MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is a page in the MediaWiki namespace, which only administrators may edit. To request a change to it, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist.

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:

Proposed additions
Proposed removals
Troubleshooting and problems
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.

Does the site have any validity to the project?
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.
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).
Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regex — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
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.
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 - 192684134 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

→snippet for logging: {{/request|192684134#section_name}}

→snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|192684134#section_name}}

→A user-gadget for handling additions to and removals from the spam-blacklist is available at User:Beetstra/Gadget-Spam-blacklist-Handler

Archives

December 2023 (Periods are approximate.)

Proposed additions

www.craigslistinformation.com

has been added to the Craigslist article about once a week or so.

[1]

[2]

[3]

Thanks! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Copy Pro 3

Guess who's back? This time, he's trying calling it "CC Pro" to try and escape detection.

Ccpro2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

URL

ccpro2008.wetpaint.com

Done, I wonder how many of the wetpaint.com sites are doing the same thing..(ref[4][5]--Hu12 (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carboncopyproleads1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

URL Looks like he's switched homes:

www.squidoo.com/CarbonCopyProleads

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 08:09, 13 Feb 2008

Thanks,

Done & user blocked --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they return, we might pursue a checkuser block. It's working against the Obaid Azam Azmi vanispamcruftisers. (And I thought squidoo was already blacklisted...) MER-C 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

squidoo.com is Bl'd, but just for subdomains, i've readjusted the regex accordingly--Hu12 (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already tried Checkuser, I'm afraid. --Calton | Talk 15:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's back...

User name: Carboncopypromoney1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
URL: carboncopypromoney1.wetpaint.com/

Any chance of putting wetpaint.com on the link-removal bot list?

--Calton | Talk 14:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far to many links using wetpaint.com, I'll list the expression "carboncopypro", and we can adjust as needed. Please keep up the good work.--Hu12 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man he does NOT give up:

User name: Carboncopypromlm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
URL: del.icio.us/carboncopypromlm

--Calton | Talk 10:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More asiafanclub spam

Accompanied by disruption and disputation.

Domain

asiafanclub.4t.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

Account

70.188.184.84 (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)

Prior drama

--A. B. ^(talk) 04:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have blacklisted the expression "asiafanclub" rather than any specific domain. I expect this user to go through a sequence of similar domain names on various free hosts to make a point and to bypass this blacklist. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals

insomnia.ac

When I tried to add a review article about ketsui as reference, I was informed it was a spam site. Last time I checked, it is a legitimate video game review site. Why was it entered spam list in the first place? The whole idea of the spambot list simply isn't working, because spammer would just move target, while innocent people who happened to inherit spammer's domains will suffer. Jacob Poon 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The owner of the site added links to it to many VG-related articles, which was done in good faith, but it seems somebody thought it was not.see this, this and this. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 23:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

asiafanclub.com

FYI, this link has been removed from the blacklist by CIreland. References:

Talk:Asia (band)#Fan club link blacklisting as well as the preceding discussion:
User talk:Nakon#Spam blacklist

Earlier discussions:

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Asia (band) is under a spam attack, there was no consensus for removing this link. The link also fails the requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines.

Accounts/IPsocks

Agreed, this is spam warring by a conflicted editor. I have blacklisted for now, which will stop the problem; that need not be permanent. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for all the grief I caused by this removal. Although the logic which caused me do so seemed sound at the time, it's now abundantly clear that it was based on a couple of misconceptions on my part. CIreland (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears consensus here and on the articles talk would indicate this is cosed and

Not done--Hu12 (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New site, attempt to circumvent Blacklisting (asiafanclub.4t.com)

23:34, 15 February 2008 - -00:02, 16 February 2008- -00:13, 16 February 2008- -00:18, 16 February 2008- -00:25, 16 February 2008- -02:53, 16 February 2008

