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 - 198679540 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

→snippet for logging: {{/request|198679540#section_name}}

→snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|198679540#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

Regexp for penisenlarge

As would be expected, the penis enlargement article gets its share of linkspam. contributions and contributions, for example, have been repeatedly blocked for linkspamming (also see spam blacklist report on User Talk:125.209.115.132). Every so often this user comes back and adds variations of a domain name that contain the string "penisenlargement", such as penisenlargementss.com and penisenlargementy.com.

Example diffs of spam:

I suggest we add a general purpose regexp 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 below 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]

Update again: After seeing another incident, I moved this section from discussion section below to this proposal section. =Axlq 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defer to WPSPAM We can't selectively block sites from articles. I think blocking spammers would be better here. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets try both. Take for instance the theory of gravity, we can choose to ignore ^{$F={\frac {Gm_{1}m_{2}}{r^{2}}}$} . Its not useful in all circumstances, nor remotely necessary in most circumstances - but we should not ignore gravity. Watchlist the penis related articles, and we'll test for a week. Obviously there is abuse associated with specific site above. This regex appears to skirt the Scunthorpe Problem, but if this occures it can be easily and quickly reverted in the event of any false positives. It shouldn't trigger on URLs having just the word "penis" or "enlarge" in them, it should trigger only if both strings are present.

Done a little Viagra for Wikipedia--Hu12 (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thedanube.info

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

A typical advertisement website, used as "The Official Danube Site" in Danube. 213.47.181.20 (talk) 13:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

learnerstv.com

Continuing and unceasing spamming of two articles, promoting some pay-to-learn online site when the material is freely available. Forever changing IP addy, so blocks not effective. Bots don't seem to have a good strike rate, and the spamming has now been ongoing for over 2 months at [8] and [9]. Plenty of examples for diffs from those histories, for example:

SFC9394 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since XLinkBot started watching for this site, it caught the first time it was added but not the second. Not sure if second was missed, intentionally ignored, or I screwed up the regex for the site when I added it. But regardless, I've never seen an acceptable use of this site, but it is indeed often spammed to various articles (the Lewin ones are the most common but not the only targets) by throw-away anon IP accounts. WP:WPSPAM reports:

DMacks (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sarilocker.com

Being spammed since December at least by throwaway accounts - so warning messages not particularly useful.

sarilocker.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

Wiki986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Utrek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Frpl2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Jurt24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
AdvCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Hner2547 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
JmLynRef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Fran510231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
WilderK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
DefenCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Flirt384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Fersey23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Pnom890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Warned on 2008-01-27 but doubtful anyone read it.
MrciaCr8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Ti67.98.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Seven76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-- SiobhanHansa 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree,

Done thanks for the report SiobhanHansa--Hu12 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

76.119.214.72 (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) related vandal account [15]
--Hu12 (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

surgery.org

plasticsurgery.org
injectablesafety.org

See WikiProject Spam report

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jan_1#American_Society_for_Aesthetic_Plastic_Surgery_.28ASAPS.29

Accounts

Persistent, switching accounts, warned etc etc -

Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.premature-ejaculation-selfhelp.com

www.premature-ejaculation-selfhelp.com

Repeated addition of link in Premature ejaculation by anonymous editors.

[16]
[17]
[18]

--William Avery (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. thanks William --Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cdaclass.org

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

Spammed on the child care related articles, semi-protection won't work because editor is now using throwaway registered accounts.

Jsmeddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) all edits. Warning left.
Hotmailisgreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) all edits. Warning left.
Childcareisgreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) all edits.
68.80.198.115 (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) all edits. Warning left.
71.242.46.114 (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) edits on September 09 2007.

-- SiobhanHansa 03:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nationmultimedia.com/qvote

There is an aggressive spammer, or maybe more correct someone abusing Wikipedia for his personal vendetta against Thailand and/or the Thai authorities, adding his soapbox texts into several articles, most commonly Thailand. One common thing about these entries is that he adds links to the forum of the newspaper The Nation, which have the common form of nationmultimedia.com/qvote/... - though this link is not included always. Maybe it can help to stop this person at least a bit when he cannot add that link anymore. But mkake sure it's only the qvote subpage which gets blocked, other URLs from the Nation have to work as it is a common reference link. The IPs listed below are just the most recent ones, this goes on for months already. Blocking the IPs for longer times is not possible, as these belong to a Thai ISP and thus might block out other users.

