Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hu12 (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 18 October 2009 (→‎vk.com). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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 – 320651480 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions


    Scanlation websites

    These websites are distribution channels for copyright violating materials known as scanlations. Editors have attempted to sneak these links into the external links sections, user pages, or use them as pseudo-references. In a few cases, images from these copyvio websites have been uploaded to Wikipedia. Some of these links are preemptive as when the main sites are blacklisted, edits will attempt to switch to other sites. Even with that in mind, this list is hardly expansive and is only from the first three pages of Google hits using the search term "read manga online" along with a few other known scanlation websites. --Farix (Talk) 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure we should be adding preemptive ones without any serious reason. I think such measures should be reserved for things like virus threats otherwise that sets a high president for blacklisting which would go against WP:CENSOR's spirit, if not word. For the non-pre-emitive ones, I do agree with Farix.陣内Jinnai 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:NOTCENSORED: Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed.
    Since linking to external websites that contain material that is in violation of the creator's copyright is a violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:COPYLINK), this would not be covered by Wikipedia's anti-censorship policy. --Farix (Talk) 19:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those do indeed host copyviolating manga scanlations, either as a scanlation group's website or (more often) by hosting scanlations done by same, but I know of two of them that do not: Manganews.net hosts a fair amount of (non-reliable) reviews of manga and well as news items in addition to indexing scanlators, but is not itself a distribution channel; mangaupdates.com is mostly a scanlation tracker, but again, is not itself a distribution channel. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Both site actually do link to torrent for scanlations when they are available as well as the scanlation's homepage here where the scanlation can be obtained. anidb.info is already on the blacklist for similar reasons relating to fansubs, though they have changed their url to anidb.net. --Farix (Talk) 12:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of sites link to copyrighted material, lots of unreliable and sometimes reliable: blogs, search engines, news sites, etc.陣内Jinnai 16:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And? While we can't blacklist every website/blog/forum that links to copyright violation material, at the very least we should blacklist the major hubs of such links. --Farix (Talk) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm neutral while those websites give access or help to access contents protected by copyright doing a such list is difficult to maintain and is somewhat shouting a statement like "Wikipedia censors scanlation". --KrebMarkt 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia already has a policy against linking to websites with material that is in violation of the creator's copyright. Adding these to the blacklist is just a method to enforce a pre-existing ban. --Farix (Talk) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read that policy. First it only pertains to sites that host the copyright material itself (it even spells it out explicititly). Sites containing links do not fall under that. Second, it still provides for context, such as for an article on the site itself or a section which directly relates to that. However, in the latter I can't see that as being likely as most news outlets do not talk about anything specifically for scantalations (a few talk about specific fansub groups). So I could give you the latter part given I doubt any of these are notable, but the former is not covered by policy. And I also don't believe in pre-banning excpet when it deals with Wikipedia's system integrity.陣内Jinnai 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Stale--Hu12 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    tampa4u.com

    Please see WPSPAM report here: [1] Triplestop x3 02:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    propertyzote.com

    Fedyy (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)

    propertyzote.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

    Diffs: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Brgds, --R.Schuster (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adsense pub-2286515848043797
    Also 58.110.34.26 (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)
    Fails our External Links policy and is a Link normally to be avoided. I'm not convinced this could ever be used as as a citation so it fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. nothing more than real estate spam.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    homedesigndirectory.com.au

    homedesigndirectory.com.au: 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

    Each time I remove these links to a commercial website from a number of home design articles, a different sock account puts them back. Clearly this is an experienced and relentless spammer. Abductive (reasoning) 23:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adsense pub-4446228375381513
    addthis_pub = 'alan_bron';
    A DesignTek Pty Ltd (ABN 77 064 276 473)
    From homedesigndirectory.com.au/links.shtml
    "Alan Bron, co-owner of A&A DesignTek Pty Ltd, is the editor of this web site and is responsible for the search engine optimisation (SEO) that has successfully put this web site on page one of Google's search results for numerous search terms (click here for details links to aadt.biz/it-consulting.html#references)."
    Accounts
    Alan bron (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)
    Maggieryder (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)
    70.182.249.172 (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)
    65.208.16.195 (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)
    124.170.67.75 (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)
     Done--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    plevris.homo.com (NSFW)

    plevris.homo.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
    This very not-safe-for-work link was just added to several pages by a vandal. Clearly serves no encyclopedic purpose and its presense here will only be as vandalism. ThemFromSpace 02:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Root domain plus Added. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-AVGN.tk (MALWARE / NSFW )

    anti-avgn.tk: 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
    Don't click the link casually as it will open innumerable windows with NSFW content and try to download malware on your computer. Link was being added by TheUltimateWob‎ (talk · contribs) who I blocked. There is absolutely no foreseeable reason for wikipedia to link to this site and therefore I propose that it be added to the blacklist. Abecedare (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Good catch. Thanks for reporting.--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Just for the record, 98.248.33.198‎ (talk · contribs) caught this and reported it at AIV. Abecedare (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    vk.com

    accounts adding the link

    Persistent spamming of link to multiple articles. IPs ignore all warnings, and do not engage in discussion about the links. The link at Vkontakte to http://vk.com/index.php is appropriate and should be whitelisted - but all other additions (that also seem to include a ref id) should be blacklisted as there's no encyclopedic value to any other article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#vk.com. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cross wiki spam
    Also requesting Meta BL--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They've switched to using vkontakte.ru: 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 , can that be added as well? - MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added--Hu12 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    accounts adding the link

    --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pptweddie/Archive, Adsense pub-9231437151029763. seems to be a pattern including scams  Done--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com

    Examiner.com is "citizen journalism" website similar to Associated Content (which we already block). Like Associated Content, they will accept contributions from essentially anyone, they exercise no editorial control, and they pay for page impressions; as such, it fails WP:RS. In addition, they deliberately allow themselves to be confused with the San Francisco Examiner, which is a reliable source. This has resulted in a fair number of good-faith additions based on examiner.com as a reference; there are also examples of additions which seem to be sneaky links to some author's page - which, again, is paid per impression. I'm not aware of any concerted spam campaign, but the other issues related to examiner.com links have convinced me that we should be blocking them to discourage their use as a reference. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with this request, but it'll take a substantial effort to remove the existing 2k+ links. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Launched in April 2008 Examiner.com links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    ""Examiners" are paid a very competitive rate based on standard Internet variables including page views, unique visitors, session length, and advertising performance. "
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    I would tend to agree also. Much cleanup is needed.--Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    webcitation.org

    The www.webcitation.org site can be used to circumvent the Spam blacklist much like www.tinyurl.com. I have no evidence that webcitation.org has been used in this fashion.

    I ran across this as I was on the .pst article and hovered my mouse over the reference link to see what site was being used as a reference. I was surprised to see the rather anonymous www.webcitation.org/5k40hOrFo meaning I needed to click to discover what site was being used as the source reference.

    A robot has been converting links to Wikipedia sources to use webcitation.org meaning at present there are many links to that web site. Another robot has notice the links and added Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/webcitation.org.

    I have asked at User talk:WebCiteBOT#Concerns about webcitation.org that the robot be modified to comment out the webcitation.org link. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    naj-obchody.sk

    naj-obchody.sk: 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 Adding links to articles in slovak wikipedia from different IPs. Its company which improve SEO for other webs. They put links to stimulate the google search positions of their home page.

    please inform me about reguest progress --Vegetator (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lpool1981 (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)
    92.41.25.251 (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)
    92.41.62.91 (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)
    92.41.10.188 (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)
    92.41.15.163 (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)
    92.41.40.244 (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)
    92.41.71.180 (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)
    81.154.122.207 (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)
    81.154.118.182 (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)
    94.197.117.237 (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)
    Cross wiki spam
    Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/naj-obchody.sk,  Defer to Global blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a request, here -- meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#naj-obchody.sk. --Hu12 (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: this has now been added at meta [7]. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Completed additions

    Proposed removals

    hscripts.com

    Hi, Our site hscripts.com seemed to be blacklisted. please remove it from the blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.52.149 (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Stifle (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.google.com/cse

    I have been wanting to link to the custom search engine for the Video Game Project for finding reliable sources, and get a blocked notice. What is the reason for this? Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Its blocked on all language projects. Thats for adding to websites. Wikipedia is not a place to Host a search box, we've got our own Special:Search.--Hu12 (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AsianMediaWiki.com

    Hello, I asked the blacklist for our site to be removed in February of this year and the blacklist was removed for a few weeks without any problems, but a moderator here disagreed with the removal and readded the blacklist. I asked again a month ago, but was asked to ask specfic task force members to make the request for me. I left specfic requests on the Korean cinema task force and Japanese task force, but did not get a reply. In those requests I left specific reference pages where I thought our website would be useful to wikipedia (like the Lee Jun-ki page). Even though I did not get a reply I do see that now parts of our pages have been incorporated into wikipedia pages. As an example this is the original bio for Korean actor Jun-ki Lee from AsianMediaWiki:

    1. AsianMediaWiki-"...Jun-ki was a fairly normal kid who enjoyed sports & computers. He first became interested in the performing arts as a high school student after watching a play of “Hamlet.”[1] Jun-ki Lee initially failed to get into college and, because of this, he moved to Seoul with almost nothing, but a dream to work in the entertainment field. For the next couple of years, Jun-ki worked at various part time jobs, before gaining acceptance into the Seoul Institute of the Arts. In 2001, Jun-ki Lee made his debut as a model for fashion brand So Basic, appearing alongside actress Hee-seon Kim.[2]"(please reference http://asianmediawiki.com/Jun-ki_Lee)
    2. Wikipedia- "...Jun Ki was a fairly normal individual who enjoyed sports and computers. He first became interested in the performing arts as a high school student after watching a play of "Hamlet". Lee initially failed to get into college and because of this, he moved to Seoul with almost nothing in his pocket, but a dream to work in the entertainment industry. For the next couple of years, Lee worked at various part-time jobs, before gaining acceptance into the Seoul Institute of the Arts. Lee later started out as a model and held minor roles in Korean dramas. In 2001, he first appeared in the television commercial for the So Basic fashion label, appearing alongside actress Kim Hee Sun."(please reference Lee Jun Ki)

    I would like to ask again to reconsider the removal of the blacklist of our site and attribute our site as one of the references for the Jun-ki Lee wikipedia page. I believe there may be more pages like this but contributors on wikipedia cannot list our site as a reference because of the blacklist and use portions of our articles anyways. Thank you -- --RamenLover (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing [8], [9] and asking editors to "make the request here MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist" is wholy inapropriate.
    A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition. We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. AsianMediaWiki.com is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site.no Declined --Hu12 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Man this is getting absurd. In response to ""canvassing wiki project films and asking editors to make the request here MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist" is wholy inapropriate" ... I was instructed by specific moderators here to make those request. Quote
    "However, and I think I have told RamenLover this, I would really like to see that a suitable WikiProject shows backup for this removal or for whitelisting (Ramenlover, please contact a suitable wikiproject, a list can be found here first and let an editor from such a wikiproject then request delisting after consensus has been reached to do so)."

    Also if our site doesn't fall under reliable source guidelines why are you guys using it on the page listed above without attributing the source? -- --RamenLover (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hu12 I see that you went to my request thread on the Korean cinema task force discussion page and informed the editors there before they could respond that AsianMediaWiki doesn't fall under Wikipedia guidelines for citations. You do know that Beekstra asked me to make that request on the Korean cinema task force page right? You also do know that you are taking the role of those editors and deciding what is worthy for citation on wikipedia articles right? You also do know that the article listed above cites our article without attribution and obsviously somebody feels its worthy enough to include in the article right? -- --RamenLover (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of "...after consensus has been reached" was this request made? of the two wikiprojects only one person has replied, and it was a question about what you were talking about. Either way, consensus involves more than just someone coming here because you asked them to. Policies and guidelines do reflect established consensus, for example; Its not a "reliable source" for all the same reasons Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published. This includes open wikis (AsianMediaWiki.com ). If by chance a wikiproject requests a link for use as a citation, it's dealt with on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source. Not a wholesale removal of the entire domain, which you seem to be asking for. --Hu12 (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to ..."Which part of "...after consensus has been reached" was this request made?" --- I made the request for blacklist removal here in September and in that request Beestra informed me that I should get long standing editors from relevant wikipedia projects to make the request instead of myself. Because of this I left two requests and listed what I thought would be useful asianmediawiki articles to supplement wikipedia articles so those editors could decide for themselves. I didn't get a response one way or the other, but I did find that the articles I listed in my request thread were being incorporated into wikipedia articles without attribution after I made the request. I then came here and made another request for removal because of this problem - which is what this thread is about. Instead of addressing my concern you systemically declined my request and gave one of the primary reasons because my actions were (I am quoting you) "wholy inapropriate" in regards to making those requests in the wikipedia projects. You also left very heavy handed comments on my request threads, which will most likely deter any wikipedia editors from making such a request on our behalf. I would still like you to address my initial concern that the the asianmediawiki articles I listed as helpful supplements for wikipedia has been incorporated into wikipedia articles without citation and I believe this is because of the domain blacklist. I believe if the blacklist was removed, there wouldn't be problems with our articles being copied without citation or as references. Also having our articles used in live wikipedia articles by your editors should give an indication to the relevancy of our articles. We are also not an "open" wiki in which anybody can make edits. They have to register first and speak with an editor there, like any website before contributing to articles. -- --RamenLover (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    theclassicalmusicshop.net

    corrected to "theclassicalshop.net"; see below

    I am objecting to blacklisting "theclassicalmusicshop.net" and similar sites. This is my first encounter with the blacklist-whitelist concept, but I have to say, blacklisting such an excellent source of information about recordings seems fairly disruptive to me. I've done a lot of work on discographies for various classical musicians. Here is an example of an article that is affected: Antony Beaumont. It was when I tried to edit that page today that I encountered the problem. Not only this site "theclassicalmusicshop.net", but other similar ones which apparently have a good chance of ending up on this list, frequently provide useful material, including detailed track lists, artists, dates and locations of recordings, and often and not the least important, downloadable CD booklets which contain much information on the music, composers, and artists. If one incorporates this information into an article, one should quite properly provide a link to the product page with the information about the recording, and/or link to the booklet which was the source for the information. It will be very inconvenient and discouraging to good editing to require that each editor obtain an exception each time that editor would like to link to this site. Yet that's what seems like has happened. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This domain does not appear to be blacklisted:
    Are you sure that's the correct address? It doesn't look like there's anything at that page.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A.B. see [whitelist request. He means the theclassicalshop.net. --Hu12 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    theclassicalshop.net

    OK, now I see the history; theclassicalshop.net is blacklisted

    Personally, I agree with you (see my comments in the earlier discussion), but I'd like to see more discussion here first. Could you leave a (neutrally-worded) note at the appropriate WikiProject(s) asking for input from our classical music editors? Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry about the error. I must have been getting tired when I did this. I'll see what I can do about getting more input. I just want to point out that when an artist records for very few labels, it's clear there will be a bias in the links from that page. Also, I'm amazed that someone would want to block links from Amazon.com as well. The article on Antony Beaumont also includes an effective and descriptive blockquote from Kirkus Reviews that I picked up on a product page at that site. (I must confess that I bought the book: the quote is quite accurate.) (Also I see that the quote is no longer on the Amazon page. I haven't checked yet whether it may have been preserved on the WayBack machine.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I found two discographies with multiple links to product pages which would not appear to be in the category of spam:

    Arthur Honegger discography
    Symphony No. 7 (Sibelius) discography

    Lists like these seem to be the exception, but that is because adding links or footnotes to sources of information is time-consuming and requires effort so doing it is the exception rather than the rule. Personally I think both of the editors who created these lists are to be lauded for doing so. We should encourage this kind of thing rather than discourage it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    atbriders.com

    I would like atbriders.com to become whitelisted. I'm not sure as to why it was blacklisted in the first place. It is a mountainboarding social networking web site that I had listed on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountainboarding page before it was unexpectedly blacklisted. There is a section on the mountainboarding wikipedia page that lists online forums, and since atbriders.com has an online forum just about mountainboarding I would like to add the link to it. The web site is useful because it is a place where new or seasoned mountainboarders can come together, ask questions, share pictures, videos, and mountainboarding related information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.140.243 (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems


    Logging / COIBot Instr

    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.

    Have added a supplement, a general " how-to of sorts. --Hu12 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: if you do not log your entries it may be removed if someone appeals 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 do add 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. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.

    For those with access to IRC, there this data is available in real time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    poking COIBot

    I notice that sometimes people who are not active on IRC need some link reports. Admins here can now add {{LinkSummary|domain}} to User:COIBot/Poke, when COIBot picks up the edit to that page (and it should), it will put the domains into its reporting queue (high priority, which is, only behind waiting XWiki reports) and create a report on the link(s). The first report should be saved within about 5 minutes, if it takes longer than 15 minutes there is probably something wrong, and it may be useful to add the template with the link again (it reads the added part of the diffs (the right column)), or poke me or another person who is active on IRC personally. Hope this is of help. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Please don't overuse this function, everything still needs to be saved .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It had some startup problems, but all seems to work fine now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Discussion

    FYI: Local reports from COIBot

    I have posted this with full explanation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#New COIBot functionality, in short, COIBot now saves reports for links where the additions trip certain thresholds to reports on meta. They are categorised in m:Category:COIBot Local Reports. For en: m:Category:COIBot Local reports for en.wikipedia.org categorises all reports concerning this wiki, open reports are in m:Category:Open Local reports for en.wikipedia.org. More information can also be found in m:User:COIBot/Local. Please be careful with evaluating these reports, it is based on bot statistics, NOT on an evaluation of the information linked to or a full evaluation of the editor. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI: Contact re pornstarglobal.com

    Today I received an e-mail from a user identifying himself as User:GlobalCorp -- this account has been permablocked -- who asked me to consider intervention in the blacklisting of his website, pornstarglobal.com. I've read the archived discussion, I've examined the site, and I can see no point whatsoever to making it possible for links to this site to be added to Wikipedia; I'm firmly against any kind of intervention. I'm leaving this note because (a) I haven't the faintest idea why this individual chose me for his e-mail request, since I've had nothing to do with any previous activity involving pornstarglobal.com, and (b) I am wondering if any other admins have received such e-mails recently. My experience is that, since my username is alphabetically near the top of an list, I tend to get e-mails from people who are trying to enlist large numbers of admins pretty much at random. My policy is not to answer e-mail privately but to do such business in the full view of the Wikipedia community, but I suspect it may be useless to leave notes for User:GlobalCorp on his talk page. If other admins are being randomly contacted with this material, it may be time to block User:GlobalCorp from sending e-mail. If anyone has any questions or comments, I"m at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 02:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the note Accounting4Taste. I agree with your assesment. Seems there is a pattern of electronic canvassing by this blocked user and an ongoing abuse of the "email this user" feature, therefore I have blocked that. The user's talk page remains unprotected, for now. Lets see how long that'll last) . --Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I assure you there is no need to block anything because I wouldn't know what that is in the first place. I was simply trying to contact admins for advice because I don't understand all this stuff you are talking about. No one will respond here except Hu12 and he/she is really just not very smart. I have never done so much explaining in my life. What I don't understand is why Admins. who are so strongly against it, keep posting here to voice that. I think you guys might be taking this admin./blocking thing a little too serious. No worries, be happy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.35.65 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a block on the above user's IP range may be necessary if this activity continues. They appear to be operating from the /18.Triplestop x3 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alhutch commented on the above-noted talk page that s/he too has received an e-mail and concurs with my comments. I think my observation about admins being contacted in alphabetical order seems to be borne out. I'd be in favour of the IP range block if only to get this forum-shopping canvassing over with. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    seconded, and I'm certain that this person was just contacting admins in alphabetical order.--Alhutch (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it me or are people just posting here now to practice their vocab? There is no operation, it's just a guy on a computer. What a weird place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.44.222 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    FYI: Contact re www.2knowmyself.com

    hello, i am a world wide body language expert and you could see my tv interviews here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCU5ir4fCwI my website 2knowmyself was banned and it hurts my reputation to have my website which is viewed by 400,000 monthly would be thankful if the ban can be removed (not for the sake of spamming) thanks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.237.103 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Heres the reason; MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September_2009#2knowmyself.com. multi-article spamming, adding redirecting urls and use of url-refferal/redirectors in order to circumvent blacklisting. --Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a reason the spam blacklist blocks edits in the talk pages too? I assumed we would be able to present our case for the inclusion of a link the article's talk page, and possibly, after discussion, request the removal of the domain (or whitelisting of that specific link) in the appropriate pages. But the way things are, it can't be even talked about! Is this intentional? --Waldir talk 11:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Links need not be hyperlinked to be discussed, ie http://www.spammydomain.com using wiki markup "<nowiki></nowiki>" or the use plain text ie. www.spammydomain.com (like you did here). --Hu12 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it, I just think that it's kind of a put-off to get a huge warning especially when you're trying to discuss possibly controversial changes, which is a behavior we should encourage.
    By the way, I'm wondering if this is the right place to ask about this -- should I make a bug report instead? --Waldir talk 15:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked links are not a bug. We add many sites that are known to install maleware, run malicious scrips or have trojan exploits which harm wikipedians. Why would we drive traffic to these sites on talk pages? In addition, why would we open ourself up to talk page spamming and canvassing?--Hu12 (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't assume a lot of traffic is driven from talk pages until I see statistics showing that. My personal experience and opinion is that most readers don't use the talk pages -- these are mostly used by people concerned about changing the article's content. If they're doing it in good faith, as I said, we shouldn't be shoving a huge warning in their faces; If they're canvassing, I believe that alone is enough to make their efforts fruitless: most people are smart enough to recognize and reject blatantly biased opinions. As for spamming, we have excellent tools to prevent it, even automatically. Even if it does give us some extra work, the worst case shouldn't be dictating the default behavior. --Waldir talk 15:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't assume that efforts to protect our readers and editors from harm failed and resulted in installed maleware, malicious scripts or infections from trojan exploits. Nor would it be appropriate to allow links to child porn, or other blocked illegal content which violates the laws in the UK and US to be allowed to reside on either user or article talkpages. "we have excellent tools to prevent it...", as you say, and the blacklist happens to be an effective one. Why have a blacklist at all?--Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit ambivalent about this, I agree with Waldir here, as it does help in discussing, we can discuss a specific document on a generally useless site (which is still possible by making sure the link is disabled, but it would make it easier). However, the spam blacklist is also used to protect against malware and similar sites, which harm the computer of our interested readers, and also, one could still use the talkpage to drive traffic; most people don't check where they end up when they click this link!. So it has its pros and cons .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Existing links being discussed for articles on talkpages that were there prior to blacklisting remain, "hyperlinked" untill removal. Ie. the offensive example above. It's the addition of new links that the BL restricts. However links need not be hyperlinked to be discussed, as there is Cut, copy, and paste. If a blacklisted links criteria for being discussed "requires" it to be hyperlinked on a talkpage, its probably being discussed for the wrong reasons. Either way the risks far outweigh any benifit. Wiki markup ("<nowiki></nowiki>") is simple to use, and Plain text is even easier.--Hu12 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another point is that if links for blacklisted sites were possible on talk pages, it would become standard practice for spammers to promote their sites via multiple talk pages (after the site has been blacklisted and so cannot appear on articles). Also, there have been many cases were spammers make user pages to promote their POV, and they would fill those with links as well. It is simple to post a URL like www.example.com/some/page.html (without any wiki markup required). Bear in mind that spammers post stuff because they hope it will work, not because it will work. So telling a spammer that there is no point in posting their links because of nofollow or whatever is generally a waste of time. In case there is any doubt, my opinion is that blacklisted sites should be blacklisted everywhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be possible for the code that does the blacklist testing and splashes the error to modify the content the person is trying to save so that it does not link? I would agree with not allowing clickable links to be added to talk pages. I have dealt with spambots that attack talk pages and do not restrict themselves to the mediawiki mainspace. It's easy to use www.spammy.com should someone need to discuss a blacklisted site. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a compromise solution would be great. I am not saying that blocked links should be clickable in talk pages, I agree that they probably shouldn't -- what I despise is having people learn our external link syntax and then scaring them away when they try to use it the way it's intended to be! I'm sure there's a way to silently unlink blocked links in the talk namespace, while allowing the edits to be saved. So, I support Marc's proposal -- I assume it could be something like the warning that shows up when we forget to include the edit summary (if we set the preference to be warned in that circumstance) -- that would be ideal. Especially, the edit text box shouldn't disappear like it currently does, forcing the user to go back in the browser history in order to restore the text (and I believe many don't even realize that and end up having to write it all over again, or giving up). I reinforce, this should only happen in talk pages. So, what do you think? --Waldir talk 09:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=320651480"