Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Buzzfeed: Move section to bottom. This section was previously inserted in the middle of the "Docmanager" section
Line 170: Line 170:


==[[Buzzfeed]]==
==[[Buzzfeed]]==
{{Link summary|buzzfeed.com}}
* {{Link summary|buzzfeed.com}}

A report by the [[Pew research center]] shows that Buzzfeed is universally considered to be an untrustworthy newsource, invariant of political leanings.
A report by the [[Pew research center]] shows that Buzzfeed is universally considered to be an untrustworthy newsource, invariant of political leanings.
[http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/appendix-c-trust-and-distrust-of-news-sources-by-ideological-group/]
[http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/appendix-c-trust-and-distrust-of-news-sources-by-ideological-group/]

Revision as of 08:32, 4 December 2018

"Wikipedia:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Spam blacklist or Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting.
    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

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

    Instructions for editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 871938015 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.


    Proposed additions

    zenodo.org

    Emergency blacklisting while we work out what's going on with this site, which hosts significant numbers of scientific papers marked as copyright by major publishers (Elsevier, Nature, OUP etc) with no evidence of rights release. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 18:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is supposed to be an open science data repository. Looks like it is abused. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to me that the intention of Zenodo is good. Also, many journals now allow authors to post their own papers, sometimes after an appropriate delay. Please get this figured out before too many links are removed, and we have to go figure out how to get them back! Gah4 (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, on their own departmental websites, but the legality of this is highly questionable, since a lot of them are papers published by Elsevieer, Nature and other publishers well known to be evil about copyright. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here[1] is the Elsevier policy. It doesn't sound too evil to me, as long as the use is non-commercial. The APS[2] also has a policy, and I presume others that I didn't look up, also have one. Gah4 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That is one positive the Citation Bot trims the URLS to the landing page. It makes them shorter (original intent) and it means wilipedia does not link directly to a PDF (unexpected positive). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand why we cannot link to the originals in stead of linking to sites where the hosting of content is questionable (and that includes replacing links with appropriate direct links to originals). Even if it turns out to be fine on quite some occasions, there is no pressing need for them, and there is no reason to even consider taking the 'risk'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If people have them on their personal site, or school site, then link there. I was suspecting that these were put their by the author, but actually have no idea how they got there. I just know that I keep seeing on my watchlist links going away, and wondered why. How many such links are there? Who volunteers to find other sites hosting them and change the links? Gah4 (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Around a thousand links, a lot added by one editor who has... issues with the reality of copyright in academia. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably can get most non-violating content with github links. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly disagree with even temporary blacklisting of this. Sure, there are some papers there that shouldn't be, so what? We might just as well blacklist Wikimedia Commons because it also has some content that is copyvio, ditto for Wikipedia itself. Volunteers/staff here and there are doing their best to remove infringing content. That should be sufficient. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Personal use". Elsevier. Retrieved 6 November 2018.
    2. ^ "Editorial: APS now leaves copyright with authors for derivative works". APS. Retrieved 6 November 2018.

    corrieredellenotizie.com

    A news website likely hosted in wordpress and seem not run by company . Moreover it was spammed everywhere. Matthew hk (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Matthew hk: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    moviesoutnow.co

    Spam account adding fake citations to their own site. Anarchyte (talk | work) 08:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anarchyte:  Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anarchyte: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Could you also add "getcelebbio.com" to the blacklist? Same article got vandalised. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    getcelebbio.com

    --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anarchyte: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    statnano.com

    commercial market research site; spammed by at these two users at least. Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 12:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    globalbooklet.com

    spamming high profile medical articles. edit warring to do it. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    hongkongoffice.com

    An unheard real estate agent (as a native of HK) that spam itself into articles of wikipedia. Matthew hk (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Matthew hk: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Waiting for reports, this nest seems bigger. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    mobikart.com

    links
    users


    Spam that is (coi?) spammed, related to pricekart.com. Unsuitable as source, nor as external link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    codecorner.in

    Spamming by user Sonu kum, who not only changed links into spam on Samsung Galaxy S III, but also created spam pages on Template spaces. Obviously unsuitable to add the link here on Wikipedia. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    web3mantra.com

