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.
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 - 741246813 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
→snippet for logging: ((/request|741246813#section_name))
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with ((no admin backlog)) when the backlog is cleared.
Proposed additions
Instructions for proposed additions
Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.
((Link summary|example.com))-- do not use "subst:" with this template
Do not include the "http[s]://www." portion of an URL inside this template, nor anything behind the domain name. Including this template will give tools to investigate the domain, and will result in COIBot refreshing the link-report. ('COIBot')
((BLRequestRegex)) - to suggest more complex regex filters beyond basic domain URLs
((BLRequestLink)) - to suggest specific links to be blacklisted
Please provide diffs ( e.g. [[Special:Diff/99999999]] ) to show that there has been spamming! Completed requests should be marked with ((done)), ((not done)), or another appropriate indicator, and then archived.
Pesistent (slow) addition of commercial spam to article Prostitution in Hong Kong by likely same person. See also [1]. Apparently page protection and user block don't help. - DVdm (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previously reported here [3]. Interestingly the link that the IP was trying to add contains plagiarism from Wikipedia with the picture at the top being mine without attribution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting this here because the people on the edit filter said it should be on the title blacklist, and since there is no page for the title blacklist I have to post it here. 96.237.29.253 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request addition of vho.org, for any URLs ending in ".pdf" only. A large number of links were added, which I have now removed. Each directed to a WP:COPYVIO. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 14:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An essay mill (ie arguably ethically challenged business) / WP:UGC
Multiple accounts with the same style long-term (months) sleeper / minor edit accounts adding refspam over long (months) timescales.
I've removed all the current links, but there may be more accounts due to cleanup by other editors. Widefox; talk 17:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI turned up dozens of socks, some of which were also spamming another website, smart.study, which I have added above. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A sustained campaign of WP:REFSPAM leading to the domain owner flaming out and being blocked. He helpfully listed his sites. Listing here for addition to prevent use in mainspace.
Use this section to request that a URL be unlisted. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.
Requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined. Otherwise, follow these steps to post a properly-formatted request:
Familiarize yourself with the reasons why a site was blacklisted. Look at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log to see who blacklisted the link and when, and the reason given for blacklisting.
At the beginning of your request, include the domain in a ((link summary)) template (remove the http:// and www from the domain). This provides tools to find more information on the domain. For example, *((Link summary|example.com)) results in:
When previewing your post with an included ((link summary)), you will find links to a COIBot-report ('COIBot'), linksearches on en ('Linksearch en'), and tracked discussions ('tracked' and 'advanced'). If the log did not provide sufficient information on why a link was blacklisted, these links often yield more information.
Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia.
Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore.
Note that the bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped.
Providing this information often helps in a faster handling of the request.
Once you have added your request, please check back here from time to time to get the outcome or to answer any additional questions. We will not email you or otherwise notify you about your request, and if no answer is received to a question, the request will be considered abandoned.
Administrators: Completed requests should be marked with ((done)), ((not done)), or another appropriate indicator, then archived.
Why remove from blacklist: This site is a massive and extensive online archive for anyone seeking information on the life and career of Fred Rogers (aka Mister Rogers). The entire site was apparently blacklisted due to the presence of Google Adsense advertisements. These ads have long since been removed and are no longer a part of the site. This should clear this site to be referenced from pages related to Fred Rogers and his work. Timlybarger (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Declined. This does not appear to be a WP:RS; it's just a fansite and it was indeed spammed a few years ago. I noticed that someone from the same area as the the original spammer just attempted to re-add it to the same article less than an hour ago, so I assume there's still a problematic intent. You may want to declare your conflict of interest upfront next time. Kuru(talk) 22:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone is interested here is the spam report for the site in question. One site included in the report was timlybarger.com, which shares an obvious similarity to the user name above. MrRN fan was indeffed for spamming, and given the nature of the request, I would suspect Timlybarger has a COI here, particularly since the website is registered to him. I think it's highly likely that he was behind the MrRN fan account. Whether or not there are any Google Adsense advertisements at neighborhoodarchive.com anymore seems immaterial to me. Driving traffic to a fansite is still driving traffic to a fansite, and we don't, as a general rule, drive traffic to fansites. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; however, I didn't realize promotion of such a detailed resource (mine or not) was a conflict of interest but in the future I'll keep that in mind. That said, I am in no way associated with "MrRN fan" account and find this to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated presumption on your part. Additionally, it seems that blacklisting links to "fansites" and sites with ads are arbitrarily enforced on Wikipedia. The first random topic I just looked up has four external links -- two of which are very clearly fan sites (Who's the Boss?). I question this lack of consistency. Timlybarger (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When links are repeatedly spammed across the project, as appears to be the case with neighborhoodarchive.com, that draws community ire and must be dealt with. Pointing to other problems across the project doesn't legitimize the problem existing at Mr. Rogers-related articles. It's like arguing that because someone dumped a truck full of toxic waste into the river, that you should be allowed to dump toxic waste into the river. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job deflecting the inconsistency. If neighborhoodarchive.com is being spammed, it's not been my doing. The only places I've ever attempted to add a link to neighborhoodarchive.com is in the External Links section of two or three pages. This is a detailed resource that could be a huge benefit to anyone searching for further details on the topic of Fred Rogers and his career -- definitely far beyond a typical fan site. I agree that spam should indeed draw community ire. But why not block the user creating the spam instead of the entire resource? By that logic, I should be able to plaster links to any website all over Wikipedia and assume that it will be blacklisted as a result. It makes no sense to me that such a detailed and beneficial online resource has been blacklisted due to one user's misbehavior and the seemingly arbitrary rules that Wikipedia decides to enforce. Timlybarger (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, when someone uses multiple IPs and multiple accounts across multiple articles, we are forced to blacklist the site as a last resort to control the problem. Playing coy about your COI does not help, it makes your attempts to promote the site appear deceptive. Do you feel this is an approach Fred Rogers would take? Kuru(talk) 23:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have never denied what you're referring to as a conflict of interest. This is absolutely my site I'm promoting after years of work creating such an extensive resource. What troubles me is the accusation that I am responsible for the spamming issue. I have absolutely no intent of deception here. Despite what may have previously been spammed by a random user, I'm simply looking to spread the word about this site by adding it to the list of external links on the topic. Clearly, that explanation is not acceptable so it looks as though we'll need to agree to disagree. Timlybarger (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the site will remain blacklisted, because you haven't comprehended one of the core policies of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a promotion or publicity platform, and it is never to be used in that manner. If you want to "spread the word" about your site, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Also see WP:ELNO — as a rule, links to fansites, self-published sites, and particularly one's own sites are to be avoided. Given your stated intent here, the blacklist is doing its job by enforcing Wikipedia policy. Again, this request is Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find that the domain beacon.org, owned by the publisher Beacon Press, Boston MA, is blacklisted. I attempted to find the relevant discussion in the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log/Full list page, to no avail. I am asking for assistance in finding out the basis for the blacklisting of that domain and in requesting its removal from the blacklist. Respectfully, ArthurOgawa (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request was here. Socks promoting by|ooks. You can just use the ISBN template to link to a work, instead of linking to the book's purchase page. For the link you tried to add, just use ISBN 978-080707182-3 and it automatically links to a varity of sources. Kuru(talk) 03:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know why it is blacklisted so long, as this site is information rich site with various maps, site can help visitors with their maps, please let me know what was the exact reason of its blacklist, and what should we do to remove it from blacklist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrishseo (talk • contribs)
Declined. Looking at the material you've attempted to add, it looks poor quality and just covered with ads for services. Reliable alternatives should not be difficult to find. Looking at the history, there was a coordinated spamming campaign for this domain, and a request from a paid editor named "Ambrish SEO" does little to convince me said abuse would not continue if un-blacklisted. Kuru(talk) 11:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I found the domain vectrex.com is blacklisted when I attempted to post an update of Vectrex games and titles. I am unsure why it was blacklisted since the site does not send email spam or host negative activity.
The site has useful files and information related to the Vectrex platform.
In the past the site had been affected by a problem where an unauthorized access has placed some files used to launch unauthorized activity. But those file have since been identified and removed from the site. The site has never contained any adult content or links to other sites that do. Vectrex.com is not currently blacklisted outside of Wikipedia. See related safety check http://www2.issafe.co/vectrex.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vectrexer (talk • contribs)
Not done - I don't see that domain on the local or global blacklists. I looked at the blacklist logs and it looks like you were trying to add a link in a VigLink wrapper. That's a really bad idea and is obviously blacklisted here; nothing to do with vectrex.com. I would probably not recommend adding any links to vectrex.com, though; the domain is currently "for sale" which could quickly become problematic. Kuru(talk) 00:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info VigLink wrapper. I'll have a look my edit once again.
As for the sale of Vectrex.com, it's mine. So a future sale would go to another Vectrex enthusiast.
--Vectrexer (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note:If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry and no valid reasons can be found.
Addition to the COIBot reports
The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):
first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
third number, how many times did this user add this link
fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.
If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.