--Hu12 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An update on this situation: if you'll read the discussion on this, the link to the fan club is clearly sanctioned by the band. The "Asia Fan Club President" has clearly made some shady attempts at adding it, but the consensus among other editors participating in the discussion, is that the link should be included in the article, and "Asia Fan Club" has provided a page from the official band biography listing it as a web resource. I'd like to request that, despite the obviously ridiculous spam-like techniques (including his attempt to redirect the site to circumvent blacklisting) used by the guy who runs the site, that it be removed from the blacklist, so it can be added back to the article. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did not see any consensus for inclusion, just you campaigning for "Asia Fan Club President" (under multiple IP's) for its removal. First the link fails the requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. Secondly (WP:DISRUPT, WP:POINT), there has been extreme disruption caused by this situation. Multiple spam attacks, edit warring, sneaky attempts to subvert wikipedia policy, creating False consensus through use of mutiple IP's, attempting to circumvent blacklisting by creating asiafanclub.4t.com and worst of all the legal threats made by "Asia Fan Club President". This is a clear case where wikipedia is being terrorized in an attempt to advance a site owners agenda.

Declined as the site is inapropriate for inclusion.--Hu12 (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, to quote fellow editor Barek within the discussion: "the link needs to be evaluated on its own adherance to policy, not the adherance of the user attempting to post the EL". The article should, as any encyclopedic article, list information as relevant, regardless of the behavior of those in favor of it! It's made clear, and agreed in recent posts, that the link does qualify under the policy. If you feel differently, please discuss, and give reasons to justify your stance. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

petitiononline.com

I had used one of this website's petitions in the article Wizards (film) ([6]) as a citation for the fact that the petition had gotten the film released on DVD. This fact has been verified by the director both in interviews and on the film's DVD release. It should be linked in the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Linking to the petition itself isn't a suitable source as verification (since the mere existence of the petition is not verification that the petition is the reason for the release). The interviews of the director in which s/he confirms that the petition is what prompted them to release on DVD is a much more appropriate source. Can they not be cited instead? -- SiobhanHansa 14:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are cited, but I feel that it is important to also cite the petition itself. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Not doneNot a reason to delist the whole domain

Defer to Whitelist--Hu12 (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems

Discussion

archive script

Eagle 101 said he had one running on meta, is it possible to get it up and going here?--Hu12 10:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good - Eagle hasn't been working on Meta for a while though & I've not seen anything (there was supposed to be a logging script too!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great news, Ive written a script that can archive this page given the templates that we use, I can create a approved archive along with a rejected archive if people are interested. β^_command 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Interested" - bit of an understatement there :) Great news - please feel free to help/supply the script. I tend to leave stuff around a week in case anyone shouts or adds more (archives once done should be left alone). How would you handle the "discussion" type bits? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First question, do you want approved and rejected request in separate archives? as for the discussions we could get Misza bot over here for things older than 30 days. β^_command 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think one archive, seperate sections, like it is currently[7], not sure if the script can do that, but if so, doubt there would be objections in implementation...--Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no simple way of editing sections using the bot. (section editting is evil). it would just be one large archive. β^_command 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blogspot.com

I added countingcrowsnew.blogspot.com, freemodlife.blogspot.com, and googlepackdownload.blogspot.com to the blacklist. I made a previous report about the blogspot sites and they're being spammed by the same blocked sockpuppet who I filed a report about here. Spellcast (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've also added b5050-raffle.blogspot.com, gpd2008.blogspot.com, and itsleaked.blogspot.com. They were being spammed by the same blocked sock in that report. Spellcast (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to blacklist the domain then whitelist where needed but some heavy flak is likely to arrive? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From an en:Wikipedia mission perspective (though possibly not your personal perspective:) a bigger issue than the flak that will be generated is the disruption to editing. I believe a lot of pages, particularly biographies of living people, contain legitimate links to the subject's blog - many of which are hosted on blogspot. Simply blacklisting and then waiting for whitelisting requests will likely

overwhelm the whitelist page here and on meta (which given you are one of the most active admins on both, may not be ideal for you!)
be confusing and frustrating to a lot of editors especially newbies, but also any who are not familiar with the blacklist/whitelist set up
lead to a loss of legitimate links and legitimate edits as people struggle to work out whether to keep their edit and lose the link or the other way round while any whitelist request is ongoing.