124.120.172.44 (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)
58.8.204.180 (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)
58.10.103.180 (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)
58.8.211.50 (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)
58.10.102.63 (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)

andy (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.peselfhelp.com

www.peselfhelp.com

(Seems to be the same folks as www.premature-ejaculation-selfhelp.com)

Repeated addition of commercial links in Premature ejaculation by anonymous editors.

[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]

William Avery (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit "premature" with the reporting (:)) & equally it got listed quite suddenly!

Done & thanks for picking it up --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

freeforums.org

freeforums.org: 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

Wide spread mixed spamming of these low value, low membership freely hosted chat forums. I'm not convinced these could ever meet Wikipedias inclusion criteria. Not only are forums Links normally to be avoided, they fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Hu12 (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

acdemocracy.org

I've seen this site 2 times in the past 5 minutes on vandal patrol, both due to an obstensible POV push. Actually clicking the site proves its extremeness. Diffs: [23][24][25][26][27], etc. Will ^(talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

others Deadly Serious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
RachelEhrenfeld2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Done, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

starmometer.com

This is a blog; spamming in favor of this site has stepped up in recent weeks. Examples: [28] by User:Onemigs, [29] by User:Starmometer, [30] by User:Tlkforever (talk). --Howard the Duck 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Done, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

associatedcontent.com

(Originally posted this request at meta, but got deferred back here.)

See discussion at:

For comparison to the suite101.com case, which is essentially the same problem:

Most recent discussion at the admin's noticeboard shows a clear consensus to blacklist this site. Essentially, the problem is that anyone is allowed to post their own articles there, with no editorial oversight. Additionally, authors there get paid by the pageview, so there's a clear incentive to spam links to them. At current count, there are 731 links on en.wikipedia, 13 on fr, 7 on de, and I haven't exhausted my searching options yet.

We've dealt with this site in the past, and removing the links just resulted in even more showing up. Once we have this under control, we can deal with removing the existing links. (Likely the only page that we should allow to keep a link there would be Associated Content (and other language versions, of course).) --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

debatepedia.org

This is a redirect to the wiki at a previously blacklisted site idebate.org (Original Wikiproject spam report). -- SiobhanHansa 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch.

Done--Hu12 (talk) 00:16, 15 March 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]

see [31]

Not done for now--Hu12 (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

paleontex.net.tf

I own, and am the sole contributor to, this website. It contains no content that could be seen as blacklist material and I will only use it on my own user page unless somebody requests otherwise. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is early so maybe it's me but I can't see that it is blacklisted here? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's other domain's freewebs.com/dendodge, is that blacklisted? I've not got time to check. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.. I guess my time is short too so I'm not sure how to deal with this. You requested a removal & gave a reason & it is not blacklisted. Please see what the issues is with the other site & let us know why that one should be removed, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sarilocker.com

Please unlist this domain. It will be used only as an external link under the "External Link" heading in relevant and meaningful ways, such as an external link on the Sex Education page, or when linking to articles contained on the site the provide more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fran510231 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear evidence of abuse See WikiProject Spam report , along with vandalism to this page[32]. -

Declined. Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.--Hu12 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

smarter.frih.net

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

This site is a collection of links to legally published online Science Fiction. It is useful because it gathers in one place all known free online SF works (over a 1000 and the number is growing) from tens of more or less specialized websites such as gutenberg.org, webscription.net, baen.com, scifi.com, infinityplus.co.uk, strangehorizons.com, eidolon.net, etc. and authors' own websites. The accusations of copyright concerns are completely unfounded. No content is stored at the site and all links are to free online science fiction (free as in having copyright owner's consent). Let's take the example of Isaac Asimov. Right now there are online 2 stories: "Profession" at abelard.com and "Gold" at webscription.net. If someone bothered to check the links, he would have seen the copyright notices at those websites. They have the right to make those stories freely available to anyone. (UNSCRAMBLER (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The listing (request here) looks perfectly valid to me. My concern is not just about content but also about the fact that the IP who placed the links completely ignored the fact that they were not required by the community (& were rude about it as well) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"not required by the community"!? For me it seems a requirement for an author's page to have a link to the works of that author (if they are legally available, of course). I think that for a Wikipedia user it doesn't matter what kind of person the contributor is but it does matter if he/she finds the contribution useful. As an avid science fiction reader I find this type of links as being very useful. (UNSCRAMBLER (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The listing request was perfectly valid. It would seem some in addition to multiple IP spamming some of the additions, are link vandalism such as [33][34][35][36][37]. edit summaries such as "for the ignorants: check things first before crying copyright", would indicate that the requestor is one and the same "That's why I call those who throw the stone WITHOUT BOTHERING TO CHECK THE ACCUSATIONS FIRST as being ignorants! ". Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available.

Declined--Hu12 (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) Of course I am both the editor and the requestor. Who claimed otherwise? And if someone wrongly accuses me of breaking a law (copyright in this case) what I am supposed to think about him/her?

2) Again unfounded accusations: after ludicrous copyright infringement accusations now it's link vandalism! Let's take them one by one:

- [38] that's replacing an informative link with a more complete one. freesfonline.de is a good site but in this case (Asimov) as in several others their page is less complete/informative than the new link (more stories)

- [39] same as above

- [40] exactly the same as the first one

- [41] that's removing a commercial link with no relevance to the subject!

- [42] same as the first

3) I thought Wikipedia was about information not about easily-offended self-righteous editors! For people like you I will always be guilty as charged without ever bothering to check the accusations just because you don't like the way I talk! (UNSCRAMBLER (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is excluded.. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site. Thank you for your time.--Hu12 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

opticsplanet.net

Please unlist opticsplanet.net The site is the largest specialized source for astronomy, hunting, and other optical products and has a ton of unique content that wikipedia users can link to and visit from the "External Link" in relevant and meaningful way. No spamming has been intended and no commercials/advertising content - just unique How to's and explanations. The list of some of the articles is here (space is added before .net to be able to insert the link with examples) http://www.opticsplanet .net/howto.html and here are a few specific examples http://www.opticsplanet .net/riflescope-glossary.html http://www.opticsplanet .net/secure-scope-mounting-system.html (Pshvarts (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)).[reply]

Not listed here,

Not done

Defer to Global blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

petitiononline.com

Why is petitiononline.com blocked? Please unlist. 89.54.154.208 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined

Defer to Whitelist--Hu12 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hotrails.co.uk

This site was added to the external links on the "Blue Oyster Cult" page, AFTER the official site links. It's a large site, and has been online 5 years. It is an ongoing attempt to document the career of Blue Oyster Cult, and has hundreds of contributors - including current and ex-members of Blue Oyster Cult THEMSELVES and their roadcrew!!

It contains lists of gigs and setlists and reviews completely unavailable anywhere else. The site is unique - it's completely ad-free and no mailing lists are involved. Yet Wiki have blacklisted it as "spam". Needless to say, I disagree, and would like this decision to be reviewed.

The official sites you DO list are by and large pretty useless as founts of BOC knowledge - take the "www.julesradino.com" link you have there - yes, it's "official" but do you come away - after perusing it - with one iota of info on the band? I'll save you the trouble - no, you don't. Have a look at my interview with the BOC drummer at this url:

[Please note, I can't put the actual link here as it won't let me save the page when I do - because of course it is "spam" - please append the following to the url domain mentioned above "/blueskybag/albertbouchard/050212.htm"

The drummer himself said it's the most in-depth interview he's EVER done... it forms the basis for the new section on the site dealing with the band's history from 1967 to 1971 - NOBODY else is doing this. I have tons of emails from visitors who say this is the BEST, most informative BOC site anywhere, yet you say it is SPAM.

