script. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ladsgroup thanks for the ping. I had no idea about the new system. Is there a documentation page somewhere? It should probably be advertised more widely if it's intended as a replacement for the Mediawiki blacklist. @Beetstra: is it possible to modify User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-blacklist-Handler to work with the new list? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We need the whitelist, a full migration isn't possible until that works in the new system. MrOllie (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie Even if you keep 500 or even 1000 of them in the old blacklist (the ones that need a whitelist entry), just migration of the rest will make a massive improvement in experience of editors. Admins are exempt, that's why you don't feel the slow down. Ladsgroupoverleg 09:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are exempt from what? I've never been able to add blacklisted links as an admin. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are exempt. You can try it now. Ladsgroupoverleg 22:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And bots Ladsgroupoverleg 22:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that I'm exempt hitting the new blacklist, but admins still aren't exempt from the original list; I thought that's what you were talking about when you said "that's why you don't feel the slow down." OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it got reverted but sboverride is given to any user with "editprotected" right: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/SpamBlacklist/+/814196/1/extension.json Ladsgroupoverleg 10:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (sorry for the very late response, just stumbled across this now). That's not what that code does. What the code you linked to does is to add spamblacklist to the editprotected grant (meaning if you set up a bot password or OAuth consumer that can edit protected pages it can also override the spam blacklist). Despite the name it doesn't given anyone the right, and the fact that admins can't override the spam blacklist is a deliberate decision of the global community - they shouldn't be able to override BlockedExternalDomains either and it's a bug IMO that they can. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... if the speed is a concern to the editing experience, shall we do an one-off transfer of domains that do not have whitelist entries from the spam-blacklist to the latter? – robertsky (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone can be very careful MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json can be edited directly (in JSON markup) and bulk load lots of entries at once. — xaosflux Talk 15:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Curiosity got the better of me and I did an exploratory look to see how one can migrate part of the list to BlockExternalDomains while preserving the original log messages and identify the admin who actioned on it. The sbl logs entries do not tally with the existing entries. Upon further digging, there was an exercise back in 2020 to remove entries that did not trigger the checks for a time since their inclusion. It removed quite a bit, while I did not count the number of entries, it was 120.6kb of data removed (according to xtools) or roughly 50%.
    I am half a mind that we should empty the current list of similar zero-hit entries first before migrating the rest over, and/or do a yearly (periodic) maintenance work to keep the lists here and there slim. – robertsky (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertsky OTOH, if you have it in json format, it'd be easier to review the entries than the current mess of regexes :D Ladsgroupoverleg 11:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TechnologyAdvice

    [edit]

    This company has acquired a number of technology related publications in the past few years. However the Wikipedia page was deleted nine years ago - before its acquisition spree - and, also, its TechnoloyAdvice dot com domain is blacklisted for some unknown reason. There are Wikipedia pages for prominent publications that are owned by TechnologyAdvice - publications, such as: TechRepublic; eWeek; Datamation; and, Channel Insider (this page was also deleted 14 years ago) - but their parent company domain is blacklisted and their parent's domain is blocked. I am not sure why this is. Maybe that was due to some reason a decade ago, but I rather suspect that there is little or no reason for it to remain blacklisted.
    Comments?
    Enquire (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Enquire I would suggest you post a request in the removals section above (instruction for formatting is mentioned there). We can have a look at the reports and reasons from there. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    About.com

    [edit]

    Old, archived versions of their music coverage is now blocked per this blacklist. Many of the music critics are reliable sources, and a table was compiled of which journalists have reliable coverage and which do not: WP:ALBUM/ABOUT.COM. I'm not sure how to white-list these specific articles apart from individually white-listing hundreds of urls, but it's created a problem for articles that used some of the reputable journalists' work as a source. Even with archived urls that are no longer active will trigger the blog. Maybe there can be a way to exempt the wayback links, and no longer link to the original dead url?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Archived versions aren't actually blacklisted. This was already answered at the whitelist talk page. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    [edit]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=1254267568"