I think a move like that will take some careful planning and preparation to avoid these issues (might also help cut down some of the heat). One way or another, I think we need human editors to assess the current blogspot links on article pages and enter appropriate ones on the whitelist before the blacklisting goes into effect. I don't think such a move will cut out most of the flak though, so we might want to ensure there are other admins involved to help spread the weight, and a nicely presented page of evidence of the issues the domain causes to point people to.

Blogspot certainly gets spammed a lot more than most domains, and I support blacklisting. But It's still a domain that has a lot of good links and I think it's important to think through how a move like that will impact people, and to adjust to the situation. -- SiobhanHansa 13:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly - needs quite a bit of thought but equally is worth that amount of thought --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many legitimate links to the domain, not only to blogs belonging to article subjects but to blogs belonging to Wikipedia contributors. Better to blacklist individual blogs as needed. --bainer (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why Wikipedia contributors would be adding their own blogs? A very limited number of blogs actualy meet WP:RS and even fewer still meet the requirements of WP:EL or are a blog that is the subject of the article or an official page of the articles subject. There are currently 32,916 blogspot.com Blog links on Wikipedia, if whitelisting even a thousand "legitimate links", its worth it.--Hu12 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've presented some convincing reasons to leave certain blog links out of Wikipedia, but not a reason to leave all blog links out. Wikipedia contributors might want to link to their blogs because, you know, it is possible for said contributors to frequent websites on the internet other than Wikipedia :P See WP:COMMUNITY. There is also a performance cost to whitelisting and blacklisting; as far as I can tell, 1000 whitelisted entries costs more computationally than 1000 blacklisted entries (instead of using one large regex, which is how the blacklist works, you're doing 1000 individual regex replacements). Gracenotes^T § 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression server load was something we were supposed to leave up to the developers to worry about. If they see an issue and ask for a reassessment that would be one thing, but its not a good argument against a tactic without their weight behind it.

The suggestion isn't that all blogs should be banned. the suggestion is that this particular domain gets spammed so much it would be beneficial to the project to blacklist it and only white list the ones that are appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12 I think it's important not to overstate the case here. Not all of the ~32,000 links (assukming the 1K of good links estimate) that are not legitimate external links or citations will actually be harmful to Wikipedia. While editors' own blogs on their user pages aren't necessary to the project, in the vast majority of cases they do no harm and may help editors fell a bond that connects them to the project. Many more will be links from discussions and projects. While I don't think that's a reason for keeping a domain that is also being spammed so much - it's not the case that we do 32,000 links worth of "good" by removing them. For the most part we only really benefit from the spam and poorly placed article links that go. -- SiobhanHansa 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent, crosspost my post from WT:WPSPAM)

The rule \bblogspot\.com is (currently) not on COIBot's monitorlist. Some of the sub-domains have been added via WT:WPSPAM, or have been caught by the automonitoring of COIBot (mainly because the name of the editor is the same as the name of the subdomain on blogspot.com).

Still, a linksearch on the resolved IP of blogspot.com (72.14.207.191) results in a mere 118 results (all COIBot linkreports)! Often the multiple use of the single subdomains is not a cause for blacklisting, as they may only have been used once or twice. Also, I suspect there are tens of thousands of blogspot sub-domains out there, but these are only the links that are caught because the wiki username overlaps with the domainname of the subdomain (or have been reported here). Would this cumulative behaviour warrant blacklisting of \bblogspot\.com .. here, or even on meta? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate links may indeed be a problem, though the majority will fail some or many of the policies and guidelines here (or don't even have to be a notable fact, or do not need to be a working link while being mentioned; "Mr. X has a a blog on Blogspot.<ref>primary reliable source stating that the blog is the official blog</ref>"; we are not a linkfarm), and I would argue that the spam/coi part of the problem becomes a bit difficult to control... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blogspot.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