Have a look at the BOC history page - for say - 1980 here:

Again, I'm not allowed to put the URL so append the following to the basic site domain: "/history/1980.htm"

This sort of thing is NOT available ANYWHERE else. Yet, apparently, it's SPAM...

By trying to add the link to the Wiki BOC article, I'm attempting to promote a site that not only the average BOC fan will find very useful but also I'm trying to reach the "casual" BOC fans to try and get THEIR contributions to the ongoing BOC story... it's a socially-motivated documentary project - it'll never be complete but along the way, it'll become the most comprehensive encyclopaedic repository of publicly accessible information and opinion on this band that it is possible to get... If that's SPAM to you, then to misquote Dr Seuss, spam I am.....

PS: If I've failed to observe the correct protocols with this submission, please accept my apologies... DuckBarman (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly concerning (asside from the obvious evidence of abuse) is the clear documented threats to continue disruprition wikipedia by spamming (threat was made in the article space) "keep deleting the link if you want, we'll keep adding it..". In addition, this site is an unofficial fansite which is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.

We do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in supports of our encyclopedia pages. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available.--Hu12 (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - as such many links are not relevant. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site for that reason too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> clear documented threats to continue disruprition

I've never knowingly "disruprited" anyone or anything in my life! Some months back when I first added the link, it got removed each time within an hour - a fellow fan added it again, and finally it stayed for a fair while. Then when I checked again yesterday, it was gone again. Hence I thought it was a case of someone deleting my post again because it "wasn't official" or whatever...

So - the main argument - if I understand it correctly - is that the site in question is an "unofficial fan site" and therefore is a site to be avoided... I've just read your 15 bullet points under the heading of links to be avoided and the first one - about a "site that does not provide a unique resource" would clearly seem to be relevant. Have a look at it if you have a minute, but maybe you need to be a BOC fan to understand why it's different...

> Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site for that reason too

The external links would seem to be at odds with this philosophy - if anyone adds an external link, then isn't that "promoting" that link and should therefore be removed? Looking at those external links which you DO allow - they are mostly the "official" sanctioned sites by the band members themselves. No other sites are listed there. Can you tell me why THEY are more relevant to an encyclopaedia -promoting as they do, the current careers of those members in most cases - and in one of them, you have to pay $50 to join!! - whereas the Hot Rails site is all about documenting the past career and plotting it against a set timeline? No axe to grind, no adverts or mailing lists or anything - just the facts told by the people who were there...

Go to the official CBS/Sony site - and similar sources - and look at the sanitised links they provide there - just like the Wiki page, you get the same "official" - sanctioned - links...

I'm not sure how USEFUL this is to a BOC fan who wants to find out more about the band's history, but I suppose THAT must be what you want, and - consequently - my idea of what constitutes a legitimate encyclopaedic resource must differ wildly from yourselves... 82.38.141.32 (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

asociacionjacob52.com

Hello, this link is in the black list because of my fault, when i was a newbie i started including it everywhere. It's been a year and a half, and i'm now quite a best contributor in es:, and the link is now only where it belongs. So i request the removal from the list. Thanks, Gons (¿Digame?) 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC).

Defer to Global blacklist This site has been blocked at meta so cannot be unblocked here. you'll need to make your request there. -- SiobhanHansa 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, thanks, Gons (¿Digame?) 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gons (talk • contribs)

A good reference is black listed

this page is blacklisted: *http:// education. stateuniversity. com/ pages/ 2338/ Prosser-Charles-1871-1952.html - added spaces so it will save here. Why is it black listed? It is a good reference for artcile Charles Allen Prossor. Is there anything that can be done about this?Cool10191 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion area. That article does not exist, if its created and you would like it to be used as a reference

Defer to Whitelist--Hu12 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good reference is blacklisted

http: / /transportationhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/louis_bleriot is blacklisted, and I was trying to use it as a reference. I don't see any possible reason it could spam the website, and I believe it is a legitimate web site for research. STYROFOAM1994^talk Review me! 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it could be used as a reference

