Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ohnoitsjamie (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 19 February 2024 (→pashminavogue.com: Added to Blacklist using SBHandler). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"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 – 1208972136 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions


    shacktv.store

    shacktv.store: 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 Continuously spammed on The Shak over several months by different accounts/IPs.

    Accounts involved:

    GraziePrego (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @GraziePrego: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    www.aubearing.com

    www.aubearing.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

    Known accounts:

    Phonodeikimprove (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)
    Sajanvishala (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)
    Benzbearing (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)
    Yhkbhwa (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)
    Casuminabearing (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)
    Fghfgnda (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)
    Bearingking (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)
    Tirebearing (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)
    Bearingbearing (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)

    Diffs:

    Special:Diff/1198194950
    Special:Diff/1198463604
    Special:Diff/1194317645
    Special:Diff/1196418111
    Special:Diff/1196771763
    Special:Diff/1194320390
    Special:Diff/1197192092
    Special:Diff/1199029417
    Special:Diff/1194321050

    Persistent spamming, often in articles where the link is irrelevant to the subject of the article. The spammer uses throw-away accounts, each of which is used once and then abandoned, so blocking achieves nothing. JBW (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @JBW: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    supertutobet.com

    supertutobet.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

    Persistent spamming. Appears to be some sort of online casino. MaterialsPsych (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @MaterialsPsych: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    annuaire-mairie.fr

    annuaire-mairie.fr: 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

    Hello,

    I suggest that you blacklist the annuaire-mairie.fr site because it is an unofficial site that does not cite its sources. This site is managed by a French company that has already been condemned by the courts for misleading consumers (https://mesinfos.fr/auvergne-rhone-alpes/saint-chamond-lentreprise-advercity-condamnee-pour-pratiques-commerciales-trompeuses-121955.html).

    Their activity consists of placing as many links as possible to make people believe that they are the official site of the town hall, and then charging for administrative procedures that are free, or encouraging Internet users to call a premium-rate number.

    This site has already been banned in France for similar practices: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist/archive7#Bloquer_:_divers_sites_g%C3%A9r%C3%A9s_par_Advercity --Torrora (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The 500+ existing links would need to be cleaned up first. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I start removing links without it being considered vandalism? Torrora (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to object; I don't see how that site would meet WP:RS. Are you aware of any users that have been systematically spamming it? OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at the moment, and I hope not. I'm going to start removing the links and I'll let you know if there are any problems. Torrora (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohnoitsjamie All is in order, there are no more links for this site. Torrora (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Torrora: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    astuteanalytica.com

    astuteanalytica.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

    Spammed off and on since 2021. Most of these are probable block evasion. - MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This was archived without any action. I'm bringing it back because spamming resumed today. - MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Multiple sites

    Spam campaign. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Advercity websites

    Like annuaire-mairie.fr, I suggest that you blacklist the following ADVERCITY websites, as they are unofficial and do not cite their sources. This French company has already been condemned by the courts for misleading consumers (https://mesinfos.fr/auvergne-rhone-alpes/saint-chamond-lentreprise-advercity-condamnee-pour-pratiques-commerciales-trompeuses-121955.html).

    Their activity consists of placing as many links as possible to make people believe that this is the official site of the town hall, then charging for administrative procedures that are free, or encouraging web users to call a premium-rate number.

    This site has already been banned in France for similar practices: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist/archive7#Bloquer_:_divers_sites_g%C3%A9r%C3%A9s_par_Advercity

    • commune-mairie.fr
    • conseil-general.com
    • communes.com
    • acte-deces.fr
    • mairie.net
    • mairie.biz
    • db-city.com

    commune-mairie.fr: 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

    conseil-general.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

    communes.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

    acte-deces.fr: 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

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

    mairie.biz: 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

    db-city.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

    --Torrora (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a pressing need to pre-emptively blacklist all of those unless you can provide links showing how they've been abused on English Wikipedia. We don't typically blacklist sites just because another wiki blacklists them. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this clarification, I was very confused to see automated removal of citations (marked with a minor edit!) without any discussion here showing consensus. Umimmak (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohnoitsjamie There's no rush, I was just basing it on what had been done on the other wiki. I've updated the list of sites that were present on this wikipedia and that I've just removed. |commune-mairie.fr |conseil-general.com |communes.com |acte-deces.fr |mairie.net |mairie.biz |db-city.com Torrora (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    app.lesite24.com

    Malware-infested betting site being added to a pretty random set of articles. No encyclopaedic value. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done added to the spam domain block list. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    bnnbreaking.com

    Per discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#bnnbreaking.com_?