    Spamming for an ad-based blog by various IPs. I would usually not report a domain after only a few spam edits, but the deceptive usage of an external tool indicates a professional spammer who knows full well what they are doing to game Wikipedia's anti-spam measures. The domain has no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    triumph.capital

    No use for encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    verywellmind.com

    Recent spammers

    others

    There is also

    that are being added to pages by students and people new to editing about health. It would be better if people didn't use them... but that is not what this list is for. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Back at it today. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jytdog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 23:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    eccglen.com

    Unreliable source spammed by user with unusual editing pattern. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Guy (Help!) 23:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you elaborate on what is unreliable about ecclegen? it seems soundly based on 19th c records--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Docmanager

    Spammers

    Please blacklist. -KH-1 (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Buzzfeed

    A report by the Pew research center shows that Buzzfeed is universally considered to be an untrustworthy newsource, invariant of political leanings. [1] It produces largely entertainment based articles, which are often salacious though occasionally tries to report on politics with limited success, often using loaded phrasing and presumptuous wording. For example here is a video where buzzfeed spends a full 3 minutes asking accusatory and leading questions [2] and again [3], which have no encyclopedic value. It has been caught plagiarizing material, sometimes from wikipedia which makes it unsuitable to cite for among other reasonsWP:Circular. It has been caught failing to disclose paid sponsorship, and holds strong political views in a way which could both compromise its factual accuracy. For details on incidents see BuzzFeed#Criticism_and_controversies.Ethanpet113 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals


    medaloffreedom.com

    The German Wikipedia article on de:Andrew C. Berry has an external link to the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org): https://web.archive.org/web/20060329112827/http://www.MOF.com/AndrewBerry.htm ; replace MOF with the domain in question. It appears that this domain, which is now defunct, was added to the spam blacklist on the English Wikipedia in June 2011 by User:Shirik, as “malicious site spam”. From what I can tell, the problem with the website that it was full of ads, possibly some of them malicious. Now that the site is defunct, it should be no longer a problem to link to the web.archive.org copies of pages on the site. So removing it from the blacklist should be fine, as it's unlikely to come back to life and start getting spammed again. (Discussed below.) Shreevatsa (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Shirik: minus Removed from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, now defunct, long time ago. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Who, hold on there. This is a .com site that claims to be the "official site of the Presidential Medal of Freedom", but clearly is not, it links to "our other sites" including billofrights.com, citizensmedal.com and so on - it would never have been a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG and Shirik:; JzG, you mean the archive, the current site is defunct? It is used on de as an external link, which here on en would, by the way, likely fail inclusion standards. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The site was never reliable so should not be included. In fact several of this nest of unofficial "official" sites were cited. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    astronauticsnow.com

    Hello, can you please remove astronauticsnow.com from all blacklists. This is an educational site, maintained by a faculty member (professor at University of Southern California) and his research needs to be often cited for astronautics history, technical descriptions and research links. It would be helpful if you can let know the reasons, if any, for this domain to be blacklisted at the first place. I am unable to find any specific log entry that cites reasons for blocking this domain on English Wikipedia -- Aste520 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC) I think this reqular expression is the problem that creating the false positive (blocking legit site astronauticsnow) \bastro(?:nauticsnow|sauce)\.com\b[reply]

    -- Aste520 (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC) -- Aste520 (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Aste520: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for this domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: This means I should file a separate request or is it deferred automatically.

    -- Aste520 (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Aste520: I am looking for reasons, please hold on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aste520: minus Removed from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Thank you so much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aste520 (talk • contribs)

    Just to note that this was not likely a false positive, andthat the domain seems tobe with the same registrar since 2005. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: The site owner's books (and his site which hosts book details and sales links) were massively spammed in October 2007 (for example by User:Easphi). I am not completely against second chances of course, especially after such a long time. But one of the main purposes of this so-called "educational site" is to promote the author's publications and theories, along with souvenirs like T-shirts and coffee mugs. Large parts of the site are little more than an expert blog mixed with an online shop, although some of the ressources may be of interest and some of his books have been sporadically cited in good faith. In short: this seems to be a problematic site and should only be used in special cases with some caution. A second chance might be OK, but the initial blacklisting was a perfectly reasonable measure imo. GermanJoe (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pi3146 Please read the statement of User:GermanJoe (in line with my expectation that it was not a false positive). It has now been removed per WP:AGF and similar (WP:ROPE) but it will be monitored. I note that you created Draft:Mike Gruntman (now cut-paste moved to User:Pi3146/sandbox) and that that page is not in line with our policies and guidelines (which is still fine in draft-state). Please use this site with due care completely in line with our policies and guidelines, a re-blacklist will likely be indefinite. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: can you please link to previous records and users here (as this case is predating our tracking, it took me quite some time to find who added it and when, and it is not in the log). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The talkpage shows a few messages from involved volunteers cleaning up this case. The merged "... sauce" regex-statement was added with this diff in Januar 2009. The original older astronauticsnow.com statement on its own was added with this diff on 4 October 2007. Just a quick tip: I used WikiBlame ("View history" -> "Find addition/removal") with the complete respective regex lines as search criteria to find these diffs. Prior to the found date, you'll see some of the activities from the original spammer and the blacklisting volunteer (Alison) in their contributions during this time. Hope this helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @GermanJoe: I used WikiBlame as well for this. I could not find the editor though, just that Alison indeed blacklisted this in 2007. Those were the early days of blacklisting, logs are incomplete to say the least. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @User:GermanJoe @Dirk Beetstra I am trying to get educated here, so bear with me ! Prof. Gruntman has his website (AstronauicsNow) where he publishes his research, blog, videos and also promotes materials( sales). He is one of the leading authority on certain domains of astronautics (Energetic Neutral Atoms). His site acts as one of the first pages to understand a flash/current event in astronautics domain (on his point of view) before the issue gets in depth explained in mass media coverage/peer reviewed, which can be then considered "cited" ok. Are we contesting here, what citations are OK and what are not ? Regarding spamming, Is it the issue that wiki users spam his page (he complains) or his users spam wiki? Or is it that promoting stuff on own private webpage to sell (books, so verniers) illegal? The idea of having his wikipage is that we need to know about him, and if intersted further than go to all external links or citations poining to his research, videos, books and views. I have cited the books to their amazon page (is it a problem?)

    I am new user, I am just trying to grasp in order to make the page conform to your policy. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pi3146: as this forum is primarily focussing on spam-related aspects, I have posted a few tips about reliable sources on your user talkpage. Of course the topics are loosely connected, but a detailed answer about reference usage would have been a bit off-topic here. Hope these tips are helpful. GermanJoe (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe @Dirk Beetstra Hello, is it possible that you can give us a list where the links of www.astronauticsnow.com are there still "spamming" on wiki (i only find one with NYT Goddard which is legit). I will clean them up if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pi3146: it could not be spammed anymore, it was blacklisted and all old inappropriate occurrences where removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pi3146: Note: links, even in references, to Amazon are NOT ok, they exist to sell. ISBN is more than sufficient. Now that you've said that, I start to question your reasons for this request and wonder if you fully adhere to m:Terms of use. The way you word stuff I suspect that you failed to declare things. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And can someone please see how those nearly 500 references came to be. Did the spamming continue without directlinks and we did not notice? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    @Dirk Beetstra : There is very little control on how people cite stuff, this spamming can be done by retailers or just friends, students etc. Now before I started this bio page, I inherited this spamming problem...I am myself interested on how those book references came about being, it ll great if you can dig in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pi3146: Can you please respond to my remarks regarding m:Terms of use and whether you fail to declare things (see WP:COI)?
    There are things that we can do to control spamming - we blacklist stuff and block editors. It is however more tricky to catch than plain link spamming, but that astronauticsnow.com was blacklisted due to spamming does suggest that we have to be more restrictive for this maybe. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox or a vehicle for promotion (and I have adapted your draft and started to remove some puffery and inappropriate linking there ..). Whatever your reply to this first paragraph of this reply of me, you still have to adhere to our policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dirk Beetstra Firstly, you are assuming that I know what happened in 2007-9. I don't. I started writing this bio and now come across articles citing his books, journals (peer reviewed) and website/blog etc all over wiki. How am i supposed to declare things i dont know (10 ys ago!). Now when i look at other bio pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_W._Toga i do find linkedin as references (so i include them), you remove them (its ok)--same logic for amazon (its good you removed, now i know). The reason its sandbox is that I am myself on the learning curve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pi3146: I am not assuming that, nor was I asking about 10 years ago, my question was addressed to you now (you don't have to answer, but your removed remark suggests that you are then editing in violation of our terms of use - but I may be wrong). Regarding other pages with LinkedIn profiles: see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The article Arthur W. Toga is very self-serving in references, not a good example to follow. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dirk Beetstra To answer your question.....when i started writing his bio, most of references i wanted to use (books, journals, papers, blogs) were readily available on his webpage, including conference talks/videos, but I found it blocked. It was moreover baffling to see the reasons ( as revealed later site spamming). Then I see he is already the most cited entity on wiki ENA's article which also used drawings (cited) from his website (but blocked). Then i come across another 500+ references of his book, which we already are well aware is sort of standard reference on rocket/space history across academia. http://www.worldcat.org/title/blazing-the-trail-the-early-history-of-spacecraft-and-rocketry/oclc/54852580. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pi3146: OK, but that still does not answer my concerns regarding any conflict of interest and adhereing to the Terms of use of thiswebsite. Also, you seem to speak in plurals ('we'), suggesting multiple users on this account. You state that his site has to be cited (who is telling you so)? Also you want to change Google books to a dedicated sales page. That gives the strong impression that you have a relation to the subject. If you have such a relation, you should declare that. And in any case, you should not use a shared account, and you should adhere to a neutral point of view. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dirk Beetstra I am myself a Space Physicist and have extensively read, and followed the author's work for years. I am assuming, no history/sociology major will or should write about a Medical Surgeon (and his work) he likes. There will be some 'soft" affiliation, either due to being in same field or interests or academia acquaintances. Now coming to why amazon and not google, because google is simply scanned copy of the book (with/without permission), whereas amazon provides a much cleaner preview, bio about the author and also book excerpt/review. furthermore, google books itself provides links to amazon, barns and nobles etc for buying any book. Now does google promote sales, Yes, it does give start ratings and own reviews with sales links.. https://books.google.com/books?id=F0kyMbpRLYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+suitable+boy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ0NKE8YDfAhUP_1QKHaevAJMQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=a%20suitable%20boy&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pi3146: thank you for that answer. You'd be surprised what people write about. Agreed, often there is a soft connection, but for many there is not. Anyway, still articles have to adhere to our policies and guidelines.
    Regarding Amazon vs. Google ... the cleanness of the preview, for verifyability it does not make a difference. ISBN is sufficient for people to find their prefered copy. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Its a very intersting take, that if someone writes a book, extensively cites and provides material on the book on his webpage, they will provide a link for its sales as well , whats wrong ! its the same for journals too..they give you free citation/abstract, and ask for money to access full document, its still promoting journal sales — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Pi3146: yes, but do you know the difference between Wikipedia and those sites. Again, we are not writing a soapbox here, we are writing an encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dirk Beetstra well, as I understand, the point is, no matter what any wiki author writes, it should be verifiable (by readers). Now, the issue is what all things are considered cited OK here. google books is fine for you, amazon is not. I can cite a journal with just abstract available for public access (not complete article), but not someones private page (incl author's) with full article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi3146 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether the article is available online or not, or just accessible to few, does not make a difference. It is about the ability of verification. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    pricekart.com

    Hello, pricekart.com is product research and comparison website which provides users with product information. Pricekart website doesn't sell any products, it only provides information about various products to users. It compares prices available on top online stores and provides detailed specifications and reviews of products. I found that pricekart.com is blacklisted on Wiki. On searching more about it, I found that 2 accounts were posting some links from this domain and other domains too. This website is now blacklisted on Wikipedia. I request you to please remove it from wiki blacklist as it is an information website which helps users to make a better buying decision. The reason for request of removal is not because I want to add random links and violate Wiki laws. But, because I found few articles on Wikipedia with insufficient information and pricekart.com being an information and product research site, can add value to wiki pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JeshmiDudhat (talk • contribs) 11:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @JeshmiDudhat: no Declined, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not the place to make better buying decisions. That thought is likely the exact reason it got on the blacklist in the first place. And may I ask you to read m:Terms of Use, I have a feeling you are violating that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I understand that Wiki is not a soapbox. Like I mentioned, I don't want to post any pricekart.com links in Wikipedia. But, since, pricekart is an information site, I feel it should not be blacklisted. I assure that no links will be added to Wiki pages from this domain with a purpose of using it as a soapbox. I Request you to please rethink on your decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeshmiDudhat (talk • contribs)
    @JeshmiDudhat: It was (is?) actively spammed (including by you, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/mobikart.com, so the 'I don't want to post any pricekart.com links in Wikipedia' is a bit hollow), if it were established editors who were using this site, the situation would be different, but these are all accounts with only one goal: adding links to this site. When established editors feel that they need the information, it can be whitelisted. Until then .. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    the-antiblog.com

    Hi, The Anti Blog is a source of information for conspiracy theories. I was trying to cite this earlier, and discovered that it was blacklisted, but could not figure out the reasoning behind it. I checked the log and couldn't find it. I feel like this site can be useful because it provides unbiased views on conspiracy theories, and it seeks to inform. When I was reading the conspiracy theory page on Wikipedia, I discovered that much of the information was biased or not reporting information that is entirely accurate to the theories listed. I do not believe blacklisting the site is necessary because it is not spam. I would really like to use this website and the pages on it to cite pertinent information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.173.126 (talk • contribs)

    @64.222.173.126: no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain. I will note that this is caught under a possibly/likely unrelated rule on the global blacklist (so we cannot delist here), but blogs are generally not considered proper, reliable sources, where this type of subject needs those. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    chuyenxe.com

    Hello, can you please remove chuyenxe.com from all blacklists. chuyenxe.com is the online portal for motorcycles lovers, providing the latest information on the motocycles market in Vietnam. Various brands such as Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, BMW, Kawasaki ... Consultation repair, maintenance, shopping guide.. As an webmaster, i wrote for this issue yesterday but seem like no answer for vi.wikipedia, so now i write in english language, please reply as soon as possible. It would be helpful if you can let know the reasons, if any, for this domain to be blacklisted at the first place. I am unable to find any specific log entry that cites reasons for blocking this domain on English Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haugao (talk • contribs)

    @Haugao: no Declined, we cannot do anything here, this is a vi.wiki blacklist rule. It was blacklisted here, maybe that is of help. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    InfoWars.com

    infowars.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

    There is no indication that InfoWars.com spams anyone. It is a political site which is right-leaning. The only possible reason for blacklisting is biased censorship. There are articles on Wikipedia that refer to the contributors of this site, but their work cannot be cited to refute the vandalism to their pages. InfoWars also has an article, so blacklisting it as spam is unjustifiable. Your consideration if greatly appreciated. --BobiusPrime (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, it was spammed, and across Wikimedia sites no less. Not to mention that a discussion on whether or not Infowars is worth using as a source has been had, and the answer was no, which led to local blacklisting. Even if you remove the local blacklisting, the global one will still block it, so asking here will not work unless and until you request it at meta as well. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I could easily and demonstrably question the reliability of the opinion articles that claim to be news on here. Unless the definition of spam has changed, InfoWars does not. I have read the site numerous times and I have not been deluged with unwanted messages or emails. The blacklisting of this site is malicious and unwarranted because some disagree with its content and views. --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the site was blacklisted globally because a bot was spamming it (note I am using the past tense verb form of the word) and was blacklisted locally as a consequence of the RfC linked above. There is no "malicious censorship" here. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 06:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please weigh your response against Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored and criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. I believe you will find your argument is tenuous, at best. The site contains information pertinent to active article on Wikipedia, as well as having its own article. --BobiusPrime (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @BobiusPrime: no Declined. A) We generally do not blacklist on unreliability UNLESS there is a strong, independent RfC showing that it is really unwanted (to the level that the few cases that warrant use can be handled by whitelisting). That is the case for infowars, the strong opinion of the community is that it should NOT be used. B) you are right, infowars is not spam. And that is true for many websites on the spam blacklist. However, what the spam blacklist is supposed to do is to stop editors from mass adding sites that are unwanted. That happened to infowars: editors were mass-adding this site (and since that happened cross-wiki, it is now globally blacklisted).
    You will need a new RfC showing community consensus for this site to be removed.
    (edit conflict) this has nothing to do with censoring, and all with community consensus. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: I appreciate your fast response, although I find it disappointing. My intent was to bring neutrality to a few articles that were arguably libelous in their content. I was not justifying the view of the subject matter, but rather putting their case in their own words. The "acceptable" citations used in the articles are mostly opinion pieces, a common mistake of non-academic folks. I would like for you to measure "community consensus" and "really unwanted" in terms of free speech, as popular speech requires no protection. --BobiusPrime (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Your only rights are to fork the project or to leave. Wikipedia is not Congress and so it (or its community or the Arbitration Committee in responce to a particularly acidic topic area) may place whatever restrictions on speech they want. To deny this is to essentially say you have no right to limit what people do/say within your own household, or that businesses have no right to 86 customers who're causing a scene. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 07:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jéské Couriano: My apologies for deleting your comment. I believed it to be superfluous and did not relate to the point of my message directed to Beetstra. I am well aware that Wikipedia is a private enterprise, and therefore not subject to Constitutional or any other rights. My point was philosophical, in that "community consensus" can easily be a euphemism for censorship, which this site purports to disallow. --BobiusPrime (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTCENSORED primarily appertains to causing offense. For example, the page Penis contains images. Furthermore, we have a page about Holocaust denial which describes claims made by holocaust deniers. So viewpoints worthy of note are expressed - but in the context of a balanced page. Coming back to InfoWars, the community has deemed InfoWars as an unreliable source. That's not censorship - we've just decided that we don't trust the claims made by a website. If those claims were reproduced in Reliable sources, then they would find a place in articles. It's not the claim itself that's censored, it's just not considered worthy of article space if its exclusively from InfoWars. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 07:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bellezzasolo: There is a Wikipedia article on InfoWars. It may be worthy of review, since there may be insufficient balance to the page. A reader may not get a factual context due to repeated subjective wording. --BobiusPrime (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @BobiusPrime: that is not something that we have to discuss here, but on the article talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Logging / COIBot Instructions

    Blacklist logging

    Full instructions for admins


    Quick reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.
    Note: If you do not log your entries, it may be removed if someone appeals the entry and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

    The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

    1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
    2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

    Poking COIBot

    When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for privileged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


    Discussion


    tradingeconomic.com

        • Thank you for pointing me to the source. now, can you tell me what the criteria were? I don't know what all those things listed are. What is the English explaining the reason for blacklisting? is it the curt 10-year-old sentence done a ways about a self-serving ip? Kdammers (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kdammers: those IPs had a conflict of interest with the subject, and were spamming the link. I guess your best way forward is to ask for whitelisting of the specific link - though it is 10 years ago that it is blacklisted, it is also 10 years that no-one needed it so badly that whitelisting was requested, which suggests that maybe the assessment of Hu12 was correct.  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shreevatsa: both options are possible, the former at the whitelist ( Defer to Whitelist), the latter here as a removal request (for which you IMHO have a good case, please request it there so we can use a scripted removal). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, will request above as a removal request. Thanks Shreevatsa (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    COIBot and the spam blacklist log

    COIBot is currently, in the 'free time' of the report saving module, backparsing the spam blacklist log, one wiki at a time. It turns out that one wiki is a humongous chunk of data, and that the bot spends quite some time before starting to parse reports again. Please be patient while this operation runs. The data is stored with the regular link additions, and the bots will then accessit in the same way as usual.

    That likely results in certain parts of COIBot's reporting functions (on wiki and on IRC) to show strange results as some code may not understand how things are stored. I will resolve that later. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=871938015"