This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spam-blacklist page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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 only affects pages on the English Wikipedia. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. Any developer may use $wgSpamRegex, another method to prevent the addition of spam links. However $wgSpamRegex should rarely be used.

See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks

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? Is there a Spam project report, if so a permanent links would be helpful
3. 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.
4. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. Request should be left for a week maybe as there will often be further relatede sites or an appeal in that time.
5. 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 - 179209602 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

Those interested in contributing to this page may find it helpful to watchlist this page or create their own if they want to watch other pages as well. It effectively watches threads rather than pages.

There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. they are Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, and Discussion. Each section will have a message box explaining them. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

Requests which have been completed are archived. All additions and removals will be logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|179209602#section_name}}

Please add new entries to the bottom of this section. Please only use the basic URL (google.com not http://www.google.com). Please provide diffs to prove that there has been spamming! Completed requests should be marked with {{Done}} or {{Notdone}} then archived.

These sites keep being added to Death of Emily Sander and are tribute sites, but are completely unencyclopedic. Diffs: [1] [2][3] [4][5] [6][7] [8][9] [10][11] --Strothra (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best approach for this would be to seek semi protection of the page. If the linking is solely there blacklisting may be a bit heavy handed? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, however, that protection didn't do anything. It was protected for about a week, but once the article was unprotected the link was reinserted immediately.--Strothra (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see what you mean. However this looks to me like a content dispute which really should be resolved by agreement between contributors. I see registered users placing those links and - personally - I feel it would be inappropriate for me list these sites and so "take sides" as it were. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense actually, thanks. --Strothra (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This link has been repeatedly added to the Rave article by many different IPs and users. Its history goes back as far as the beginning of November, when I first became involved in the article. All diffs are taken from the first two 50-change pages of the history. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 04:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=178198195&oldid=178163849
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=178127457&oldid=178046237
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=178045818&oldid=177931760 (subsequently fixed)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=177922933&oldid=177906167
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=177701863&oldid=177615032
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=177093160&oldid=176845476
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=176843779&oldid=176834345
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=169450365&oldid=169443206
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=169407981&oldid=169315739
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rave&diff=169259676&oldid=169042780

 Done--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts

Tammy204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
66.9.223.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
12.64.0.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4.158.105.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
64.241.37.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
65.31.189.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
186.123.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.162.37.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.175.243.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
68.250.249.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.228.27.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
BP2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
160.79.73.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use this section to request that a URL be unlisted. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section. You should show where the link can be useful and give arguments as to why it should be unlisted. Completed requests should be marked with {{Done}} or {{Notdone}} then archived.

Ask Greg is the website where Greg Weisman discussess and responds to questions about his work. This includes television shows like Gargoyles_(TV_series) and The_Spectacular_Spider-Man_(TV_series) as well as Gargoyles_(SLG_comic). The latter two are currently in production and news and information about both often are revealed first through Ask Greg. It's a vast archive of information which is often used for citation of various facts relating to these and other projects of Weisman's. By blocking this site you're disabling users to cite references that contain important and relevant information. As a result pages like the Gargoyles_(TV_series) entry are marked as not citing references. The reason for there being no references is because Ask Greg has been blocked.

I believe the reason for the blacklisting in the first place was due to a user trying to promote a "Gargoyles Wiki", which has no affiliation with Ask Greg, but there is a link to it from Ask Greg. The user, after being blocked from linking to the Gargoyles Wiki, started using links to Ask Greg with instructions to use the link on Ask Greg to get to the Wiki. Ask Greg was a victim of someone abusing Wikipedia policy, but not itself an abuser. It's an important resource that deserves to be removed from the blacklist.207.206.239.1 (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extensively spammed based on this. I wouldn't envisage whitelisting it - any other views? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this site was never blocked because of spamming, but apparently for the reason that it's "not as useful" as TV.com. That's not a good enough reason, and it's not even true! I'm trying to cite tvrage in this article because TV.com doesn't have an article on that show while tvrage does. Yes, the owner of tvrage.com was incivil here but that's no reason to prevent all Wikipedia editors from referencing his web site. Waggers (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is mostly on Meta though with links to here and is here. The link placement here does look quite excessive --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link above is broken - here is the correct one. Also, to clarify, the site was previously on the global blacklist but is now on the local blacklist, making this the right place for the discussion (before anyone tells me to take the discussion to meta!) Waggers (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this has been here for 5 days and no objections have been forthcoming,  Done. Waggers (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waggers, please reconsider. First Herby did object above. Second, this site has an extensive history and I doubt that you would find much consensus among other Wikipedia admins to remove this from the blacklist. Third, I'll also go (belatedly) on the record as another person objecting.

Here's some of the background that I'm working from in writing these comments:

Meatpuppeting TVRage.com staff (based on this deleted edit) making inappropriate edits on Wikipedia

1. JohnQ.Public (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)
   • User:JohnQ.Public -- note Wikipedia philosophy
   • User talk:JohnQ.Public -- long history on talk page culminating in a block
   • Talk:Heroes (TV series)/Archive 5#TVRage.com Link:
     • "It's not spam you jackass. If you're going to act like a little God-King and delete it because you don't like it, I'll request Admin intervention."
2. Wise Crack (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)
3. Ross_99 (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)
4. SebDE (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)
5. Batman_Beyonder2 (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)
6. Scouxx (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)
7. Maria01 (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)

Other special purpose editors or disruptive tvrage.com partisans

1. cs:Speciální:Contributions/CZ.Fox
2. Khan44 (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)
3. Amaas120 (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)
   • also possibly uses this account: Andrew120 (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)
   • may be the staffer "andrew" on tvrage.com
4. Jacobmartin (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)
   • user page with nothing but a plug for TVrage.com. User has no edits
5. 84.91.31.192 (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)
   • User talk:84.91.31.192#Your edit to TVRage
6. 67.166.122.233 (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)
   • User talk:67.166.122.233
   • User talk:Jacoplane/archive2#Deleted Votes -- marginally civil complaint from 67.166.122.233

Discussions on Meta (no consensus in favor of these links)

1. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/10#tvrage.com
2. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006/11#tvrage.com
3. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01#TVRage.com
4. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/02/Removals: Not Done#TVRage.com
5. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/03#tvrage.com
6. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Removals: Not Done#tvrage.com
7. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05/Removals: Not Done#Tvrage
8. meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/11#TVRage.com

Templates

1. Template:TVRage
2. Template:Tvrage
3. cs:Šablona:Tvrage

Alternate domains

1. tvguide.ifastnet.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
2. tvrage.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
3. tvrage.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

Google Adsense ID: 8918234119630968

Definitely related domain

1. imagebay.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

Probably related domains

1. fierras.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
2. high.be: 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
   • Google Adsense ID: 1198368960847921
3. idevhost.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
4. poke.be: 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

Articles deleted multiple times

1. Tvrage
2. TVRage.com
3. de:TVRage

Deletion discussions

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVrage.com
   • Note the massive sock/meatpuppetry:
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination)
   • More sock/meatpuppetry
   • Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (second nomination)
   • User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/5#TVRage.com
     • Complaints to AfD-closing admin and accusations of conspiracies among Wikipedia admins

Spam and AfD canvassing on tvrage.com

1. www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=5&fid=6635
2. www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=382
3. www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=476
4. www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=477

Other discussions on en.wikipedia

1. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/02#TvRage (Status: Declined)
2. Talk:Lost (TV series)/Archive 9#Lost unofficial / Fan sites?
3. User talk:67.161.252.235
4. Talk:W.I.T.C.H. (TV series)#TVRage
5. User talk:Jacoplane/archive2#Deleted Votes
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV.com
   • speedy kept as a bad faith nomination in revenge for the TVRage deletion
7. Talk:X-Play#TVRage.com Link
8. User talk:Amaas120/Archive 1 uncivil editing
9. Talk:The Office (US TV series)/Archive 3#TVRage.com Link
10. Talk:Cowboy Bebop/Archive 1#TVRage.com Link
11. Talk:The Kids in the Hall#TVRage.com Link
12. User talk:Aaron Brenneman/Archives/5#TVRage.com
13. User talk:JohnQ.Public
14. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2006/11#TvRage.com
15. User talk:Ambidexter#Re: TVRage
16. User talk:67.166.122.233
17. User talk:Renata3/archive4#TVRage.com
18. User talk:Renata3/archive6
19. User talk:Jtrost/Archive1#Tv.com -- rant from anon IP who was introducing negative POV material against TV.com
    • User talk:67.161.252.235
20. Canvassing from a tvrage.com person:
    • User talk:Eatcacti
    • User talk:Marcus2#TVRage

Recent indication indicating this site may be declining:

• www.tvrage.com/profiles/JohnQ.Public/blogs/view/?vid=10089

I am concerned that we will lose control of the placement of these links, given my reading of the domain's history and the extent to which multiple meatpuppets, not just one, have spammed Wikipedia whenever they had a chance.

I'd like to respectfully request that you re-blacklist this domain. Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with what A. B. has said. I would also add that I think it would be preferable (extremely desirable?) to avoid listing something and being the admin that removes the item. Such action would be open to being misunderstood I think. In passing I would add that there is not and never has been a specified time that a request should be open for. Please reconsider this action --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask this be reconsidered also, and support relisting per AB and Herbythyme.--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more comments:

• Some prior discussions mentioned tvrage'snon- notability and there were comments that it would become notable someday. Update: checking Google News comes up with neither relevant archived media articles nor current press reports
• The only reason I recommended removing this site from the Meta blacklist was to allow the site-owners to add their links to several thousand non-Wikimedia wikis use MediaWiki software and have adopted our meta blacklist in their own filtering. This removal was done on the basis that the domain would continue to be blacklisted on this one Wikimedia project (en.wikipedia).

--A. B. ^(talk) 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(remove indent)It's extremely frustrating that this discussion is only beginning now I've removed the item from the blacklist. I'll relist it for the time being based on the arguments above, but I must admit I fail to understand many of the arguments. It's clear that there's some history here, but very little of it seems relevant to why upstanding Wikipedians can't reference this site. Rather than linking to previous discussions (most of which end in "we'll do nothing for now and see what happens later" type responses), and lists of abusive users who may or may not be something to do with the site itself, it would be helpful to have a simple list of reasons why the site should be on the blacklist. As for the recent assertion about notability - since when did notability have to apply to external websites? WP:N is about the subject of articles, and I have no intention of starting an article on tvrage.com - I just want to reference it in The General (TV series) without the {{cite web}} template being mucked up because of an apparently ill-reasoned blacklisting. Waggers (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, Waggers!

1. Timeliness: . I'm sorry I did not respond within 5 days as you expected. I've been busy with lots of stuff.
2. Others inputs: I thought Herby already told you some of the problems. I thought he was part of your discussion. I thought he was one admin saying it was a poor idea.
3. Likely consequences: The potential problem here is that when the entire domain is removed from the blacklist, then not only will "upstanding Wikipedians" add links here and there, but also a mob of TVRagers. I spent 4 hours putting together this stuff for you and others for this discussion. I looked at all those links. I read the TVRage message boards -- they had members still moaning about the blacklisting and wanting to add links as of just a month or two ago. They're pretty obsessed with exposure on Wikipedia; take a look at this Google search:

   • http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atvrage.com+Wikipedia&btnG=Search

4. "May or may not": I'm not sure why you characterized my edit as "lists of abusive users who may or may not be something to do with the site itself". I don't see the "may or may not" part: I've provided edit histories and links to establish that they were abusive here and that they are listed as "staff" there. (Their "staff" are unpaid sysops).
5. Notability: I mentioned notability because, when you step through all the discussions I've linked for you, you'll find that one reason TVRage partisans said they should have links was that they either were notable or about to be notable. That's their reasoning, not mine.
6. The usual approach: Have you considered the alternative just whitelisting the specific deep link at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist? Nobody has said upstanding editors can't add TVRage links; that's why we have the whitelist -- so we can facilitate linking to specific pages by editors such as yourself. That's the way the community normally deals with things like your The General (TV series) link.
7. Site quality as seen by other Wikipedia editors: Read the assessments of link quality by other Wikipedia editors in the various article and user talk page discussions linked to above. About 15% of our regular editors thought the links might have value. Most did not.
8. Another view of site quality: A tvrage.com link I provided you above specifically addresses the issue of site quality you questioned above:

   • www.tvrage.com/profiles/JohnQ.Public/blogs/view/?vid=10089

   A former staff member states:

   • "It's no secret that this entire site, and the foundation of its existence, is based on getting information from other websites and formatting it to our standards. Why bother to lie people, we all steal info."

   Read the responses that follow on that page, some from other staff members. Not a pretty picture of TVrage.com.

9. My assessment of link quality based on what I've seen: The content is self-published with virtually no editorial oversight of content quality. It does not meet our Reliable Sources Guideline. Out of curiosity, what's the specific page you were interested in linking to? Perhaps it's an exception.

I hope this addresses your complaints about my earlier comment. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I concur with A. B.'s views. It really does not look a desirable site from a number of viewpoints and that was apparent before this discussion started.

Equally if there really is a need for a specific link that the community agree is necessary I have no problem adding it to the whitelist myself --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, thanks very much for your time and patience in dealing with this, and sorry I've been a bit of an awkward customer. The spam blacklist/whitelist isn't an area I've really strayed into much before, so I do apologise for my ignorance. Whitelisting the particular link in question is definitely the best way forward, in my opinion. Do I need to raise a specific (separate) request to do that or will this discussion suffice? Cheers, Waggers (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on the site is factually correct, and it nicely counteracts the totally positive nature of the article on firefox. I suspect that many wikipedia admins are opensource fanboys, linux fanboys and/or firefox fanboys. And I think this is the only reason FFM has been blacklisted. FFM should be added to the firefox article. There is not one word of negative criticism in the FF article (c.f. internet explorer), I suspect the FF article is written by Fanboys. I'm not arguing with anyone about it, this is a simple test of wikipedia open-source neutrality, firefox needs this link or a criticism section. Good Day. 90.240.18.35 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Mr_FirefoxSucks[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive97#Ban on a certain user of an open proxy.

Reference: Google Adsense ID# 4949297748371281

Additional domain:

• http:// mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. 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 such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.

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/.

 Not done --A. B. ^(talk) 03:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why this page is blacklisted as spam. Ok, I've read that it is a self-published site, but does it do that big harm? I mean, the methods of counting sales are listed on the page, it uses mediatraffic.de which is a reliable source here on wiki, but after an album is out of the top 40, it is practically impossible to follow the sales. I mean, ok, the reason was that anybody can make a site..but there is no other site, and the person (or people) doing the site is (are) expert(s), uses mediatraffic then other charts from UK (musicweek.com), and Oricon for Japan, etc. (and it's not like the numbers are so way off, I mean they can be with thousands possibly, but I think every worldwide sale is off, but it isn't like it's millions..) And also, other infos are also estimations at best, editors can write sy sold an "estimated" number of copies when they cite worldwidealbums.net. Also, all I'm saying is that we should only use the site as a last choice, if it is impossible to find any source, and then when other source is available we can change it. And lastly, RIAA certifications and Soundscan Data are also highly different almost always, there is almost always a huge gap between the two sales datas, and we now they count sales differently; e.g. an album can be certified Gold, but then Soundscan strill reports only 3-400,000 copies sold 4-5 months after the certification. So, they are estimations at best, and this site has estimations as well, and we should apply a rule not to use the exact datas here, only if we write e.g. "6, 7 millions", because it's not that big of a problem then, if the site says 7,5 mill, we can write "estimated 7 mill". See? Gocsa (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a site that presents unbiased, objective information on congressional staff salaries (obtained from congressional data released in print form only). This is the only site I (and several others involved in this discussion) have found online that offers this information. The site is much less ad-oriented than say ontheissues.org or warshingtonpost.com, both of which are linked as well from most/all congressional articles.

There has apparently been a problem with some users from IP addresses or accounts presumed to be associated with the company that owns the site placing links to the site on various pages (where they would otherwise be useful, relevant links were it not for the COI). I, and several other editors who also find this information valuable, have no relationship to this website or the company that owns it. (I in fact was not even aware of this site a week ago). The actions taken by the editors from legistorm (assuming the stated claims by the relevant Admin(s) are accurate), would justify warnings then IP range and/or account edit blocks, NOT blocking the entire domain.

The adding of this domain to the spam black list was an administrative abuse of power. This blacklist is for domains whose primary purpose is funnelling clicks back to their site from wikipedia. Legistorm is an established site that is the only I am aware of online that provies the information they do. I suggest you do a google search for congressional salary information -- every major-media news story that offers a link will link back to legistorm. This list is for blocking actual spam sites, not for punishing useful sites that may employee an overzelous editor to two.

This block should be removed immediately. kenj0418 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Even if the site owners have been adding it, that alone does not mandate it's removal. It easily meets WP:EL as encyclopedic information which would not be likely to be in the articles if they reached featured status. I also ask that it be removed from the blacklist. I have no connection with this site; I only know about this because of my recent overhaul of Anna Eshoo. MilesAgain (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As another non-COI, long-time editor, I support removal. Site appears meritorious, even if it was originally added by spammers. Has unobtrusive adsense ads compared to sites we already use, and the information (staff expenses and primary financial disclosure documentation) does not appear to be available elsewhere. See also Template talk:CongLinks.

I do not however assume that it was an administrative abuse. I think this was a good faith judgment. Cool Hand Luke 23:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The site could be used as a source in an appropriate context, but there is no question that its addition in the manner and quantity (600+ links by SP accounts) was spam. Is there a graylist for sites that have been abused but are also legitimate? Or remove it temporarily when an editor wants to use it? Or remove it but be prepared to add it back if the site owners go on another spam blast. Thatcher131 00:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think reversion of the link spam was correct, and we should continue to black and revert further campaigns, but we should allow neutral editors to add links to this site where they are useful and accord with WP:EL. Cool Hand Luke 00:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Kenj0418, blacklisting a domain after it's been spammed hundreds of times to drive traffic to the legistorm site is not administrative abuse. Perhaps it's the best response, perhaps it's not the best, but it is certainly not "abusive".

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Storming Media LLC Spamming

The question is, who wants to watch over the addition of these links to reverse instances of spamming (as opposed to additions by regular editors)? Yes, we could block an IP range, but based on my experience with spam, they'll just do it from home, Starbucks, their library, etc. We can't block all of Washington's IPs. Then we have the issue of meat/sockpuppetry, something else this crew engaged in. So someone's got to volunteer to watch over the additions of these links once removed from the blacklist.

Who's it going to be?

--A. B. ^(talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justifiably Blacklisted, supported by evidence, more evidence and facts. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". Wikipedia policy is quite clear here; External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. This blacklisting is a clear result of WP:SPA (WP:SOCK) accounts and a WP:COI IP ('Storming Media LLC) being employed for the sole purpose to Spam Legistorm.com and to self-promote. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Storming_Media_LLC_Spamming. Storming Media LLC has clearly illustrated a situation where a single company is using Wikipedia to promote for their own interests (Adsense pub-5159231827098763). Perhaps Whitelisting on a "case by case" basis is best for Wikipedia at this point. As mentioned above, whitelisting should only be implemented where it is demonstrated as a source, in an appropriate context.--Hu12 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's understood, but no one in this section has a COI with respect to the site. I'll volunteer to watch the links.[12] Cool Hand Luke 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, which specific legistorm pages do you intend to use as citations and in which articles? That's what we have a spam-whitelist for. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All sitting U.S. Congressmen and Senators. Through the CongLinks template, so that if they're later decided to be inappropriate, they can all be removed at once. Cool Hand Luke 01:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting a link back into the President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate article as a source for the statement that President Pro Tempore Emeriti get extra staff would also be useful. meamemg (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This request is a case where it is demonstrated as a source, and appropriate in that context. I've whitelised the specific url for that article and have added the citation back^[13]. Thanks Meamemg. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the editors in the evidence cited by Hu12 found the links unobjectionable, and even useful, including admins and experienced users like Will Beback, Lawrence Cohen, Penwhale, and Kralizec! Several users expressed doubt over whether this even constitutes spam. It's useful and EL-compliant on all congressmen, so a 535-page whitelist is pointless. If no one else removes the blacklist or comes up with a good alternative, I will unblacklist it myself. Cool Hand Luke 05:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call one or two "yes" versus one or two "no" quite a consensus for inclusion of a link yet, especially considering that per WP:EL the default is to keep external links to a minimum, and your proposing a wikipedia wide scale Mass addition.--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's six or seven "yes" versus you and Guy. But you're right that it's not a consensus. The spam blacklist is a last resort, and there's positively no consensus on listing this site, correct?

I should emphasize that this is not the normal situation where the site's owner appeals the blacklist. These links have broad support, and the blacklist is being appealed by editors with thousands of unrelated edits on the project and years of experience. Cool Hand Luke 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:EL is being used as a justification for excluding these links, I get a much different conclusion from reading WP:EL. Particularly from:

What should be linked

#3: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

this information seems to be very much in the class of athlete statistics, movie credits, etc. (Except that this concerns something of actual importance rather than pop culture).

The only clauses from WP:EL that I see that remotely speak against including these links is COI (which is not applicable to myself and the other editors not associated with the site) and the general goal of not having too many EL's (Which would cause us to question ALL the links (except the official hosue.gov/senate.gov ones) -- not just the legistorm link).

We're are having this discussion here instead of on the Template:CongLinks's talk page because an admin has chosen to bypass any discussion of the links merits and place it on the blacklist. There clearly is not a concensus for doing this -- this is what I was refering to as an 'abuse of power'. Discussion of the merits of the actual link were completely bypassed because of an admin's power. Then after it was made clear that there was legitimate oposition to the blacklisting, by several long-time editors, still no admin removes the blacklist.

I would expect this site to be removed from the blacklist promptly. Once that is done, the merits of including or omitting the links can then properly take place on the template's talk page.

Remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Anyone can edit. kenj0418 (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to edit the blacklist and remove the entry, but it seems to be justifiably restricted. As such, thise with authority to edit this list and add entries need to provide more than a link to their own rambling suspicions as a valid justification. Please add my name to the whitelist of people who feel that the legistorm.com is not spam and should not be blacklisted as such. As stated elsewhere, there are two distinct issues: 1) is it appropriate for an editor, who may be associated with the legistorm.com website, to add hundreds of links to the site; and 2) does the legistorm.com website, which provides neutral and objective details re congressional staff salaries qualify as spam, such that it should not be included as a link on any Wikipedia article under any and all circumstances. You might find support that case 1 qualifies as spam. As for case 2, there has been no valid justification offered for a permanent block for the site nor any explanation as to why the site should be included on a blacklist so that neutral third party editors could add it as a link or reference. It seems clear that consensus is that legistorm.com is not spam. That is, if consensus has any meaning here. Alansohn (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not deal with this one myself but I do not see the consensus you refer to. There has been excessive linkage to this site that has been removed by members of the community. That is why the site is listed. That there should be a constructive discussion about it seems right and proper. It would be good if people just stopped for a moment and looked at generating light rather than heat. The "demands" to remove this are rather less then helpful in the reactions they will generate. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that your two cents is worth much, but where exactly do you propose that this constructive discussion take place, if not right here, and what exactly has not been constructive?. I'm unsure what you mean by your bizarre threat, but it seems hard to imagine that making requests here to remove the blacklist entry will trigger some sort of irrational retaliatory response, even based on recent experience. Given that there has been a clear explanation of why there are perfectly legitimate reasons to link to the site, and that there is a clear consensus of editors that there is no justification for the site to be treated as spam, it seems to be a rather appropriate conclusion that its time to remove legistorm.com from the blacklist. Trying to put the best spin on a poorly executed set of actions, it might have been justified -- in the heat of the kneejerk response to what was perceived as a spam attack -- to take precautionary measures to block links to the site. Stopping for a moment, and given the opportunity to consider the site and its appropriate uses, no valid justification exists -- or has been offered -- to prevent all third-party editors to use the link in relevant articles. That's not a "demand"; it's just common sense. Alansohn (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "constructive discussion" to have the site blacklisted, and there is certainly no consensus to have it blacklisted. Since it's supposed to be a last resort, shouldn't the burden be with those who believe it is spam? As shown in the links Hu12 provides, most users saw great value in the site—even to the point of willfully ignoring the obvious COI involved in inserting the links. Certainly non-COI users should be allowed to use the site on its own merits. Cool Hand Luke 08:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you say Not that your (my) two cents is worth much I'll certainly not bother you again. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! I didn't say that. Look, this process is frustrating for us because we're productive editors. We understand that we should be vigilant against spam, but this site is not spam. It was added as spam, but that doesn't make the site itself Platonically spammy. Elsewhere on this page you talk about carefully considering the requests of productive wikipedians who make a showing of encyclopedic merit. That's us, and the site is meritorious! I'm sorry if we haven't been as polite as we could be, but I'm asking "please," and I'll certainly add "thank you" afterwards. What more could you want? Cool Hand Luke 09:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My observations:

1. There was discussion prior to blacklisting.
2. There was ample hard evidence of massive spamming by Storming Media LLC.
3. The evidence takes a lot of work to wade through if one doesn't assume good faith on the investigators' part. Based on having done this sort of thing before, it probably took the people that investigated it many hours to step through all those edits.
4. As spamming goes, this was big -- one of the biggest of the year.
5. The traffic this many links bring to legistorm is likely worth tens of thousands of dollars in annual ad revenue.
6. The number of legistorm links added by Storming Media LLC >> any added by any legitimate editors
7. We can't allow our editorial decisions to be overwhelmed by others' desire to enhance their bottom line.
8. Storming Media LLC's use of sock/meatpuppets and the lack of any other content added shows the Storming Media accounts were acting in bad faith. They're not interested in building our encyclopedia, just building Storming Media LLC.
9. Guy was not abusive blacklisting it under these circumstances. I might have done the same thing.
10. A number of editors dislike Guy and picked this action of his to illustrate of their concerns that he's an abusive admin.
11. Whether or not Guy's an abusive admin, his critics picked the wrong admin action to make their case, (perhaps because they were unaware of the prior discussions about the link.)
12. Likewise none of the other editors involved in investigating and cleaning this up acted in bad faith, notwithstanding the things said about them. The folks involved in all of this spend hours a day quietly going about finding big spam campaigns and cleaning them up. Thousands of links per week and <1% get questioned by legitimate editors. At some point someone needs to thank them rather than assume bad faith when the occasional action blows up in their face. In particular, I'm thinking of Hu12 and Herby.
13. This domain has some editorial merit.
14. Some of the supporters of this link were unaware of it before this incident.
15. Just because a site has ads doesn't make it a bad site. Most news media sites have ads. The issue here was Storming Media LLC's actions, not their site quality.
16. Whitelisting one or two links makes sense. Whitelisting 535 doesn't; in that case, the link should be removed from the blacklist if the community wants that many links.
17. Everyone's all riled up right now.
18. The Free World will still live with this domain on Wikipedia's blacklist for a few days or weeks. I suggest we just leave the matter as it stands for now, enjoy the holiday season and then revisit the issue quietly in January. Until then, count me as another editor strongly opposed to removing this link from the blacklist.--A. B. ^(talk) 13:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis is an interesting whitewashing of the entire incident:

1. There were a small number of individual editors involved
2. There was no current editing going on when the editor blocks were initiated.
3. In the initial hysteria, no investigation was done of the individuals involved.
4. No contact was made to the individuals involved in editing to determine if there might be a legitimate good faith justification for adding these links.
5. No warning was made that continued activity might result in a block.
6. JzG used his own personal biases in refusing to unblock one of the individuals involved in adding such links, citing the fact that the editor seemed angry, frustrated and had the nerve to have political views that differed from his own.
7. The legistorm.com was blacklisted hours after the wave of additions to the site had already ended.
8. Legistorm.com is one of thousands of websites linked from Wikipedia that might have the audacity to make money if people link to the site and have the nerve to find useful information there.
9. The domain offers neutral, non-partisan information, was already linked before the "spam" started and has a clear consensus that it has editorial merit.
10. Many third-party editors have indicated that they have used and intend to use the site and have provided clear, cogent, rational explanations for why the site should be removed from the blacklist.
11. "Whitelisting one or two links makes sense" only if there are only two of 535 Congressman with paid staff. Other than that it isn't even a figleaf of a solution.
12. Many other sites linked from Congressional webpages and are included in the CongLinks template.
13. No explanation has been proffered as to why the block should continue ad infinitum.
14. No process has been offered of how the gang of admins supporting the blacklist and covering up for JzG's abusive actions will review the evidence indicating that the site should be removed.
15. No timeframe has even been mentioned and the excuse that it will take a lot of time, is just that, an excuse.
16. The WP:POINT is only made worse by refusing to address and undo the damage promptly.
17. The Free World will still live with this domain removed from the blacklist.
18. The claim that it will live with it blacklisted has to be the most pathetic rationalization I have ever heard to justify any action, let alone an abusive block of an entire website.
19. The Free World will live if Wikipedia shut down this afternoon.
20. Consensus is meaningless when admins refuse to pursue it or respect it. Alansohn (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, my comments were not intended to be a "whitewashing" nor really even a comment about the Free World. Like most human beings, I don't set out to make "pathetic" comments, even if it seems that way to you. I did mention a timeframe. I did not recommend the block remain "ad infinitum" -- just until after the holidays when folks on both sides have had a chance to take a break and and then we can discuss this rationally. Cheers, --14:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)

"Just leave it til after the holidays"? What kind of argument is that?!? Either the site contains useful, non-biased information, or it doesn't. If it's the former, remove it from the blacklist now. If it's the latter, leave it there forever. Waiting until after the holidays, (and hoping those of us agitating for its removal will forget about it) isn't a helpful suggestion at all. Are people looking at the pages of members of congress simply going to "wait until after the holidays"? I hardly think so. This should be taken care of straightaway. Mr Which??? 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just wanted to add my two cents. This blacklisting of a legitimate site should be reversed immediately. Legistorm is a legit, neutral, non-partisan site, from which helpful information to the project can be gleaned. If we blacklist every site that is ad-supported, the first to go would be every major newspaper in America. Mr Which??? 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is it that people who think the blacklist was legitimate are the only ones proposing a way through this situation? There was obviously a spam problem regardless of whether or not the site has merit -- if blacklisting isn't appropriate, can someone suggest what the appropriate response would be? Shell ^babelfish 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution is, "Remove it from the blacklist." The blacklist is a move of last resort. This was clearly not added as a "last resort." One question for you: how is it "spam" if the site has merit? Would it be "spamming" if a movie-loving SPA went through and added IMDB links for various actors' articles that did not have them already? Of course not. Yet, it somehow is called "spam" when similarly helpful links are added to a member of congress' site? That makes less than no sense. No, I don't even concede that your premise is true. These links are not spam now, and were not spam when they were added to the articles. Not every mass-addition of links is "spam." Mr Which??? 15:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that isn't what happened... This does not appear to be some random SPA... and yes this was spamming.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Regardless of any merits of the site, it is painfully obvious that the site owners engaged in a willful spam-a-thon of this site all over Wikipedia. Personally, I think they got off very easy with a 2 week block on their IP given the nature of their edits... but that is another issue entirely. The blacklisting of this site, in light of the actions of those adding the site was an entirely appropriate response to the spamming. That isn't to say that at some point the blacklisting should be lifted and the site possibly added back to Wikipedia articles by good-faith editors, but demands that this blacklisting be immediately lifted so those editors can immediately proxy this back into the articles it was removed from isn't particularly helpful. The blacklist shouldn't be used as "punishment" of the spammers, but at the same time, there is no reason to lift the blacklisting without some reasonable discussion somewhere (perhaps the Village Pump) about if, how, and where, to link this site in Wikipedia. I'll also say that to me, the ads are a non-issue.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spam" refers to links without merit. These links have great merit. As such, legistorm.com should be immediately removed from the list. No one has ever answered my question as to whether massive additions of IMDB pages from an SPA account would be considered spam. Please answer that question, as it bears directly on this case. Mr Which??? 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Last time I checked spam isn't a judgment of content merit so much as a statement of action. Spam is unsolicited bulk; content can have merit and still be spammed. This site may be something that can be usefully integrated into Wikipedia articles, but that doesn't change the fact that it was spammed here by individuals with a pretty clear conflict of interest and blacklisting it to stop that from happening was probably a very good decision. Having a reasoned discussion of where to go from here and if, how, when to add this content to articles is also a good decision now. Personally though I'd suggest a bit of a cool down from both sides before that discussion takes place.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm? The last I checked, the spam blacklist was a last resort, not a preventative measure to keep legit users from adding a site that has merit into appropriate articles. The only thing that the link continuing to be misplaced on the blacklist (even for a "short time" while everyone "cools down", whatever that means) will be that a legit link will be kept out of appropriate articles. In other words, it's a net detriment to the project to do what you're saying. Two other things: Please comment on the proposed solution below. It seems quite reasonable. Please answer the question about IMDB. Mr Which??? 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors tied to the site being added were adding this link en mass to articles. That is an appropriate time to blacklist, even if only temporarily. Your IMDB example is apples and oranges... unless you are hypothetically saying the owners of IMDB are the SPAs spamming the links. I will say though that I personally, tend to take a rather dim view of any external link spamming. Beyond that, I've already proposed my own solution above (i.e. everyone calm down and stop with the thinly veiled sarcasm, discuss the merits of the link in the appropriate venue, and implement accordingly).--Isotope23 ^talk 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution: Define that legistorm.com link is appropriate from congressional and campaign articles. Remove from blacklist. Try it for a week. Expect to see around 500+ links added over that period to congressional and campaign articles to be added by third-party editors. If new SPA "spammers" come along, consider communicating with them and blocking, if appropriate, as a last resort. Once links have been added, most interested editors will move on. If the world doesn't end, problem is over. Admins will be able to find other, more genuine crises to address. Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as this seems quite reasonable. I still don't see what's the problem with an SPA that cares about congressional matters mass-adding helpful links, but I can compromise on that side for now. Mr Which??? 16:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC) (I took the liberty of bolding the "Porposed solution" test above. Hope you do not mind.)[reply]

The problem with permitting mass addition of links is that it's a slippery slope.. for instance the editors involved here believed they were adding helpful links. That said.. If people agree that this site meets our requirements for WP:RS and WP:EL, I don't have a problem with this specific site being removed from the blacklist as long as an SPA doesn't return & bulk add the links again. If there is consensus that the site is legit & contains important information perhaps we should consider adding it to one or more of the infoboxes used in relevant articles - or create a template for adding the link (as we've done with IMDB and a few other sites). For the time being, CoiBot will pick up all of the new additions and record them in one place - so it should be fairly easy to see what is happening. --Versageek 16:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An SPA that cares about congressional matters is great. An SPA that cares about promoting the website he or she owns or participates in, thereby gaining more ad revenue (regardless of whether this is the primary intention), is not. Gracenotes^T § 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an extremely bad faith assumption, and involves some crystal-balling as to motives from you that is not appropriate for this discussion. I was assuming good faith in that someone who works for a website concerned with legislative matters most likely cares deeply about congressional matters. Please assume good faith with regards to the contributors. Not every SPA is a bad-faith account. Many are, but not all.Mr Which??? 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Discarding intentions and reviewing the SPAs' actions, mass inclusion of links from someone affiliated with the website is, by precedent, still not something allowed. If we have assurance that site owners/employees/volunteers will not add links, but rather established editors here, it should be fine. Gracenotes^T § 16:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a job for the AntiSpamBot, which will revert unregistered and brand new users who spam the link, while still allowing established editors to add it to pages. - Ehheh (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to report problems with the blacklist. Old entries are archived

Problem with the blacklist: I want to use the db-copyvio speedy deletion tag to get an article deleted. The db-copyvio tag has as a parameter the url of the website which is being copied. The website being copied is a blacklisted one, ezinearticles. Oops, the spam filter kicks in. This is bad.--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding without the http:, the checking admin will copy & paste to check it.--Hu12 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or don't provide the link in the db template, and add it below it (put <nowiki></nowiki> around). Or put it on my talk page and I'll have a look. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are archived

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]

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

1. 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!)
2. be confusing and frustrating to a lot of editors especially newbies, but also any who are not familiar with the blacklist/whitelist set up
3. 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]

Herby added this one added at my request, but the wrong url ended up because I worded my request a bit confusingly. The domain to be blocked question is wartpictures.blogspot.com . See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#skin-disease-pictures.blogspot.com. Han-Kwang (t) 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed thanks & no problem I should have checked, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But now the spammer changed the URL into wart-pictures.blogspot.com. diff The blacklisting did help for all the other ones, though. Han-Kwang (t) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regex adjusted to include both, and other possible permutations. Mr.Z-man 16:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr.Z-man, nicely done & appreciated --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered the black list for the first time when I attempted to cite a band's blog entry as a reference in The Capricorns. Is this a restriction applying only to contributions from the unregistered? If not, is there a recommended way to get pass this black listing for such a reference? Thanks. — 68.167.252.41 (contribs) 07:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No the restriction is applying to everyone (I checked your link, and it is indeed blacklisted). blog.myspace.org seems to be blacklisted globally (ie on all projects using the spam filter, not only Wikipedia), you should probably request assistance there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, it appears this was done from a request by Jimbo Wales, I don't know the specifics here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - this one has been discussed on Meta and Lucasbfr is correct. That said if an established editor has a valid rationale for a specific link I would certainly consider the request seriously --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'm an "established editor" in the sense that I've edited a lot of article in the past 4½ years (and created quite a few before the Seigenthaler controversy), but most of my contributions are made without logging in so I may not be established enough for the purpose. In The Capricorns, I introduced this reference for a quote and evidence of the band's inactivity (one of the infobox fields). If you follow that link you'll see the workaround was to link to their main myspace page and reference the blog entry by name. It would be better to link directly to the blog entry itself. I know that MySpace distinguishes "MySpace Music" from other areas of its social network, but I wasn't able to figure out if that would help get pass the spam blacklist. 67.100.128.85 (contribs) (fka 68.167.252.41 (contribs)) 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe more correctly then a "named user". Nothing personal about you or your IP address but they are transient things and the IP above only has one day's edits on it. I wouldn't say no solely on that basis but more info about why a link is needed, whether the information can be got elsewhere, what specific link would be needed etc would be required. That said I would suggest you do create an account. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I fail to see the logic in allowing blogspot and disallowing Myspace blogs. Am I missing something? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales ordered the ban on Myspace blogs, and he didn't order any ban on Blogspot blogs. Unfortunately, it's as simple as that. (further reading) Mike R (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mike :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam-blacklist is blocking editing on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/H. I can not find the link blocked on the page though. Taemyr (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nm. found it. Taemyr (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]