    This is a content farm rife with almost-certainly-AI-generated content, copyvios and hallucinations. It masquerades quite convincingly as a legitimate news site, and many editors are using it as a source unwittingly. I removed about 80 instances of its use yesterday. About another ten have been added since then. I have no reason to believe the users citing this site are doing so in bad faith, but we should stop allowing it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m actively following the the discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard with great interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#bnnbreaking.com, particularly those concerning bnnbreaking.com and the proposal to add it to the spam blacklist. I believe that the decision to blacklist a source should not be taken lightly and must be based on a comprehensive and balanced evaluation of the source's overall contribution to Wikipedia.
    The characterization of bnnbreaking.com as a content farm warrants examination. However, it's critical to ensure that such evaluations are grounded in clear, verifiable evidence and adhere to Wikipedia's No Original Research (NOR) policy. The process should also respect the principle of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV), ensuring that decisions are not influenced by any undue bias against the publication.
    Furthermore, the proposal to blacklist bnnbreaking.com raises questions about the impact on the diversity of sources and perspectives represented on Wikipedia. It's essential to consider whether all instances of citations from bnnbreaking.com are inherently unreliable or if there might be cases where the site provides valuable information that meets Wikipedia's reliability standards.
    I advocate for a more nuanced approach to this issue. If there are concerns with the source, you may evaluate the reliability of individual citations on a case-by-case basis, considering the context in which bnnbreaking.com is cited, and whether alternative, more reliable sources are available.
    In light of these considerations, I urge the community to engage in further discussion and analysis before taking any disruptive measure towards bnnbreaking.com. The current portrayal of the page, which lacks neutrality, underscores the need for cautious and balanced consideration. Let's ensure that our actions reflect a commitment to upholding Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality, fostering an environment where a wide range of reliable sources can contribute to the richness and accuracy of the encyclopedia. 49.130.118.20 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Various detectors – plus the evidence of my own eyes – show this to be 88 to 98%-certainly AI generated text. How ironic. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:Kuru, can we add this soon? If you need to know why, check my logs. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barnards.tar.gz: After further warrants were examined, I critically evaluated the evidence and ensured that clear and undue bias was proposed against these sites in a nuanced fashion; this will foster a rich environment of an encyclopedia. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    minervanaturalhealth.com.au

    Users:

    Diffs:

    "Natural health" website being used as spam on user pages. Only two thus far, but any links to this site serve no encyclopedic purpose. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 01:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Schrödinger's jellyfish: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    pashminavogue.com

    Plain ol' online shop, being added to various pashmina-related articles, also to AI-written drafts on the subject. No encyclopaedic value. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    pontiart.com

    pontiart.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 an art historical.I recentely started making some modification of Italian Artist wiki pages (especially XX century). There are a lot of information about bio and quotes of those artists that cannot be found else where.

    I kindly ask to remove it. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.2.113 (talk • contribs)

    This was extensively spammed, from the same ISP and IP range as the one you used to post this message. - MrOllie (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    Request to not use the spam blacklist to block non-spam sites