Crosspost spamlink template for blogspot.com to link this discussion to the linkreports from COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remember how frustrating generic, unexpected spam blocks can be for new and incautious editors. Last time I "checked", if you make an edit with Internet Explorer and you post it directly without preview (two things you should never do), then if the spam blacklist comes up your text is gone. Back arrow gets you the original text of the article. Edits that die that way may not get remade, and they may sour the editor on further contributions. I don't think there should be any blocks on top-level domains or large general purpose Internet sites. 70.15.116.59 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree in this case - there's concern that the dynamic IP spamming it is using it to perpetrate scams or send out computer bugs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way we can realistically do this. blogspot has an Alexa traffic rank of 12 - it's higher than Amazon.com - and has well over 30,000 links on en.wp alone. Adding this would be incredibly disruptive to thousands of articles. Unless someone wants to go through all 32,000 links to find the ones that can be kept so we can whitelist them, there's no way we can do this. The ones that are spam should be removed and blacklisted, but WP:EL and WP:RS are not very good reasons to completely forbid links to a domain. Mr.Z-man 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree that Wikipedia has a big blogspam problem, I also have to concede that there are too many legit blogspot links (e.g., bio subjects own blog) as SiobhanHansa noted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)blogspot.com is currently on User:XLinkBot's revert list. XLinkBot is designed to revert only non-autoconfirmed users, and will only do so a limited number of times. Assuming we emerge from our trial period, I think this would be an effective way of stemming the influx of inappropriate blogspot links. Established editors would still be able to add blogspot.com links and only new or changed links would be reverted - so it wouldn't interfere with non-autoconfirmed users editing pages that already contained a link. --Versa geek 18:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Header

I put the header in a template to reduce size of this request page and included MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist/Indicators which is loosly based off of RCU's indicators.--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google "I'm feeling lucky"

Would the following regexes work?

\bgoogle.com/search?.*&btnI
\bgoogle.com/search?btnI

—Random832 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist logging

{{WPSPAM|0#section_name}} →(replacing '0' with the correct "oldid" (ie. permalink) example shown here).

For example:

{{WPSPAM|182728001#Blacklist_logging}}

results in:

See WikiProject Spam report

This should aid in requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and for use with the entry log here. I've added a snipit in the header --Hu12 (talk)

Regexp for penisenlarge

As would be expected, the penis enlargement article gets its share of linkspam. contributions, for example, has been repeatedly blocked for linkspamming that article with variations of a domain name that contain the string "penisenlargement", such as penisenlargementss.com and penisenlargementy.com.

I'm wondering if a general purpose regular expression could be added to this blacklist, something like \bpenis-*enlarge[-A-Za-z0-9]*\.[a-z]{2,4}\b. That would pre-emptively take care of future "contributions" of linkspam to that article. I'm assuming egrep pattern matching here; not sure what's actually being used.

Keeping in mind the debate above about blogspot, we should of course avoid casting too wide a net. A regexp matching simply "penis" may be a bit too broad, but I think "penisenlarg" is almost guaranteed to be spam. =Axlq (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Well, one can't get them all. Another user just got a permanent ban for spamming the article with enlargementpills.be. Is there a way to make this blacklist context-sensitive; that is, block certain domains from being added to specific articles? =Axlq (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to keep wiki free of spam

I think that this "hub" of admins is a very interesting wiki-phenomenon. The rules ?guidelines? here are also very interesting, brief, (and uneditable?)

“

Does the site have any validity to the project?
Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Is there a Spam project report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
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.

”

Here are my questions:

I wanted to know if there are other guidelines about what should be wiki-blacklisted.
Is there a general list of blacklisted wiki site? (Maybe this would be good for my e-mail spam filter, for example??)
Do links that are blacklisted have to fit all the above criteria? Only one? Case by case?
How long after something is marked Done is it kept here before archiving?
If an admin puts a website on the blacklist... and that site is then discussed under Proposed removals... can the same admin keep it black listed and call it Done? Or could that be perceived as a conflict of interest for the admin him/herself?
How are the archives organized? How can I search them easily?
Can you point me to some disputed blacklisted sites? (disputed amongst admins?) Or are things always clear cut.
Does a proposed removal need only one vote from one admin?
is there a way on wiki to have voting? (has this been tried)??? i.e.: three admins must agree for x & y to happen? almost like a jury? Or are decisions on wikipedia made without jury - and only by judge (i.e.: admin).
In this initiative... have there been cases where the admin was found to be biased? Or found to have ulterior motives?

I think this is really fascinating, and am considering doing a review of blacklisted sites to better understand how the process works. What happens to these sites? What % are challenged? What % are manipulated to avoid detection? How many (if any) get removed from the blacklist - and if so, when? Of those that are removed, how many are removed by the original blacklisting admin? Any statistics here?? It is my guess that most of blacklisted sites stay blacklisted forever... but that some are troublesome and keep coming up with ways to try to beat the system. Is that true? What has been done to prevent this? Would anyone be able or interested in helping me with this? Or offering other suggestions of what to look at? Sign your username: Newtowiki2 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some interesting questions that probably needed asking. Here's my unofficial two cents

Relevant guidelines and policies:
1. Wikipedia:Spam blacklist (guideline)
2. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (policy)
3. Wikipedia:External links (guideline)
  - Covers links listed at the end of an article
4. Wikipedia:Reliable Sources (guideline)
  - Covers links used as references within an article
  - Largely overlaps Wikipedia:Verifiability (policy)
5. Wikipedia:Spam (guideline)
  - Note that inappropriate linking is spam -- it does not have to be commercial
6. Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest (guideline)
7. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
Blacklists:
1. MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist
  - The blacklist for the English Wikipedia ("en.wikipedia") only
  - Fairly new -- before, bad en.wikipedia spam was blacklisted at meta (see below)
2. meta:Spam blacklist "meta"
  - Has been around for several years
  - Maintained on Meta-Wiki
  - If we find spam has been spread "cross-wiki" (i.e., to Wiktionary, other Wikipedias, etc) we list it there.
When I think a link should be blacklisted
1. Spammer knows our rules and spams anyway
  1. Usually I assume this means 3 or 4 warnings; I may shortcut that if
    1. The problem is big enough
    2. The spammer is using open proxies
    3. The spammer is disruptive in other ways
    4. The spammer is involved in off-wikipedia discussions of how to bypass our spam defenses
    5. The spammer never uses the same IP twice and there's just no way to warn him
2. Cross-wiki spam usually gets taken to meta immediately
3. URL redirection domains such as tinyurl.com get blacklisted on sight at meta
4. Sites that attack or attempt to breach the privacy of Wikipedia editors may be blacklisted
Listing sites here, then blacklisting, then adjudicating their possible removal:
1. If it's controversial, I'll ask someone else to get involved. Everything is transparent and so if I just try to hide a poor decision under the rug, it will blow up in my face.
2. If it appears open and shut (buyviagra.com or getrichquick.net), I just go ahead and handle it. 95+% of spam falls in this category.
Recordkeeping:
1. Blacklisting additions are supposed to be logged at meta:Spam blacklist/Log or MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log
2. Some local blacklisting is done based on discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎, not on this page
3. Note that some spam goes on the blacklist not from this page but from discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎
Other methods of spam control:
1. Bots are nice when they work
2. Blocking is a waste of time; spammers just get new IP addresses or user names
3. Page protection is disruptive
4. Blacklisting is efficient and minimizes disruption

There's a lot more I could write but I'm out of time. I hope this helps. It's just my opinion. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for these thoughts. I have tried to organize this into a table.

Question

Answer/ Discussion

Comments

“

I wanted to know if there are other guidelines about what should be wiki-blacklisted.

”

1. Wikipedia:Spam blacklist (guideline)
2. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (policy)
3. Wikipedia:External links (guideline)
  - Covers links listed at the end of an article
4. Wikipedia:Reliable Sources (guideline)
  - Covers links used as references within an article
  - Largely overlaps Wikipedia:Verifiability (policy)
5. Wikipedia:Spam (guideline)
  - Note that inappropriate linking is spam -- it does not have to be commercial
6. Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest (guideline)
7. Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace

Thanks! This is very helpful!

“

Is there a general list of blacklisted wiki site? (Maybe this would be good for my e-mail spam filter, for example??)

”

1. MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist
  - The blacklist for the English Wikipedia ("en.wikipedia") only
  - Fairly new -- before, bad en.wikipedia spam was blacklisted at meta (see below)
2. meta:Spam blacklist "meta"
  - Has been around for several years
  - Maintained on Meta-Wiki
  - If we find spam has been spread "cross-wiki" (i.e., to Wiktionary, other Wikipedias, etc) we list it there.

?? Maybe I don't know how to look at this... but is this the full list? It looks like just the "b"'s??

“

Do links that are blacklisted have to fit all the above criteria? Only one? Case by case?

”

1. Spammer knows our rules and spams anyway
  1. Usually I assume this means 3 or 4 warnings; I may shortcut that if
    1. The problem is big enough
    2. The spammer is using open proxies
    3. The spammer is disruptive in other ways
    4. The spammer is involved in off-wikipedia discussions of how to bypass our spam defenses
    5. The spammer never uses the same IP twice and there's just no way to warn him
2. Cross-wiki spam usually gets taken to meta immediately
3. URL redirection domains such as tinyurl.com get blacklisted on sight at meta
4. Sites that attack or attempt to breach the privacy of Wikipedia editors may be blacklisted
5. Listing sites here, then blacklisting, then adjudicating their possible removal:

If it's controversial, I'll ask someone else to get involved. Everything is transparent and so if I just try to hide a poor decision under the rug, it will blow up in my face. If it appears open and shut (buyviagra.com or getrichquick.net), I just go ahead and handle it. 95+% of spam falls in this category.

Are sites that may be controversial always listed here before blacklisting - to provide a forum for discussion? Or are there examples where they went directly to the blacklist? The 95% is clear cut. It is the remaining 5% that I want to flush out to better understand

“

How long after something is marked

Done is it kept here before archiving?

”

??

“

If an admin puts a website on the blacklist... and that site is then discussed under Proposed removals... can the same admin keep it black listed and call it

Done? Or could that be perceived as a conflict of interest for the admin him/herself?

”

??

This seems like a great oportunity to keep things "clean." In an ideal world, one admin would identify spam and vote to a blacklist... a separate admin would place on proposed blacklist... and if contested - the case should be reviewed by a third admin who is 'impartial'. I do not see any discussion of this type of protocol (or similar). Do you think such efforts are unnecessary? Too burdensome on the admins? (I do not think this is needed on the 95%... only talking about the 5% here)

“

How are the archives organized? How can I search them easily?

”

??

“

Can you point me to some disputed blacklisted sites? (disputed amongst admins?) Or are things always clear cut.

”

??

How do I weed out the 5%???

“

Does a proposed removal need only one vote from one admin?

”

(Not talking about the 95% of things that are obvious - like viagra, etc. More interested in the 5%)

It would seem the answer is that only one vote from one admin is needed (and that could be the same admin that placed the site on the blacklist)

Is that correct???

“

is there a way on wiki to have voting? (has this been tried)??? i.e.: three admins must agree for x & y to happen? almost like a jury? Or are decisions on wikipedia made without jury - and only by judge (i.e.: admin).

”

??

“

In this initiative... have there been cases where the admin was found to be biased? Or found to have ulterior motives?

”

??

“

What happens to these sites? What % are challenged? What % are manipulated to avoid detection? How many (if any) get removed from the blacklist - and if so, when? Of those that are removed, how many are removed by the original blacklisting admin? Any statistics here?? It is my guess that most of blacklisted sites stay blacklisted forever... but that some are troublesome and keep coming up with ways to try to beat the system. Is that true? What has been done to prevent this? Would anyone be able or interested in helping me with this? Or offering other suggestions of what to look at?

”

??

What is the best way to sort this all out?

Ultimatly, we can all agree about the 95%. I want to better understand how the Spam-blacklist affects the 5%. Clearly the spam-blacklist plays a key roll in managing the 95%. Was this list intended for the 5% in the first place? What about having every new external link go to a pool that requires review by an admin? This way, we would catch spam before/as it happens? And would perhaps prevent or discourage those from trying to spam? Or is this also too burdensom on the admins, and risks slowing down the rapid growth of some articles? Newtowiki2 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel article problem

February 12, 2008 I cannot add the internal links, Starting Out In The Eveningor actress Lili Taylor to the Ariel article. They are already in your system. Why are they blacklisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deborrahh (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was not with the internal links. There was a blacklisted external link I just removed which blocked editing the page. Try it now. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards