Template talk:Blacklisted-links

Streamline

Hi, I saw this template at the top of the Lenny Bruce article as a non-logged-in user [URL has been substituted]. It seems larger than it needs to be for the purpose it serves. Couldn't it simply say "This article may contain spam links. [Details.]" Details would expand to provide further information. The template as it is is not instructive to a non-editor reader, and may cause confusion. --Oldak Quill 09:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've shortened it considerably (and I realize that it was worked on and collapsed since the above comment). The instructions were still needlessly complex, and the template did not conform at all with the other issue templates we have.
If more instructions are needed it should be in the form of a special landing page at the spam blacklist.
Amalthea 14:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower678: Wrecked? How? It still informs the editor that the page has issues and what he can do to fix it. (The javascript-bit was concerning the 'Click show for more details' phrase: If you have javascript disabled that phrase makes no sense.) Amalthea 14:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Then let's discuss a new design together as I believe the new template confuses the reader more on how to proceed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you find it more confusing? It's less detailed and thereby, I thought, much clearer for the reader/editor what to do. The template as it is right now offers seven links to four pages without clear instructions when to use which -- in my opinion that is confusing even for an experienced editor, he'll have to visit each of those pages to find out what's going on, and after visiting MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist he'll most likely give up.
BTW, judging by the history of MessagePad the bot logic seems to have issues.
Amalthea 15:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

How about you propose the change and I modify it until we reach an agreement? As for the article, WTF? I'll have to look at that.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest changes, but I'm still lost. I've read the instructions three times and I still am unclear on what I need to do to get the blacklist entry off of the link www.reverbnation.com/lindsaylucas. Am I adding it to a list? Removing it from a list? Local list, global list? Sorry, can't figure it out.  :/ --Elonka 15:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I took a stab at rewriting the docs, though since I still don't entirely understand the process, I am not certain that my information is correct. Please feel free to rewrite as necessary. --Elonka 22:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I derive a certain perverse amusement from the fact that this template, which clearly exists to suppress the use of unwelcome links, give singularly great prominence to the unwelcome link(s) it identifies, by putting a big obvious box at the top of the page in which the given links are the most prominent thing the reader sees. This seems markedly counter-productive ! -- Eddy, 84.215.6.238 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be a talk page template

If the bot was a human editor who had identified possible spam links and who was not going to sort the issue themselves, they would post on the talk page requesting that other editors solve the problem. I don't see why this bot should be granted a special article template for this purpose. Article templates should be kept to a minimum.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a maintenence template. Those get tagged at the top of a page.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 12:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems a bit much to put a major maintenance template at the top of an article, because one link somewhere in the article has a question about it (example: Good Article David Lucas (composer)).perm link Not all maintenance issues require such a large banner. For example, we wouldn't put a maintenance template in the header just because one sentence in an article was tagged with {{fact}}, would we? Perhaps the template could be placed just in the External links or References section, instead? Or make it an an in-line template, which would correctly point out the problem, but wouldn't be taking up as much room. --Elonka 15:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Echoing the concerns raised above: I appreciate the tagging in general, but this is imposing an enormous banner, with a minimum of six lines of text, at the top of articles. IMO the link itself should be tagged inline as blacklisted (as we do with dead links), and the maintenance category being added to affected articles should be a hidden category. Maralia (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no difference from a {{notability}} tag. We don't put those on the talk page. The purpose of this tag is to resolve an underlying issue. If that article ever gets vandalized, where the link gets removed, it can not be added back due to the blacklist blocking. The tag is supposed to raise attention to that by having it get added to the whitelist.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Maralia has a point, I agree that an inline style tag comparable to {{dead link}} would be preferable. Amalthea 21:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The bot couldn't make such an edit for some reason. It's seem to be held up by the blacklist. Also there are others that argue this tag is a better choice.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Also inline tags, can't instruct the user what to do to get rid of it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In agreement with Amalthea and Maralia, an inline template is the way to do this. As for Help information, this can be done inline by adding "(Help)" or "(?)" in a small font, which links to a documentation page. --Elonka 22:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Does appear to work for me, both inside ref ([1]) and outside ([2]). And the instructions are IMHO best placed on a decent landing page anyway, comparable to how {{citation needed}} points to WP:Citation needed. Amalthea 23:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower, can you point us toward the discussion where others argued for this banner-style notice? I read the bot request, but I don't see it there (in fact I see two editors complaining about the use of a large banner). Maralia (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is better as a 'maintenance' tag on the mainpage - it is an issue that needs to be resolved for the page by whitelisting (or de-blacklisting) of the links that are caught by the blacklist. Having (rightfully or wrongfully) blacklisted links on a page is generally not a problem, up to the point that when the link gets removed by a vandal, a simple rollback will reinstate it. However, if the link gets removed and a subsequent (independent) edit is done (by another editor), all an editor can do to remove the vandalism is to break the link, or remove it (or, as I did back in April, emergency whitelist, revert the vandalism (spam in that case), de-whitelist.

I strongly argue that this is an issue that should already have been resolved a long time ago (and preferably at the moment of blacklisting, though sometimes blacklisting one domain has unintended side effects, or not all is cleaned properly or reinstated through undo/rollback), but we had no means of finding out how. I am also afraid that, similar to the situation I describe from back in April, unknowing editors may have removed good links which were accidentally blacklisted in order to be able to revert to an older version or to remove spam/vandalism. Having blacklisted links on a page is causing damage and that should be resolved. The only way of getting that attention is on the page itself, talkpage tags will not get it resolved, and having this tag is not more disruptive than any other maintenance tag on top of the page (whereas for most of the maintenance tags, the problem they alert a user of is not likely going to cause breakage, whereas this is alerting a problem that can have those effects).

I would encourage to make this tag look very much like the other maintenance tags like {{cleanup}}, maybe with a small drop-down box with more info. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to link to an example on wiki, and some contacted me via email, but Beetstra came here himself and made the argument. I'm with Beetstra on this one. This is a serious problem, one that requires attention of the editors. An inline tag would go unnoticed, virtually. Also, I put some considerable thought into creating an update, that will display the rule and blacklist that is triggering the filter, while not draining on resources. That could only be done in a maintenance tag.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am still in strong disagreement that a full maintenance template is necessary. It is jarring and excessive. In the case of the David Lucas (composer) article, we already had an article that was at Good Article status, and to put a major maintenance banner on the entire article for one link that is used in one point on the article, is overkill. So, we appear to have a dispute. How do we proceed from here? Can we find a compromise, or are we we going to need to escalate this through Dispute Resolution? --Elonka 14:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this discussion is ripe for DR just yet. If we can continue to discuss this civilly, like we are now, I think we can reach a compromise. To argue my point, the maintenance tag is a much better choice than an inline template for several reasons. But I will also present the pros and cons of an inline tag.

Pros of a maintenance tag:

1. It grabs the attention of editors.
2. It notifies users of an issue that is present on the article.
3. It encourages early action before it might be too late. By too late I mean, if the link accidentally gets removed, it can't be added back until it's whitelisted.
4. It shows which rule on what blacklist is responsible for triggering the blacklist.

Cons of the maintenance tag:

1. Like all maintenance tags, it's big and bulky.

Pros of a inline tag:

1. It's not the first thing you see when you look at an article.
2. Small and not bulky
3. Notifies that the link is on the blacklist.

Cons of an inline tag:

1. It will not grab the attention of an editor.
2. Will likely be overseen.
3. Does not encourage early fixing and when the link accidentally gets removed, it will take a week or two to allow it to be added back, given the current whitelist process.
4. Cannot show which rule on what blacklist is responsible for the blacklisted link.

It's sole purpose is to be in an editors face so the editor is encouraged to get the link whitelisted, or removed so the tag no longer shows up. I just came up with this list in the most NPOV possible. But looking at this list, it's easy for me to see why it should be a template.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You say that the banner 'shows which rule on what blacklist' is being triggered, but this does not seem to be the case on any of the dozen tagged articles I have checked. The only information given, aside from links to the template itself and the local & global blacklists, is the triggering URL. Can you show me an example of an article where the banner actually explains which blacklist rule was triggered? Currently there are 11 featured articles and 48 good articles (not to mention more than 5,000 others) tagged with this huge banner, but it is difficult to attempt to fix even one. Maralia (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. I forgot to add in parenthesis that it's a feature that will go into effect when the bot gets switched on.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Maralia, you should usually be able to find the blacklist entry by searching local and global for the second-level domain of the link (e.g. "reverbnation" in http://www.reverbnation.com/lindsaylucas). Amalthea 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Does this mean that only articles tagged in the future will carry a banner that actually states the triggering rule? How are editors to intuit the problem on the currently tagged articles? See for example 2S19 Msta: the domain pro-tank.ru is not on the global or local blacklist, and one would have to be familiar with regex to locate the triggering rule at \bpro-(?!speleo).*?\.ru\b. This is an unreasonable expectation for the average editor. Maralia (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No. The bot's design is to scan each template and update it if need be. So all tags will be updated to show the rules, when the bot gets switched on.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) In the case of reverbnation.com, it appears that this has triggered the bot on several different articles, and there are multiple requests for whitelisting, which are pending. One of my concerns is that even if any editor handles the problem (requesting whitelisting), an article still has to endure a large maintenance template, which just isn't the wiki-way. I dislike the idea of size of template being "needed" to be "in your face". Sure, these links should be processed, but there are LOTS of things needing cleanup on Wikipedia, and we don't need a major banner for every single one of them. I'd still prefer that the bot only tag things inline, but if there's a strong feeling that a large template is needed for some reason (and I'm not yet convinced of that), how about, as a compromise, allowing an editor to replace the maintenance banner with an inline template? That way the problem isn't ignored, but it does show that it's being addressed, and meanwhile restores the readability of the article? I just have a big problem with Featured and Good Articles receiving a large maintenance banner for one link that's buried somewhere in the article, and it taking days to work through bureaucracy to get that banner removed. --Elonka 17:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what WT:Spam-exceptions is for. Once a request has been filed, all an editor needs to do is link me to the request, and it will be added to the bot's ignore. That tag will be removed by the bot while the whitelist request is pending.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here's an example of what the template will look like once the bot makes a new run:

Cyberpower, I appreciate what you're trying to do, the need to address spam, the work that you have put into the bot, and your willingness to engage in discussion. Just for the sake of compromise, could you also please provide an example of an inline template, so we could look at both and discuss them equally? Thanks. --Elonka 23:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It would probably look like http://example.com

Now picture this hidden among all of the other links, likely sitting on the bottom of the article. It will likely go unnoticed. Not only that, it can't display which rule is causing this, nor which blacklist it's on. People would likely simply try to remove it without even clicking through.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed template edits

previously addressed "[To Wikidemon]" - Wikidemon (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD this is where we discuss. You have cited a discussion thread that makes no mention of a change to be made here. Adding nobots will make the bot go away, but will not solve the underlying issue that a blacklisted link is present. And I can easily deactivate the nobots compliance by switching force to true on my bot, if it's going to be misused like that. Nobots is for keeping away a bot that shouldn't be there. As the bot is clearly doing what it's supposed to. If there is a bug, like the one just pointed out on my talk page, I will look into, fix, and rerun the bot. Only you, Sammy D and Liamdavies, somewhat, have objections to the bot. Everyone else has basically defended the bot. I'm going to be blunt in this case, but you are being very WP:POINTy by forum shopping, and trying desperately to shut down the bot. You had your chance, for months now, to make a statement at its BRFA. You chose not to, and now it's approved. Do not change the template without discussing here first. I have reverted it to its original state.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll go down the changes one by one, before addressing the accusations and process question.

1. An automated process has detected that links on this page may contain — Why qualify the notice with "may" — do we need to give article readers notice that the bot is mistakenly tagging pages that don't contain links on the blacklist? AFAIK no, better to say it straight, the bot detected a blacklisted link.
2. blacklisted external links on the ( local or global blacklist ). — The statement that these are WP:EL is inaccurate. The bot is tagging inline and footnote citation links as well. Saying that the links are on the "local or global blacklist" is more grammatical, shorter, and overall better English than calling them "blacklisted links (local or global)".
3. If the links are considered useful please appropriate you may — The question of whether the links should stay or not does not depend on how useful they are, but whether or not they are in fact appropriate to the article vis-a-vis Wikipedia's efforts to fight spam. There may be spam links that are quite useful but inappropriate, e.g. a link to the current weather in any article about a city. Conversely, there are relatively unhelpful links that are not spam and that the template and the bot are not concerned with. The discretion of what to do is entirely that of article editors, but we should guide them to consider the question of spam, not the question of utility.
4. visit the documentation page for instructions on how to request whitelistingrequest whitelisting — all around better English, and clearer, though we should direct them to the whitelisting page, not the bot documentation page
5. or replace this tag with {{nobots|deny=Cyberbot II}} The bot was expressly made exclusion-compliant per the bot approval, which means that adding this tag is a legitimate option. If a blacklisted link is present it is within the realm of discretion of article editors who judge the link appropriate to: (1) not have a tag on top of the main article page, (2) remove the tag, and (3) decide to keep the link. They are not required to undergo the cumbersome, slow, and sometimes-ineffective process of petitioning for a whitelist. If you think there is a policy argument otherwise, let's hear it. Currently, the bot is programmed to edit war against any editor who removes the tag. That is against policy, and not within the scope of the bot approval. The bot ought to simply be reprogrammed (as other bots are, e.g. the vandalism bot I think) to make a single edit, and if a human editor disagrees, to allow the human editor to edit accordingly. Until and unless that happens, asking the bot not to edit war by adding the template message is probably the simplest option. That was explicitly recommended on the bot approval talk page.[3] Most editors are unfamiliar with bot operation and the availability of the tag. It is misleading to refuse to tell them that adding this tag is an option to prevent the bot from edit warring.
6. otherwise consider removing or replacing them with more appropriate links — You don't really mean to revert this, do you? Deleting an otherwise valid link and leaving a {{fact}} tag in its place[4] is not a good move. If you're going to improve the encyclopedia it's by improving citations, not leaving material unsourced.

There you have it, lots of improvements to the template. Do we regular editors have a right to edit the encyclopedia or do you WP:OWN this particular template because you run the bot?

I wish I didn't have to answer accusations and Vogon-style bureaucracy from a bot operator here. As I've pointed out elsewhere you seem to be going down Beta's route of defending a controversial bot to the point of alienating the community. Don't go there. The fact that a particular task got approved does not mean you have unlimited community consensus to run any direction you want with the bot, or that the community had notice of what you were going to do with it. It was an unwelcome surprise that a few dozen page on my watchlist suddenly had inappropriate tags on top of the article, and no, a local consensus on an obscure bot page does not override global consensus on content. Looking into this, I see the bot is controversial (both before and after approval), making errors, edit warring, and overall not well thought through. If I may be blunt as well, if you are going to be running bots, you're going to have to stay neutral on content disputes and listen to concerns of the community instead of aggressive advocacy against people who have concerns over the bot's suitability and operation. I spot checked 30-40 of the bot's recent edits on the spam tagging task, and (nearly) every one was to re-add the tag where editors had removed it. Perhaps it has already checked the entire encyclopedia for blacklisted links, and the only ones left are where the tag has been removed. Hence, the task's primary function right now seems to be dogged edit warring against human editors. Bots are for taking care of undisputed, routine maintenance functions, not for overwhelming the discretiom of editors to make good faith editorial judgments. BRD implies good faith reversion, not reflexive claims that others are not allowed to change things without your approval. I will avoid re-instituting my proposed changes for now to avoid edit warring but please tone down the rhetoric several steps at least, and try to work with instead of against us content editors. The proposed changes are all above. Which if any do you disagree with, or wish to work on? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Puh. Do you mind if I read this tomorrow morning? I know you put a lot of effort into writing this explanation, and I'm going to read it very carefully, but I'm getting tired, and have classes tomorrow morning.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, great. And in the mean time I get two "warnings" for edit warring and one threat of being sent to AN/I for just doing what the bot intends: removing spam links. The Banner talk 01:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Cyberpower, there's no deadline here. Indeed, Banner, I ask you not to escalate our differences into a wide-ranging revert war over my edits. Here we're discussing a proposed improvement to the tag language, with one substantive change. If you think I've made a wrong call over a specific link please discuss on the article talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, but it looks a bit strange when you claim that I am edit warring (at that moment with just two reverts) against your four reverts of the same matter. The Banner talk 12:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask you not to escalate our differences into a wide-ranging revert war over my edits.? Thank in advance. The Banner talk 19:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll amend my request then — no silly rhetoric either. Rational discussion, thoughtful content edits, respect of other editors' work — a winning combination! - Wikidemon (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the above changes to the template text should be implemented immediately. Particulary #5 as I think it is ridiculous that the bot engages in edit wars. IMO it should be blocked until that behaviour is changed, but pending that, alerting editors to the use of the nobots tag should be a priority.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Wikidemon: So I have had read your statement. I will start out with an apology, on the fact that my revert may have been hasty. After reading your proposed change, I am okay with all of them, with the exception of number 5. The bots approval scope is to tag pages containing links, and maintain the tag until the links on the page are no longer blacklisted. Yes, it will frustrate editors, but it sole purpose to fix the cause of that link being marked as blacklisted. If the link were ever removed, and they are appropriate, it can't be added. This tag is supposed to bring that to the attention of editors. Picture these two scenarios. The bot tagged an article. Let's say it happens to be a featured article. The editors there will obviously be very annoyed with the tag. They will remove the tag because they feel the link is appropriate. The bot comes back to tag it again. It gets removed, and tagged again. The editors look at the tag and find the easiest solution is to add the nobots, so the do. The bot stops tagging the page. Suppose and editor, or a vandal comes by, and removes the link that was being tagged. That link was being used for some very important information. An editor goes to revert the removal...but wait. The link is blacklisted and can't be added back. They are now forced to go through the whitelist process anyways, essentially delayed the potential inevitable. Now picture this scenario. The bot tags the same article, at the same time. The editors remove the tags at first and the bot comes back to tag it. They proceed to follow the instructions on trying to blacklist the request. The tag provides the necessary information to assist in filing a request. The request has been filed and now I have been requested to add it to the ignore list here. The bot is now ignoring the tag, while the request is pending. I will even monitor the request. The request is eventually approved and whitelisted. Now at the same time as in the previous scenario, an editor, or a vandal, removes the link in question. An editors proceed to revert...wait what about the blacklist? No longer an issue. The revert goes through without issue because the link isn't blacklisted. These situations have basically been described throughout the discussions that have taken place.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to allow the bot to edit-war using a highly visible article template in an attempt to force human editors into white-listing links. Is that really the best way to go about things? If a human editor behaved like this it would be unacceptable, so why should a bot be allowed to do so? There are plenty of bots that put messages on article talk pages, and I think that would be a much less contentious way of dealing with the problem.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not only my opinion, but several others' opinions that it should be a maintenance tag at the top of the article. The bot was approved to tag and maintain that tag on the top of an article. It's the best way to get the blacklist issues solved. Since the bot started tagging, over 1500 pages no longer contain blacklisted links. Very few of them actually involved removing the link. People are making an effort to whitelist the link, not only because a bot is tagging the page and want the tag gone, but because it's THE permanent solution to resolving the link being blacklisted.

It sounds all agree on every change save #5, so barring any objections can we ask an admin to implement the others? The edit warring question probably can't be resolved here. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The bot seems to be ignoring the nobots tag in any case ([5]), so it's a moot point.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

After the discussion below is the agreed upon changes to the template as rendered below. Click on the edit link to see the source for the file. The documentation bit has been removed from this rendering for obvious reasons.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. I also set up some test cases. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've just fully protected this as a high-risk template. I did not intend for the protection to be an endorsement the current version though. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not helpful. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's standard practice. Edits should be requested on the talk page for highly-visible templates.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be a great target for vandals. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind unprotecting? Cyberpower678 (the page creator) and I got into a minor (1RR or 2RR) situation and are now constructively discussing it on the page. I will not make further controversial edits without discussing, and there's no sign right now of any vandalism, etc. So I believe, unnecessary. But thanks for the attention here! - Wikidemon (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

He didn't protect because of our dispute. He protected because it's standard practice to fully protect templates with >1000 transclusions.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 11:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's fair. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal regarding the bot that uses this template

Hello For any interested editors, I have opened a discussion suggesting some changes about the operation of this bot and template at WT:RFBA. Please join in if you wish.--Slp1 (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I would like it's name to be changed, why do we need black and white lists? This operates to refer that their is a light and dark side to what is happening. I clicked on the link and didn't see a problem, for those of us who want to read more it has more. I prefer freedom of information and to choose for myself thanks!