Defer to Whitelist--Hu12 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

letterwhiz.com

I own letterwhiz.com and am requesting that it be removed from the blacklist, what steps must I take to have it removed. -- Jasen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.151.128 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The domain was involved in a significant case of abusive linking at the beginning of the year (see: this report). Typically, we don't remove domains that have been spammed from the blacklist in response to requests from site owners. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an established editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated to be be important for furthering our encyclopedic mission. -- SiobhanHansa 13:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vuze.com

Vuze.com was added to the blacklist as spam on the articles Vuze, Vuze, Inc., and Azureus, Inc. [43] This is rather nonsensical, as Vuze.com is Vuze Inc., is the company that develops Vuze, and is the new name of Azureus, Inc. We have a domain blacklisted for being used in articles about its owner. It's like blacklisting apple.com for being used on iPod. There seems to have been a handful of attempts to link to a specific video on the service, but we'd have to blacklist half the web if that were the standard. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've whitelisted the homepage and have added it to those articles [44][45][46]. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:51, 16 March 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[47], 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]

I do not support blacklisting the blogspot.com. It is too generic to be blindly blacklisted --Zache (talk) 20:06, 21 February 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)

whatbird.com

Resolved

Hi. Why is whatbird.com blacklisted? I tried to add identify.whatbird.com to the Science ref desk but it said it was blacklisted. Can someone tell me the reason for when it became blacklisted? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short version | Long version. MER-C 08:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how to keep wiki free of spam

In regards to my post "How to keep wiki free of spam" I was hoping to get a few more comments before it was archived. Is there little interest? little time? other priorities? all of the above? From my perspective, it seems as if these are important questions that may be difficult to answer but need to be considered (but I must disclose bias... as they are my questions...) I do not think that some of these questions have been asked before... and I hope I have not offended any by asking them now in my attempt to understand the blacklist better.

I wanted to share with everyone that I started a table on my talk that all are welcome to contribute to. Newtowiki2 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You posted a bunch of questions, received a well thought out and fairly comprehensive response and then posted some very none specific comments in what I found to be a difficult to read format. It wasn't something that was easy to respond to. If you could summarizing one or two of the points you have questions to and concentrate on those it may be easier for people to respond in a productive fashion. Also while people will likely be happy to answer specific questions that have direct relevance to your ability to contribute, they may be much less willing to engage in a more in-depth conversation unless they are particularly interested in pursuing the discussion for their own edification. -- SiobhanHansa 17:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SiobhanHansa. I have limited time on Wiki so although i worked very hard in making a table to organize my thoughts and the reply- this seems to have been a difficult format to stimulate discussion. Out of all of my questions, here is the one that seems the most important. The Wiki blacklist is a powerful tool, and run by respected and powerful wiki members. Isn't there a risk of abuse amongst the admins (or at least risk of being accused of abuse)? What if the admins have their own bias? I reviewed only a very small section of the archives (as I ref on my talk page) and I was most surprised to see examples in the archives where the same admin had taken these actions on individual sites:

Listed a site for blacklist (without offering it as a proposed blacklist or other atempted warnings)
Responded to discussion (or dominated discussion) when their action was questioned on proposed removals
Made the "call" by marking an item as done
Archive the discussion

If the same admin takes on all of those roles for a single website in question... does that put the entire blacklist at risk as being a fair and unbiased wiki tool?

I also saw several examples where a site was kept on the blacklist because it was determined to be an "unreliable source". Is the mission of the blacklist to eliminate unreliable sources? Is blacklisting an unreliable source the same as preventing spam? Are there broader negative associations with being on a "blacklist" (ie: does inclusion on the Wiki blacklist have the potential to do harm to a website??) Can this potential harm put the entire wikipedia project at risk for legal action (ie: slander???)?Newtowiki2 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there are a few issues you bring up - The one about admin actions being unilateral and not really open to review is one that is brought up in many different contexts on Wikipedia, and the same situation applies here as to any admin action. It's not as though non-admins like you and me are without recourse, the same avenues are available to get review of actions on this page as are available for any admin action. If you need help with something specific please feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll try and assist you in taking the right steps, but the broader issue is not something I'm interested in discussing in any depth personally.

On the fair and unbiased issue - a) The blacklist's role isn't really to be "fair and unbiased" it's to help us make building the encyclopedia easier. But if by unbiased you mean that the list has a tendency to keep out links of a certain POV and that that POV is one that our NPOV policy dictates we should cover - that would be a significant issue. Many eyes would appear to be a good defense against this, so if you've noticed something please bring it up. b) Openness is important to help with review and to that extent there is inbuilt "fairness". We have process to make this easier (such as all additions being logged with reasons). In cases where that process isn't followed, a request for delisting is granted when reason for an addition can't be found, or when its continued presence on the blacklist can no longer be justified.

The unreliable source comment may have been taken out of context - a site that is spammed but can also be a reliable source (we've had several library sites spammed for example) is one where we might think twice about adding it to the list (or be more inclined to delist), since editors might need it as a citation and it could be otherwise useful to the project. A site that isn't a reliable source doesn't really need to be considered as carefully since it's not of the same potential benefit to the encyclopedia. I believe there have been a few sites in the past where additions of totally inappropriate sources (non-notable blogs for instance) have been used so much that a listing has been considered, but there isn't a general acceptance for admins to simply add any URL they know of that isn't a reliable source to the blacklist, and I don't think that's done.

As to broader negative associations - we don't promote this page for anything other than use on the English Wikipedia. The meta blacklist is used by some broader spam-fighting engines, and it's possible they also look at this one, but I haven't seen anyone confirm that. We have a number of sites on meta that aren't even spam as such but get used by spammers (such as redirect sites) and there aren't any concerns about law suits there so I don't think we're worried here. We are concerned about the impact a listing might have on a site, but not to the extent we're prepared to allow Wikipedia to be spammed. If a site could show they were damaged by inclusion on the list and provide believable assurances that they would not spam again, there would probably be some consideration for delisting. It's not the intent of the blacklist to harm businesses or people just because their sites have been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, the only point of the blacklist is to help with building the encyclopedia. -- SiobhanHansa 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The blacklist's role isn't really to be "fair and unbiased" it's to help us make building the encyclopedia easier" -- according to who? This is a spam blacklist - and it would seem the original intent was to prevent spam/vandalism. I think that it is routinely being used in a much broader way... and that is why I am surprised. The guidelines on the top of this page relate to spam, and its prevention. Do the guidelines need to be revisited?

"The unreliable source comment may have been taken out of context " take a look at the table on my talk page... just a review of a small sample. Is this sample out of context? It seems to be more of a pattern to me... a pattern where it is easy to be put on the blacklist, and very difficult to come off of it - even if there is no threat of spam??

"A site that isn't a reliable source doesn't really need to be considered as carefully since it's not of the same potential benefit to the encyclopedia." but is that the job of the blacklist admins to decide? or the specialty admins on a given article? If a site is being disruptive... it should go to the talk page of the article. If the site is still being disruptive, then it qualifies for this or other spam prevention. But this does not seem to be the history of many domains.

"The meta blacklist is used by some broader spam-fighting engines, and it's possible they also look at this one" - That is serious. You do not need to intend to do harm to do harm... and if a website ends up on this black list there are several ways in which they may suffer. For example, their e-mails to subscribers may end up in spam filters, for example. They may not realize this for months... or longer... and I bet would not even know how or why their domain became listed as a spam domain. If they look and see a history here of spam, with attempts to stop the spam, and the black list used as a last resort to prevent spam - I think that there is no problem. If the guidelines above have not been followed, I do see a potential problem for the wiki community. This could be a difficult, expensive, and possibly impossible problem for a domain to fix. And they may be fixing it because a random visitor to their website listed the domain... and an admin here thought that the source wasn't reliable? That just doesn't seem fair. Newtowiki2 (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of everything on Wikipedia is to build a GFDL encyclopedia. The spam blacklist helps us do that and nothing you say above actually shows harm that current practice does to that end. Your comments about how these processes ought to be handled don't seem to be grounded in an acceptance (or even solid understanding of) community practice; this could be because you're a new user who has not yet added much to the project. You may find a lot of this more understandable if you spend more time editing articles and come back to this after you've experienced the impact in the field.