    Please stop abusing the spam blacklist for editorial reasons. It should be used exclusively for spam, and URLs you don't like for editorial reasons should be handled in some other way. — Omegatron (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples I ran into yesterday: "state sponsored fake news" is not spam. Cyclowiki is not a spam domain. The spam blacklist should be used for spam/malware domains and nothing else. Discouraging people from linking to things for editorial/factual reasons should be handled through some other mechanism. — Omegatron (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The blacklist is not limited to blocking commercial links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be limited to blocking spam domains, though. — Omegatron (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omegatron this list is blocking sites that have been spammed or abused, or where community has achieved consensus that this list should be used to make sure that we should not link to a site. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I'm saying that's an abuse of the spam filter and we shouldn't be using it for that. "Community consensus to discourage linking to a site" is not spam. That needs to be handled in some way other than a sitewide blacklist. — Omegatron (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? If the community gets consensus that some site should not ever be linked to (for any reason) then it should use every tool in its power to enforce that prohibition. Yes, the name "spam blacklist" is unideal, and we maybe should have come up with a better local name similarly to how we renamed "abuse filter" to "edit filter" locally, but that's water under the bridge now. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, and part of the problem with some of these sites is that people override the edit filter all the time if it's set to permit override. The blocklist really is the only truly reliable way of stopping link abuse.
    Sites like Kiwi Farms and the Daily Stormer should simply not be linked even in the most robust discussions. I find it ironic that Omegatron encountered this "problem" while trying to link to propaganda sites in support of an edit that was rejected for not being reliably sourced. I am sympathetic to the edit, by the way, but it's scarcely the end times for Wikipedia to insist on reliable sources not wikis or propaganda / fake news sites. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Omegatron: You are right. I objected to this action by Dirk Beetstra on 18 September 2021, when I saw a site blacklisted without being spam. Dirk Beetstra responded with some incorrect claims about Daily Mail / Breitbart / etc., and refused to change. Then Dirk Beetstra on 27 September 2021 added "some sites which have been added after independent consensus" to WP:BLACKLIST. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan you had any right to then revert and one of us would have started a discussion here to see whether or not that has community consensus. It is now an edit that stands for 2 1/2 years, and the only person who thinks that that is not a supported use of the spam blacklist is you (at least until now).
    This list (and its meta counterpart) is full of sites which are not spam but which are there because of the community requesting them to be blacklisted because it is the only way to combat them. Porn sites are not spam (they get abused), url shorteners are not spam (though they get spammed), company websites are not spam (but their owners find t sometimes necessary to enforce their links into Wikipedia). They are however badly mis/abused and therefore listed by community consensus. Community consensus is that sometimes links are listed here because the community does not want them linked without further vetting (i.e. whitelisting). Dirk Beetstra T C 04:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody always has a right to revert your WP:PGBOLD guideline change, but since you had decided not to follow what the guideline said, reasoning "There is a consensus to invoke IAR." etc. -- I gave up at the time. I later argued for de-blacklisting Breitbart and failed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan because breitbart was blacklisted by community consensus, the community decided that it should be made impossible to add breitbart links without previous discussion. We have two technical means to implement that, the lightweight blacklist (with easily accessible whitelist), or the heavyweight (but easier to configure) edit filter (where whitelisting is difficult). Your (here plural) only argument to not use the blacklist is because that purpose does not fit the name of the list. Have you ever used a flathead screwdriver to open a tin of paint? Dirk Beetstra T C 04:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My arguments in the past have included that the WP:RSN RfC specifically allowed use of Breitbart, that a direct quote of Breitbart should have been cited to Breitbart per WP:RS/QUOTE, that it's difficult to discuss Breitbart articles because it's impossible to point to them even on a talk page, that the original blacklisting was done after only a few edits blamed on JarlaxleArtemis who is now gone, that the supposed ways to get around the blacklist don't work, that a small number of WP:RSN participants aren't the Wikipediaa community, that you made demonstrably wrong statements in the prior discussion, but of course in this thread, because it's the thread topic, I mainly argued that the spam blacklist should be a blacklist for spam. However, if instead of claiming I had only one argument you had claimed my arguments have failed, you'd have been right so far. Maybe we can drop this till another objector comes along, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an abuse of the spam filter. Those sites were being spammed and that led to egregiously false information being introduced. That is a pressing harm to the project. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW the "spam blacklist" has grown to be simply the "Blocked External Domains" list (see the newest evolution at MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json). So from a purpose-built / technical perspective it is appropriate for any underlying block purpose. That doesn't stop the English Wikipedia from making a policy about this, and you are welcome to start an RFC. — xaosflux Talk 15:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have been asking for it to be renamed since forever, partly because there are legitimate reasons for excluding links other than spam, and partly because several web property owners have complained that being called spammers is harming their reputation, even when their site legitimately was spammed. Blocked external domains is the perfect terminology. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=1208972136"
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy