MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2021

filesusr.com (adding)


The above seems, from the looks of it, to be a file hosting platform. The problem is, I guess, that anybody can update anything there, including copyright violations, including other legal violations, ... Being entirely unusable, there's not any place this should go but the blacklist... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, surprise, this is notably used to provide links to documents on pages of subjects of very dubious notability. And when it isn't, it is not possible to verify at all whether it's a legitimate upload by copyright holders. So it is pure link spam, as I ought to have been saying. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. All links should be removed, but likely the references should be kept (but re-targeted to the originals that were uploaded there, even just in text form).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's now "usrfiles.com" (ex. here - I don't have the patience to babysit an article like that) which is basically the same thing... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

nimdzi.com



 * Spamming / sockpuppeting to promote this consultant group and their self published research. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

realconnected.online



 * Blog hosting copyvio articles copy and pasted from elsewhere on the internet, and the links spammed here. - MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

assignmenthelp


Hi please unblock the above keyword, someone has blocked this keyword on purpose while there are so many resources that can be used and cited on Wikipedia Please unblock it for public interest and authors' helpful resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBirdie (talk • contribs)
 * That's globally blocked, for good reason. I can't imagine any legitimate use on a Wikipedia project for an "assignment help" website, including "assignmenthelp4me.com", the website that you were attempting to spam. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * spam. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * spam. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * spam. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * spam. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * spam. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * spam. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * spam. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

defonic.com

 * Site spammed to Role-playing game. It's a commercial random ambient noise generator site with no value as an encyclopedic source. Woodroar (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? I see that two different users added this link once (I've now warned both); I think blacklisting would be premature. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

tabletopy.com

 * Site spammed to Role-playing game. It's a commercial game audio generator site with no value as an encyclopedic source. Woodroar (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? I see one attempt to add that link (I've warned the IP). Premature to blacklist at this point.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Site spammed to Role-playing game. It's a commercial game audio generator site with no value as an encyclopedic source. Woodroar (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? I see one attempt to add that link (I've warned the IP). Premature to blacklist at this point.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

smartenglishnotes.com



 * This website is persistently added as spam. Pachu Kannan (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Persistently? I see additions by User:Mir_Mohammad_Afzal in January, 2021, and that's it (I've given that user a final warning). OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

indiantrain.in



 * Linkspam from several sockpuppet accounts. - MrOllie (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

byscoop.com


News aggregator (at best!) that republishes information from other websites, blunt warning given to IP and links continue to be added. There are a couple of links cross-wiki, but only a couple and look to be added by established editors while translating pages from EN, not by spammers.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note - oringally reported on August 19 by Daniel Case, but archived on the 25th . Spamming continued after the original report.   Ravensfire  (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * would you mind double-checking this? This was spammed against on September 3rd, and I can't see the site in the blacklist.  Thanks!  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Must've missed a step in the tool process; it should be added now. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

forbetterscience.com


The website is published by science journalist Leonid Schneider who covers scientific misconduct including predatory publishing giants such as MDPI and Frontiers. His articles are sometimes rather critical of those companies, but as far as I (and others who have weighed in, e.g. Elisabeth Bik) can tell factual and an important contribution to the topic he writes about. I can't really see any justification for it being blacklisted. It would be useful to be able to use this source e.g. in articles on MDPI or Frontiers, given that he is one of the few journalists who cover them regularly in detail. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Originally added here, previous removal discussion here. Given the arguments presented at the latter, case-by-case whitelisting seems more appropriate. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

filesusr.com (removing)


This was just added earlier in September because it's a generic upload site. But it's is being used by the government of American Samoa to host official documents like the State of the Territory address and COVID-19 info (links censored with *** so I can post them here), so I'm having trouble adding references to articles talking about AS. -- Beland (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For two documents, . OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, started thread at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2021/09. -- Beland (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

chairspam
Multiple accounts spamming a trio of commercial links. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

e-book.business


Spammed from multiple socks, site is just a affiliate link portal to garner commissions from amazon.com. - MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @MrOllie, thanks for mentioning me - I have never received a reasonable answer (on your talk page) regarding my edits. For some reason you consider it acceptable enough to delete new content created (including math formulas and clarifications on certain niche IT-related topics). My understanding is you are willing to exterminate any link and contribution that does not fit your personal opinion (however, the mentioned website seems to be a collection of reviews and informational articles as well). I also cannot see any meaningful explanation from your side regarding other (numerous) requests from other users that can be found on your talk page. Your huge experience and time spent on Wikipedia is remarkable and I very much respect it, but would like to ask you for a bit more well-weighted decisions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miosi042 (talk • contribs)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. We will continue to exterminate link affiliate sites that are spammed abusively, as this one has.--OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

linkuppuppies.com


Bot generated site spammed from many accounts. Pachu Kannan (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I am afraid that we will see this soon globally, but there is not enough (yet) to blacklist it on meta.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I am afraid that we will see this soon globally, but there is not enough (yet) to blacklist it on meta.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I am afraid that we will see this soon globally, but there is not enough (yet) to blacklist it on meta.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I am afraid that we will see this soon globally, but there is not enough (yet) to blacklist it on meta.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I am afraid that we will see this soon globally, but there is not enough (yet) to blacklist it on meta.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I am afraid that we will see this soon globally, but there is not enough (yet) to blacklist it on meta.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I am afraid that we will see this soon globally, but there is not enough (yet) to blacklist it on meta.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I am afraid that we will see this soon globally, but there is not enough (yet) to blacklist it on meta.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I am afraid that we will see this soon globally, but there is not enough (yet) to blacklist it on meta.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

byscoop.com (removal)
I have just gone through the reasons why my site got blacklisted and understood the way Wikipedia wants the content and the linking. My reason for posting my link was to give citations where ever possible. However, my purpose was never to spam the Wikipedia pages. Also, the warning given to me regarding this was on public IP hence I could not get it. As correctly cited, one of the functions of my website is of a news aggregator and the news published on the site is collected from various sources. The language used on my site is changed significantly so that our users may understand it in a very simple way. The same links of our site was used as citations on wikipedia pages just with a simple though to make the citation stong. Now since I have a good undestanding of what Wikipedia wants, I would reqquest you to unblock byscoop.com and give you the following reasons that the blocking is not required anymore: First: Unnecceasry links will not be added anymore from my side. Second: Links will be added only when proper content addition is made from my site.

The reason why this will be useful for visitors is: that byscoop.com is an educational website and is in a growing phase. We keep an updated track on latest events in India. Hence we can very much help to keep wikipedia's content updated on time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:4:1845:2415:68c6:8c1c:26ef (talk • contribs)
 * Comment triggered the spam filter on Vijay Rupani for byscoop shortly before posting this, suggesting that the blacklisting entry is working as intended. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The "owner" admits to spamming the site, with the content usually copied from a more reputable site. So copyright issues there.  A fair number of the times it was added there was already a high quality reference that supported everything meaning the additional was pure spam.  And where they "rephrase" (and it's not much, at best), just use the original reference in Wikipedia and rephrase it here.  Perfect solution!  Can't see why this should ever come off the blacklist.  Ravensfire  (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No, you got me wrong. My purpose was never to spam Wikipedia. Also, try to understand the purpose of our website. Our website serves news content to students who are preparing for competitive exams. So we extract the most important part of any news and publish it in 3-4 lines. Apart from this, we also publish our original contents on topics like Banking. So in future we will not do any such thing that you consider as spamming. Whatever links we add in future will serve the purpose of Wikipedia. Hence I request you to remove this blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:4:1845:2415:68c6:8c1c:26ef (talk • contribs)
 * Why would Wikipedia use a news aggregator when we could simply use actual news articles from the original sources? (hint: we don't use news aggregators). Your site doesn't qualify as a reliable source for banking articles, and has no use on Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

You now we are on the same page. See I got your point that news articles can be linked directly from original news websites, so I will not link my news article. But our banking articles are of great use to students. These can be also helpful for the rest of the public if they add some info to Wikipedia content. All our articles on banking are regularly updated by us. So it is a humble request to remove the blacklist and give us an opportunity. And rest assured we will not repeat our old mistake which you termed as spamming.
 * I'm sure you can find other venues to promote your site.OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

No, its not about promotion. Last thing I can ask is, You can warm me this one last time, and if in the future a single useless link is shared you can block me immediately. No one would like to be blocked on a reputed site like Wikipedia that too for the work done in ignorance. So once again request you to unblock me with this being the last warning from your side to me. Thanks!!!
 * For the last time, no. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

wowsurigao.com


This was black-listed because it was consistently added as spam (see example), not as a valid reference, which I want to do now. No doubt people related to this website tried to promote their site, but I trust that after almost 10 years they have moved on. As a source for references it should be permissible and not indefinitely black-listed because of some actions 10 years ago. Of course, if this website is added again as spam, we can reevaluate. Thanks. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a non-official tourism website would have any legitimate uses in Wikipedia, as it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sponsored content is not automatically unreliable. In this case, it involves uncontroversial info, rather matter-of-fact historical and geography info that I can't seem to source elsewhere. --  P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it makes more sense to consider individual links on a case-by-case basis; . OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

topinfoguide.com
News aggregator or News scraper spammed from many accounts. Pachu Kannan (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

defonic.com, tabletopy.com
Continues to spam after warnings and blocks. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

criticalinfo.com.ng
News scraper owned by user. Spammed despite multiple warnings and one block (see user talk page).

Some diffs: Special:Diff/1033284340 Special:Diff/1040494283 Special:Diff/998191530 Special:Diff/1045045726 Special:Diff/1040664084 -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like they were all added by the same account, which is now blocked indefinitely. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

thelaptopify.com, laptopified.com



 * Using sockpuppets to evade scrutiny after collecting warnings. - MrOllie (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting that Editmaster102 tried to blank this report. - MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

dreamlist.com


This site was blacklisted two years ago after overzealous content contributors added content to Wikipedia pages on the topics they were writing about for the site as well (gift economy, gift registry, baby registry traditions, etc) and linked the site pages they had written as a resource for more information. This was against wikipedia policies and it made sense to block the domain at the time. Today the site has grown to be a top 200K site per Alexa and it is a resource at disaster recovery efforts and regional child and family services departments or charities with a lot of public activity. It is similar to companies with wikipedia pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyRegistry.com and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zola_(company) Does it make sense to white list it in case it is pertinent to local and global news and events? If the behavior ever repeats, it can go right back on the blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexietta (talk • contribs)
 * Whitelisting is not the same as removing from the blacklist. Trusted editors can make requests for individual use-cases at our whitelisting page, though I doubt that will happen. I'll also note that you're company wasn't very subtle about it's spamming attempts; you'll see in the here that at least 10 different spam-only users attempted to add it until it was blacklisted. With Christmas approaching, I imagine you are very excited about adding it to The Christmas List, but that's not going to happen. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No desire to add anything from the site to wikipedia. In fact, would it be better to blacklist the specific 2-3 pages they were linking to: .../baby-registry, .../best/private-baby-registry.html, .../christmas-wish-list.html (from what I could dig out) instead of the entire domain? It seems like wikipedia is not blocking all of Facebook, or Twitter, just specific user pages. Lexietta (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Lexietta (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That site would not qualify as a reliable source for anything, so there's no compelling reason to put extra effort into partial-blacklisting. There's obviously more pages than you've found above; a little over a month ago, User:LeoDoSomething was thwarted when they attempted to spam a gift-drive link (their response was to remove a competitor link, which is fine). OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think a lot of those efforts come from competitors - if you have one company with a Wikipedia link, all others in the industry want a link as well. At the same time, competitors could also spam link any site they want to down-rank to get them banned from Wikipedia in an afternoon. Wikipedia has no-ref links, but hundreds of sites copy Wikipedia content generating thousands of backlinks for the spammers. The first DreamList quote was for legitimate contributed content in 2017 and then there seems to be a wave of links in 2019. Why would a site need more links if they already had multiple linked references from Wikipedia, so they already got whatever benefits they would get out of the process? It doesn't make sense to turn an already quoted site for years into a spammer, except to get it banned.Lexietta (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We are aware of Joe jobs; it's a frequently invoked rationale in removal discussions, one that doesn't carry much weight. Given the energy you're putting into this, you should be aware of our WP:COI policy and the required declarations. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Understood. Couldn't figure out how to sign my posts until your message. I have not and will not be posting anything to promote the site or anything else (have better things to do). Just trying to clean up a mess as being on the blacklist is damaging the site's reputation. I plan to personally monitor and remove any spam links with this domain if it ever happens again. Please, remove from the blacklist if it's possible. Lexietta (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you reviewed WP:COI yet? You still have put forth no good reasons for removing it. Dreamlist shouldn't have spammed Wikipedia if they were concerned about their reputation. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Grwiggins contributed content, not spam links or any kind of promotion to sections that were very sparse for content at the time in 2017: and Someone then removed the link citation for the content and they tried to put the citation back to the content they contributed and it looked like just links being inserted and was thus flagged as spamming. Wikipedia asks for content contributions and citation of sources and that is what they did. I don't think the intention was to ever spam. Registries are monopolized by a handful of big box stores with the goal of driving all of a family's purchasing into one store, even if it has higher prices. Wikipedia is a resource for families who have never set up a registry before, so letting them know that they have the option to setting up registries in more than one place (without mentioning brands) is a way to break up the monopoly and expand the their options, lowering prices for families with babies or those who are starting a family. None of the content they ever added was promotional or even mentioned DreamList. The site was used as a source to back up the information. Lexietta (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You still haven't responded to the COI question, nor have you provided any valid reasons to remove this site from the blacklist; I won't be responding here further. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

ancient-origins.net


Useless garbage which is frequently spammed and should not be used anywhere, per the obvious consensus at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard; where editors also express reasonable doubts that this will keep getting added in if no action is taken. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Dirk Beetstra Why? WP:BLACKLIST "mostly lists spammers" etc., what evidence have you seen that it's used to spam Wikipedia? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I read the linked section (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard) as a community consensus that these additions of this 'useless garbage' will 'forever be [being] added', and that editors 'wouldn't mind the entire site being added to the blacklist', and that this site should not be added as it will only result in more work afterwards. Yes, material gets added when it is spammed as per WP:BLACKLIST (note that there has been a spammer for this site as well, but that seems rather minimal), but also when there is community consensus to do so outside of those reasons.  Do you expect this site to be of general use and that we will see a massive influx of whitelisting requests to a level that playing whack-a-mole with good-faith additions is more efficient?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dirk Beetstra: That thread was purportedly started for opinion about reliability not blacklisting. As for whether I expect the site to be of general use -- I don't know what's generally useful in potential cases, I'm only assuming that some editors who used it might have had good faith, which offsets the two or three editors who used the word spam. But what's most concerning is the idea that if there's a perceived WP:RSN thread consensus to blacklist that's enough. You know that WP:BLACKLIST says "However, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers." Are we at least agreeing that you didn't do this as a last resort against spammers? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings about blacklisting. I don't doubt that's it frequently used in good faith, and obviously the "opinion" type-stuff they publish would never meet WP:RS. The link is currently used on 200+ pages; some of the linked articles seem reasonable (e.g., www.ancient-origins.net/history/mummy-juanita-sacrifice-inca-ice-maiden-009800 for Mummy Juanita). In many cases there are probably better sources that could be used for the same info; I imagine that ancient-origins comes out on top of searches frequently given it's popularity. At the very least, if it's removed from the blacklist (or comes up at the white list), we should add a "yellow" entry to WP:RSP that makes clear that the opinion/editorial pages are not acceptable, but some simple reporting may be. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * are you referring to the reference that was removed here? I do not see where the referenced material is even in the linked document.  The article references an own, totally unreferenced article on www.ancient-origins.net/history/analysis-shows-children-were-given-drugs-and-alcohol-ritual-sacrifice-500-years-ago-008571.  Yes, it is popular, but Wikipedia is also popular. The thread on RSN reads to me that we should not be linking here at all, there is not even one maybe there.  And that of 9 editors.    yes, the blacklist is full of material where there is RSN consensus that we should not be wasting time removing it over and over, see e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL, or many other items in RSP.  Maybe the policies need to be updated to reflect that practice. Let us have the test at the whitelist and see if people come there with cases that obviously pass.  Or another thread (RfC) at RSN? Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's a consensus that it should never be linked, I'm OK with blacklisting; my comments were based on a cursory glance at a few articles that didn't seem to be silly (unlike the editorial pages hosted there). OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dirk Beetstra is saying "see e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL" but the Daily Mail is not blacklisted so if it were relevant that would support my position. Dirk Beetstra is saying "Maybe the policies need to be updated to reflect that practice". I'm saying no, the practice needs to reflect the guidelines (i.e. WP:BLACKLIST and WP:LINKSPAM), and Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting guidance for administrators, no maybes. Dirk Beetstra is suggesting going to whitelist, or WP:RSN. I'm saying no, Proposed removals looks more appropriate. I'll wait a few days in case there are other comments on this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not without precedent, Infowars and Opindia are blacklisted for similar reasons. Policies are supposed to be descriptive and not prescriptive anyway. - MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * MrOllie: I believe I have evidence that you're mistaken about Infowars, see my reply to Dirk Beetstra below. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I was of the impression that the dailymail was also blacklisted, like e.g. Breitbart, opindia, inforwars, natural news, mylife, swathes of fake news sites (including e.g. lenta.ru).
 * Wikipedia decides by consensus. Spam-blacklisting states "Evidence- There should be clear evidence of disruption, persistent spamming or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines".  I see a consensus that an external link (also as used in a reference) is to be deprecated and that all use is inappropriate (it violates Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guideline / verifiability policy), and where in that consensus several people call it 'spam' and there is a suggestion to blacklist, without any opposing views.  Those 9 editors see this like that.  I now have two choices: either I bring the opinion that this is not spam, not violating policies and guidelines, that their opinion is not enough to blacklist this material, so becoming in party in the discussion, or I can implement what 9 people are all saying without anyone disagreeing with their point (well 3 choices, I can ignore it at all and frustrate the 9 of them).  Now, that consensus can change.  It is also fine that you want to challenge my reading of the consensus of the WP:RSN thread.  Both need a discussion, not just a call of bureaucracy (I already agreed that the spamming that occurred was not major enough to warrant blacklisting on those grounds alone).
 * So as said, it is common practice to blacklist material not because it was spammed but because the community decides that they are finished with having to clean out these links because all (or the far majority of) uses are either (good faith) misuse or abuse. There are whole sets of sites on there which were never spammed, but for which the abuse is so extensive that there is no other way to stop it.  That goes for the far majority of the pornographic sites (e.g. redtube), redirect sites (e.g. tinyurl.com) - many have never been spammed, but not restricting their use would require maintenance on a daily basis, and many would be missed and stay there.  The spam blacklist is just another way to protect the encyclopedia against disruption, misuse and abuse.  Edits that either need reversing, or follow-up cleanup because the information added is, at best, unreliable or plainly wrong.
 * Yes, practice should follow policies and guidelines, but with the understanding that policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. WP:IAR is one thing, independent community consensus (on a public noticeboard) is another.  And if community consensus regularly suggests things that are not described in a policy or guideline, then maybe that should be reflected in the policies and guidelines.  That is how policies and guidelines are being written/rewritten: to reflect common practice.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Dirk Beekstra: Again you're giving examples that refute your own point of view. After getting "e.g." for Daily Mail wrong you say "e.g. Breitbart" -- but Breitbart was not blacklisted due to a consensus, the closer Fish and karate found "This does not mean Breitbart can no longer be used ..." -- Breitbart was blacklisted afterward  "... to control massive spamming and disruption by JarlaxleArtemis socks".
 * And as for "e.g. ... Inforwars" (I'm assuming this is a typo for Infowars) I see a report mentioning Infowars titled Beta Cluster spamming of 2018-02-18 which to me suggests it too was blacklisted due to spamming. MarcoAurelio added Infowars on 2018-02-21.
 * Only two people used the word spam during the thread discussion and you missed guidance: "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." Some more missed guidance: "It [the blacklist] is intended as a last resort for persistent spamming on the project, by multiple individuals or IP addresses." and "Listing should include compelling evidence of a problem." and "However, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers." and "Please provide diffs ( e.g. Special:Diff/99999999 ) to show that there has been spamming!"
 * Your repeated suggestion that the guidelines should change to follow your practice, and now your suggestion of WP:IAR, make me think you're aware the guidelines are compatible with what I'm saying. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, I still insist that this is not an uncommon practice, we blacklist because there is a community consensus that states that we should prohibit using a site. And it is NOT my practice, it is common practice to blacklist material if there is independent consensus to do so: "deprecate and blacklist", "generally unreliable and should be blacklisted", Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_265 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895302628).  To me this is similar to speedy deletion (blacklisting according to guidelines) and articles for deletion (deletion after we reach a community consensus).  Consensus is what we go by, not what policy or guideline prescribes. Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is one of those times when guidelines need to be changed to reflect common practice. And this is a guideline, not policy. Doug Weller  talk 12:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

you say that the thread wasn't started about blacklisting, but the first words in the thread - which I wrote - are "Which should probably be deprecated". The title I gave the thread is "ancient-origins.net is surely an unreliable source" - it's unreliability was not something I was asking about, so far as I'm concerned that's a given. I was suggesting deprecating. It's also the case that blacklisting has been used to stop bad sources from being used, not just spam. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I may not be up with current practice, but in the past bad sources that really have no business being used have been blacklisted even if not spammed - that's what I was hoping would happen but I admit I should have added "blacklisted" and not taken that for granted. Doug Weller  talk 12:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've asked on the relevant thread whether any of the the people who participated thought Doug Weller meant blacklisted; no replies yet. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Per your question "Which people on this thread realized that you were proposing to add ancient-origins.net to the spam blacklist" At least 2, one of which was myself and I stated as much, and the other one actually went and asked for it to be added at the blacklist page. (and now a 3rd below your question on that page explicitly states it) And now that it has been implemented (and several days ago at that), you are the only person disagreeing with it, and only on what seems like bureaucratic hairsplitting grounds. What exactly is your goal here?  He  iro  23:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I like to think I've been serious despite some reactions. As for my goal here, I said that after a few days I intended to go to Proposed removals. On second thought, I'll wait for a better hill to die on. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have formally closed the RSN discussion in favour of adding this site here. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

idebate.org
I was brought to this blacklist while editing Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships where I have been adding references to the winner entries. For 2006 (Elizabeth Sheargold) I wish to add https://idebate(.)org/news/monash-win-australs-2006 and for 1999 (Dan Celm) I would like to add https://idebate(.)org/news/austral-asian-debating-championships-1999. I am sure there will be many more pages from this website as more entries at the article still needs to be referenced. I have gone through the old discussions on removing this site from the blacklist, and I see that they were declined because there was no justification on use in Wikipedia. I believe the blacklisting was done because of a wiki on the site which no longer exists.  Jay (Talk) 05:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the original blacklisting appears to be due to spamming links to user-generated content that no longer exists (wiki.idebate.org and ru.idebate.org are gone, and the "community" tab on idebate.org is empty).
 * So, considering that we take seriously removal requests from trusted, high-volume editors (particularly administrators)... ✅. I have removed it.
 * If anyone objects and restores it to the blacklist, then see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012. My reply under my previous username Amatulic still applies, particularly the part where I say URL patterns can be whitelisted and not just specific URLs. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt response. Now I'm able to add the refs to the article mentioned.  Jay (Talk) 06:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Dailyhunt.in
Dailyhunt.in is the official website of Dailyhunt which means this website is real so please remove this website many newsapers upload news in this website it is not a fake website it is the official website of Dailyhunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:51da:ba8d:c97d:f15d:6d6b:7393 (talk • contribs)


 * , for specific links on this domain.  Dailyhunt is the only legitimate place where this may be of use, and that is why we have a whitelist (well, we link dailyhunt.com so the official website is already covered).  All other uses are and should remain prohibited, therefore delisting is declined.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am skeptical that even a request to whitelist a link would be approved, if the .com domain is already linked in the article. It certainly wouldn't be approved for any of the articles it aggregates; one should use the original news source instead, not an aggregator site. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)