Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

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

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

    Instructions for editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 1276070292 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    [edit]


    SouthFront.press

    [edit]

    WP:SOUTHFRONT has been blacklisted in general but it does not appear that southfront.press is on the blacklist.

    - Amigao (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Amigao: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, not this needs some work on SouthFront, whitelists should be implemented for the official website of the subject (/about page there), and the primary source that is used. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    hortitips.com

    [edit]

    Long term spamming using multiple IPs over at least the last year. Often successful for long periods because most plant pages do not have active watchers. Today I found six pages with external links that had persisted for months.

    🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @MtBotany: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 19:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    tychr.com

    [edit]

    User created just to spam this website, and should not be added to any Wikipedia articles.

    DACartman (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @DACartman: And a whole list of IP, plus another spam account (see the COIBot reports). plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    nihalnavath.com

    [edit]

    At British National Party:

    At The Peninsula (newspaper):

    At Dolenja Dobrava, Trebnje

    Not that it matters on enwiki, but it's also been used to spam other language Wikipedias:

    Seemingly innocuous link that turns out to be a make-your-own-Rickroll website. Was used as a source for some (made-up) big news at British National Party, claiming the party was shut down.

    The worrying thing here is that it almost went unnoticed. It was only noticed because the edit also added many unsourced claims, and the user who added it decided to edit war over the addition of a cn tag to one of them, and their personal attacks led to them being taken to ANI where someone finally decided to take a closer look at the diffs and noticed what was going on.

    The user is indef'd now, but silly situations like this could be prevented in the future if they're caught automatically.

     Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Vanilla Wizard: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Beinsure

    [edit]
    Link
    Spammers

    Systematically added by dozens of IPs. Six attempts just for January - see [2] for full list.-KH-1 (talk)

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    dailydhakareport.com, jeetbangladhaka888win.com, babu88bonus.com

    [edit]

    Online gambling sites. On Talk:Online gambling: Persistent spamming by IPs from the same geographic location. Annh07 (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Annh07: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    healthcareglowhub.in

    [edit]

    Spam, three separate accounts. C F A 17:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @CFA: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pakistan utility-bill sites

    [edit]
    • Regex requested to be blacklisted: e[ps]co.{0,15}bil.{0.15}\.pk\b

    Long-running spamming by IPs and some named accounts at Electricity sector in Pakistan (example diffs 1, 2) and at various articles within Category:Distribution companies of Pakistan (3, 4, 5, 6, 7). My suggested regex catches most, but not all, of the domains. Some of the domains are listed at User:John of Reading/Spam links; DMacks (talk · contribs) may be able to list some more. The regex should be safe, as I have searched for \bhttps?://[^ ]*e[ps]co.{0,15}bil.{0.15}\.pk\b within the latest database dump and found no matches. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @John of Reading: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 19:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    sai.net

    [edit]

    IP just started editing today to add this spam link. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:44C8:45A2:484A:1821:11D7:70A3:7D9C DACartman (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @DACartman It seems only one user which is now blocked, and the user was not spamming working links, so that is not going to be stopped by the spam blacklist. You could try an edit filter if it persists. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    heritage.org

    [edit]

    Consensus at RfC that the domain for the Heritage Foundation should be blacklisted. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_Heritage_Foundation. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dr vulpes: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 06:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr vulpes@Pppery this change appears to have also resulted in blocks for a separate and much more authoritative source here in NZ, which is the same url but at .org.nz - is there any chance we'd be able to get something to factor this in and allow use of Heritage NZ links? Turnagra (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also english-heritage.org mentioned in the RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks both. I've moved the site to Special:BlockedExternalDomains so it should now only block heritage.org and not other domains with the same suffix like https://heritage.org.nz or https://english-heritage.org * Pppery * it has begun... 21:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazing, thanks so much for the quick response! Turnagra (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dreammeaningnow

    [edit]
    Link
    Spammers

    Persistent spamming, please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. There are already cross-wiki additions, so may need soon to migrate to meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Marioxsoftware

    [edit]
    Link
    Spammers

    Please add to the blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    pamojasafarisuganda.com

    [edit]

    Persistent spamming by multiple accounts and IPs. Annh07 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note; some cross-wiki spamming as well; consider taking to meta. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    islamlegacy.com

    [edit]

    Has moved on to IP additions after being warned under the named account. - MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    jameswebbdiscovery.com

    [edit]

    Per ANI thread, accounts listed indicate long-term spamming, including a string of socks beginning from February 2024 showing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (Astronomynotes, LoveForAstronomy, Cosmicsight; Cosmicsight recently just been blocked). theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    [edit]

    gcaptain.com

    [edit]

    gcaptain.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 Unclear why this is blacklisted. There was a request more than a decade ago to unlist it that didn't get a response AFAICT. Further, we have at least one article with a recent link to it: National Security Multi-Mission Vessel. I don't know it at all, but I'm not seeing a reason to block it. It was put on the blacklist in 2010 for spamming links into our articles. I have no COI, never heard of it before today to my knowledge, and was just copying the link from the NSMV article to another one. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklisting discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August_2010#gcaptain.com. Many prior whitelisting or deblacklisting discussions, most of which are declined. No opinion on what to do here. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So what's the next step? Are we really keeping a site blacklisted because of something folks did 14+ years ago? On the off chance the same behavior starts up again, we can blacklist again. Hobit (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying again. I know Wikipedia is run by volunteers, but its been more than a week since the original request. Does the blacklist just not get updated? Is this an unreasonable request? Something else? Hobit (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hobit: no Declined. This was spammed, and in this case the owner of the site was here to argue that they should not be blacklisted. In any case, most spamming is by people involved with / owner of the site. That was indeed about 14 years ago. Spammers are here because it pays to have your links on Wikipedia. Regardless of nofollow, people will follow links to visit your site, and you can still say you are linked from/used on Wikipedia. That is an incentive to keep trying that does not stop after some time.
    The site here is a blog (i.e., generally not an RS), and often regurgitating what other, reliable sites are saying (see my analysis here for example, or here where there were many other, better sources for the same info).
    We de-list sites if there is demonstrated use, generally that means a consensus on WP:RS/N (which you unlikely will find for a blog), or demonstration of widespread use, which means regular whitelisting. You say that there is 'at least one article with a recent link' (not at least, it really is only one) added by a user who broke the page, repaired by a bot (bots are blacklist exempt). (note, the only thing we have there is a blog post, no official announcements that the actual ship was delivered - which is strange if the recipient did not cheer on the arrival yet).
    If you think that specific links are of use, request whitelisting through  Defer to Whitelist, if that gives us an influx of granted links you may have a case that this site is of use. Until now, 0 granted whitelist requests that are actually in use (just a few which are not even in use anymore, probably better sources were found) does not make a case that this site will be of general use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a better source for the date on the one use, so I replaced the blog there. No occurances left in mainspace (which is better for non-whitelisted blacklisted material, it can give issues for editors - bots should not be allowed to repair these in the first place). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for responding. I'm to understand that spamming in 2010 is enough to keep something on the blacklist today? That seems odd, but I don't normally work in this space. I agree it seems to be a one-man show (though an impressive one) so I get the blog thing. Still, we don't tend to blacklist things because they are blogs. Just seems odd--we rarely keep anything around because of something done 15 years ago (AfD, etc.), so I'm a bit surprised the blacklist works this way. Eh. Thanks again. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hobit:

    Still, we don't tend to blacklist things because they are blogs

    ... where did I say that we blacklisted this because it was a blog, because I really did not say that I/we blacklisted this because it was a blog? And indeed, we are not removing things after xxx years, first because we do run into cases of spamming that continue for such periods of time (as I explained), and why should we remove something that is not useful anyway (I mean, it is 14 years of blacklisting, but also 14 years with 2 granted and still unused whitelisting requests, I don't think that the encyclopedia suffers because of this). Dirk Beetstra T C 19:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my point got lost. You are saying that it's not useful so we aren't removing it from the blacklist. And, if I'm understanding you, it's not useful because it's a blog. Now most blogs don't get blacklisted. And I don't see the point of keeping it blacklisted due to a problem from 14 years ago. But I don't knew the ins-and-outs of our blacklisting policy and since I've not hit it before in the years I've been here, I imagine I can live with the way we do things here not making sense to me. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hobit That is what I said earlier. Spammers are not here because they just add their links, they are here because they know that having your links on Wikipedia pays your bills. We have cases where spamming spans years and years, COI editors coming back 10 years after to make their page and request delisting, sites that got removed and re-spammed by fresh socks. No, we do not have some magic automated threshold to say 'this is long enough', we just leave it. And I am still unclear where you want to use it, you seem to only want to have it delisted. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TMDB

    [edit]

    tmdb.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

    themoviedb.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

    TMDB is a user-edited movie database, similar to IMDb. It was added to the blacklist in 2008 after this request regarding edits by Travisbell. A 2016 removal proposal by Travisbell was declined. I'd add that the X account for TMDB says "Tweets by @travisbell", so there are some apparent COI issues surrounding this user.

    However, the site has actually gained traction as a resource. It's now the primary source of film data for Letterboxd. ([3]) I don't see any cases where we would want to link to the site within article space, but it does get used similarly to movieposterdb.com, as a source of film posters which may not be on other sites. This came up for me in an FFD where we need to see the copyright notice on a poster, where IMDb doesn't have a high-resolution copy and MoviePosterDB requires account creation to view the full-resolution version. I think we'd be better served by treating the site as we would MoviePosterDB, as in keeping it out of article space but allowing its use in other areas as appropriate and monitoring for COI spam. hinnk (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As an additional example, TMDB is also the primary film resource for Trakt ([4]). jac roe 02:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was discussed recently at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2024. Ravensfire (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, neat! Should I notify the participants from that discussion then?
    I'm surprised how much of the thread presumes the primary use for TMDB would be as an external link in an article, especially considering another user ran into basically the same case as me. Looking at uses of the site's name on here, it seems like lots of other users are running into this issue with non-free file uploads and then having to work around it, which makes me concerned about our ability to meet WP:IUP#RI. hinnk (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hinnk: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. Regarding the non-free file uploads, tmdb/themoviedb is not the source of the original copyrighted material, it in itself hosts it nonfree. Find the original source of the material and link that, per WP:NFCC. I've just recently denied a case where someone wanted to use a link on a blacklisted site to link to material, where that was a cropped, unsourced image. Use the original source of the material. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    *.mcafee.com

    [edit]

    I am trying to save edits I made to BlackEnergy but I cannot save them because one of the citations references a (dead) page on the old "Securing Tomorrow" blog on McAfee's website. I'm not sure what to do in this scenario but blocking URLs to dead blogs doesn't seem to be the correct course of action, either. The archive link is blocked as well. skarz (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Skarz: I am not sure which one you mean, you tried to add 'mcafee-labs/updated-blackenergy-trojan-grows-more-powerful', not https://mcafee.com/blogs/other-blogs/mcafee-labs/updated-blackenergy-trojan-grows-more-powerful/ .. the latter seems to work fine. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, there is a rule 'mcafee' on the blacklist. Why can I pass that one, and why is it there in the first place? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely my question. :) Probably improper implementation of the regex filter discussed here. skarz (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skarz Ah, now we are getting somewhere ... No, it is correct, ALL domains containing mcafee are blacklisted (by me), so that part is correct. At the same time I did this, whitelisting \bmcafee\.com\b \bthepatmcafeefoundation\.com\b \bmcafeeinstitute\.com\b \bmcafeesecure\.com\b \bmcafeesecurity\.com\b, this allows https://mcafee.com, https://thepatmcafeefoundation.com, https://mcafeeinstitute.com, https://mcafeesecure.com, and https://mcafeesecurity.com. It does not allow mcafee-labs. You should be able to save your edit with the link on mcafee.com that I gave you. I hope this helps. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    piratebayo3klnzokct3wt5yyxb2vpebbuyjl7m623iaxmqhsd52coid.onion

    [edit]

    Can't add this to a page about Pirate bay. That only holds their ICANN supervised URL, and the engine doesn't let to add the decentralized one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.24.104.19 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist. .onion is not going to be de-listed, and we do generally not link to .onions, except for .onion-only website (we list only one official website), and we need proper sourcing stating that the .onion is the official .onion address for a website. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    amahahealth.com

    [edit]

    amahahealth.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com I am not sure why the website has been blocked. I’d like to request the unblocking of the website. It is the official website of the company, providing reliable and official information about the company. I understand that Wikipedia strives to maintain a high standard of content by preventing spam or unreliable sources. However, as this is the official website of a legitimate company, it serves as a primary source of information directly from the organization itself. This site is essential for relevant articles to ensure accurate and verifiable information for readers. As it is not a spam source but an official resource, I kindly request a review of the block. Please let me know if further clarification is needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Privesh1751 (talk • contribs)

    no Declined No further clarification is needed. Your company does not meet notability criteria, and it was repeatedly spammed. Please find other venues to promote it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    tradingeconomics.com

    [edit]

    tradingeconomics.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 This website has been blocked since 2008, apparently because someone was overusing it at the time. However, it's a very useful resource to find economic indicators, especially for smaller and less-covered countries (I came across it trying to find data on the Central African Republic), and there's no longer a clear reason to have it blocked since purported spamming occurred 17 years ago. There have been other requests throughout the years to unblock it on different talkpages. Requesting a review of the block. - Csillagkohó

    @Csillagkohó I have just been blacklisting material that was spammed unnoticed for years, spamming does not stop after we blacklist (it pays their bills), and there are cases where clear COI editors are here years after their links got blacklisted, either circumventing, ignoring or even trying to get their material delisted. I do not buy arguments that mention time.
    There are zero granted whitelist requests (one real request only, anyway). That does not suggest that it is in high demand or reasonably good. Please try whitelisting the specific link.  Defer to Whitelist. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra "I have just been blacklisting material that was spammed unnoticed for years". Which is not the case here. Someone (unclear if it was even a person connected to the website or not) overused the site sometime in the 2000s. It is likely that that person has forgotten about the site's existence, let alone that they're still interested in promoting it. (If they are, blocking it again is 2 clicks away.)
    It's a decent site and a useful resource when looking into the economies of African or Asian countries, on which there can be sparse data. The site is not in "high demand" (why should it be?) because these aren't the most popular topics on Wikipedia in the first place. Most people who come across a block don't go to the effort to post it here, they just let the information out or leave it unsourced.
    "I do not buy arguments that mention time." Following this logic, nothing can ever be removed from the blacklist. The chance of some nefarious years-long plot to promote a website is never excluded. Csillagkohó (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Csillagkohó Indeed not the case here, it was just to show that time is not an argument, if not stopped, or even when stopped, people will try to get their links on Wikipedia. Spam does not magically stop 5 years or 10 years after blacklisting. It pays their bills, it often just continues. It is not 'likely that that person has forgotten about the site's existence', this is not some random person spamming the link, it is very likely a person either directly connected to the site (as the comment in the blacklisting said "Self promotional spam posted by an IP's associated with the organization. Enough time wasted, not needed on the project."), or a person who was paid to make sure that their site has good search engine rankings, or just that people will find the links and visit the site more often. And for that, it does not matter whether it is a decent site or not, there was someone interested in promoting their site more.
    No, that is not logic, logic is that we remove things if they have substantial use, if editors can actually show that abuse has stopped. Substantial use means that we see granted whitelist requests. We have a constant influx of new material, I have no interest to do experiments where experience has learned that spamming sometimes does continue and adding more workload to an already overloaded area of Wikipedia.
    If this one is such a non-regular use, then whitelisting the one source first is just the better solution. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra How could editors prove or disprove that abuse has stopped when a site remains blacklisted? Csillagkohó (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is exactly the problem. There is a blacklistlog, but that is difficult to feed back to intentions. As I said, experience has learned that there are often sites spammed for a long time, there are often sites that resume spamming after they are removed, or we have often site owners here asking for their sites to be removed. And those timespans do sometimes cover 10-15 years. And the experiment is not then '2 clicks away', it is often quite some cleanup, and thén 8 clicks away (scripted 3). And I know who has to do the cleanup first. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    [edit]

    Best Poems Encyclopedia

    [edit]

    Hello
    I added a link to a poem on this website (100-best-poems.net) but it was refused as the site is black-listed. Can you tell me why? It seems to be a useful source for poetry quotes. I'm curious to know what the problem is exactly. Swanny18 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Swanny18: This link is blacklisted as a result of the blacklisting of best-poems.net (possibly collateral damage). If needed you can ask for whitelisting:  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    nfhsnetwork.com removal

    [edit]

    Please unban nfhsnetwork.com It is one of the only resources I have to cite rivalries for private school rivalries in Memphis and if I don't cite them they will be removed again. I can't take this anymore and Wikipedia will have me in a casket if they don't fix this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzlessportsmatrix (talk • contribs)


    Troubleshooting and problems

    [edit]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=1276070292"