In terms of harm to website owners - given that we do nothing to suggest other organizations/people should use this list for their filtering purposes I don't think we're going to change our practices unless we had evidence that it is actually being harmful. Introducing more bureaucracy or opportunity for wikilawyering is not something we are likely to consider without a very clear motive. -- SiobhanHansa 00:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your comments about how these processes ought to be handled don't seem to be grounded in an acceptance (or even solid understanding of) community practice" - You are right... I am new here... but please do not bite the newcomers. When I read the guidelines above this wiki spam list... I find more examples of their disregard than their utility. (see comments on my talk page) As a communal set of guidelines, they should both be helpful - and offer some degree of unification and protection as they have been (theoretically) agreed upon. I also understand that long and leangthy guidelines serve no purpose here... so I am not suggesting that we make these guidelines more complex. I'm just not understanding why they are not being followed.

I am a newcommer, who is unweathered, and has been in no "wiki fights" or "spam wars". The Admins have been here much longer and work very hard, and closely to this project. I know that these admins have all of the best intentions - but in their efforts to do good and make wikipedia better that (at least in this forum) I rarely see my rolemodels assuming good faith, and sometimes may not follow wikipedia etiquette.

Please understand that I am not a lawyer, and it is not my intent to offer spurious legalisms. I offer these links only to better illustrate my concern with this spam list and the guidelines above. Some decisions to blacklist a site may be considered reckless. Decisions here are managed by Admins only... who would not be able to claim innocent dissemination. Ignorance is not a defence. Clear disregard of this blacklist guidlines may be interpreted as intent for libel. After all, if someone is an Admin active here, it would be assumed that they known that SPAM engines may use dsn blacklists.

Clearlly this list is very important to the work that is being done here. But from my limited review, it seems to be used for purpose broader than it's intent. I also quesiton if comming off this list is unfairly difficult... with a suggestion to

Defer to Whitelist the knee jerk reply.Newtowiki2 (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intent to come across as bitey and I'm very sorry that I did. My point is simply that you have made virtually no additions to the encyclopedia but you are immersing yourself in a policy and guidelines discussion. Since Wikipedia is not a philosophical entity and its policies are grounded entirely in a pragmatic desire to make them work on the ground, with a strong prejudice towards ignoring things that aren't actually causing problems, this is not a particular effective way to understand them. So far you haven't demonstrated any way in which the actions you suggest are inappropriate actually harm the encyclopedia and that's a pretty critical issue for suggesting significant change.

Claims that the list is a legal risk should be made to the Foundation. While many Wikipedian's love to get involved in unqualified legal speculation (including me from time to time) there's no way for us to make such a determination without proper legal council. Such a discussion in this forum is pointless. I would certainly support a change of name for the list from spam black list to link block list or the like. I've never been a fan of the spam word being splashed around too liberally because it riles users up when we can achieve more by using other words. But that's just a cosmetic change from my perspective.

I would say defer to whitelist is the default rather than a knee jerk reaction. assume good faith should be extended to the admins on this page too. -- SiobhanHansa 14:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird

According to the spam filter, the below contains all of or a portion of s6.invisionfree.com:

Image:Revamped Flareon.png is being used in the 'revamping' section of this artcle. The image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why it would be constituting fair use if used in this Wikipedia article.

This image was originally made by Nintendo and modified by me. I uploaded it specifically for its use in this article, as an example of a 'revamped' sprite. I do not think it is replaceable by a free alternative because revamped sprites almost always need an existing, non-free sprite to begin with. --EinsteiNewton 19:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a match when I test the regex, nor when I try to test it on Wikipedia directly. Perhaps it was just a fluke? I blame cosmic rays. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the talk page I intended to put it on had it originally. I just didn't look carefully enough. --EinsteiNewton 05:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

letterwhiz.com moved

Conversation moved to appropriate section see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#letterwhiz.com

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