User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:XLinkBot

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newslinger (talk | contribs) at 07:56, 7 January 2021 (→‎howtodiscuss.com: Added to Blacklist using SBHandler). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Protected User:XLinkBot/RevertList has been protected so that only administrators may edit it due to its high sensitivity.
    To request a change to it, please list a request here.

    User:XLinkBot/RevertList is meant to be used by User:XLinkBot. Unlike the meta spam blacklist and the local spam-blacklist, the revertlist does not disable the use of a link, but its addition gets reverted if there is significant inappropriate use (by unestablished editors). Any administrator may edit the RevertList and the accompanied override and lock-lists (User:XLinkBot/OverrideList, User:XLinkBot/HardOverrideList, User:XLinkBot/UserLocks, User:XLinkBot/PageLocks.

    Related pages:
    Local blacklist (Talk)
    Local whitelist (Talk)
    Global blacklist (Talk))

    Archives:
    Local Blacklist
    Local Whitelist
    Global Blacklist
    XLinkBot RevertList

    Logs:
    Local Blacklist
    Local Whitelist
    Global Blacklist
    XLinkBot RevertList

    Shortcuts:
    WT:RLIST

    Dealing with requests
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks
    1. User:XLinkBot generally reverts only new users (users who created an account less than 7 days ago), and IP-users, hence, users which are generally not familiar with our Policies and guidelines. This can be altered by the settings and override and lock lists.
    2. Does the link generally get used in an inappropriate way by unestablished users, but does it not qualify for the meta spam blacklist or the local spam-blacklist since there are documents on the same server that should/could be used as an external link or reference?
    3. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regex — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    4. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    5. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number - 998843988 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

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

    Completed requests are archived. All additions and removals are also logged.

    →snippet for logging RevertList requests: {{/request|998843988#section_name}}
    →snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|998843988#section_name}}
    Indicators
    Request completed:
     Done
     Stale
    Request declined:
    no Declined
     Not done
     Defer to WPSPAM
     Defer to Local blacklist
    Information:
     Additional information needed
    information Note:


    Proposed additions


    Famousbirthdays.com

    Unreliable source commonly added by inexperienced editors in mostly new articles. Having XLinkBot monitor it would help not only these new editors, but any editors working with them that are unaware of the status of famousbirthdays.com. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick status update: I'm still not seeing any spamming, just a addition every day or so in new biographies written by new or inexperienced editors. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. No spamming. Multiple additions per day from editors, including rather experienced editors.
    Automatic removal of it being added by ip's would be helpful.
    Automatic notification to editors using it would be helpful.
    Automatic removal and notification when from new editors would be extremely helpful. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Already done by JzG in Special:Diff/860601688. — Newslinger talk 02:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    pbctimes.com

    This website was spammed onto Eid al-Adha and Islamic Society of Central New York, most likely by the same person who seems to be hopping accounts/IPs. Content-wise, it is inferior to anything Wikipedia has to offer and I would also not regard this as a reliable source. In other words, I do not see any use for a link to this website in "External links" or "References". Below is a list of dates and relevant diffs.

    --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    travelagencies.online

    The link was inserted here by 24.91.172.79 (talk · contribs). It is a malware link. I reverted the edit here. Tactical Fiend (talk · contribs) asked at Talk:The Global Work & Travel Co.#Malware link whether the link can be banned. Cunard (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Stale. It looks like the travelagencies.online domain is now parked and unused. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    niniland-shop.com

    hurfordwholesale.com.au

    hurfordwholesale.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

    Inserted spam link here. It seems unlikely this domain would ever be suitable as a WP:RS, or that the company behind it would ever meet WP:GNG. As such, any usage of this domain on Wikipedia is likely to be spammy. Zazpot (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    hurfordflooring.com.au

    hurfordflooring.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

    Inserted spam link here. It seems unlikely this domain would ever be suitable as a WP:RS, or that the company behind it would ever meet WP:GNG. As such, any usage of this domain on Wikipedia is likely to be spammy. Zazpot (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    electricalsdinesh.blogspot.com

    Spammed on electrical engineering and some other articles. IP address in the same range added a similar spam link in June, which was reverted by XLinkBot [1]. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    eidulfitrquotes.com

    eidulfitrquotes.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 An IP-hopping (mobile?) anonymous user keeps changing external links in Eid al-Adha to various subpages of eidulfitrquotes.com. Diffs:

    I believe WP:ELNO#11 ("Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites") is applicable, so please add the base website to the revert list. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    home.blog

    home.blog: 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

    As a blogging platform the vast majority of usages clearly fail our basic reliability guidelines and links to this domain have been occasionally added as self-citing or advocacy spam (a recent example is TomSmithNP for genesistorevelation.home.blog in June 2019). There are a few usages that may be borderline-useable though (such as primary blog info or expert opinion). To limit spam and erroneous good-faith usages, I suggest to add the domain to XLinkBot. GermanJoe (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently deprecated sources (as of November 2019)

    HispanTV (RfC), LifeSiteNews (RfC), MintPress News (RfC), and Taki's Magazine (RfC) were deprecated in recently closed RfCs on the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm requesting the addition of these 4 5 domains to User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 01:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded. Also, thesun.co.uk: 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 (WP:RSP#The_Sun) please - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Never mind me, it's already on the list! - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @XLinkBot/RevertList: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @XLinkBot/RevertList: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Beetstra! I think the script picked up thesun.co.uk again, so it might be good to remove the duplicate entries. — Newslinger talk 21:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Newslinger, hmm .. that's fine, I'll do some cleanup at some point. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Regional editions of The Sun

    A recent noticeboard discussion and project page discussion showed consensus for treating regional editions of The Sun (RSP entry) similarly to the main UK edition. Since the UK edition (thesun.co.uk) is already listed, I'm requesting the addition of these two domains to User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 11:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Newslinger: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newslinger: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    thegatewaypundit.com

    The Gateway Pundit was recently deprecated in a noticeboard RfC. I'm requesting the addition of the associated domain to User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 11:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @XLinkBot/RevertList: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @XLinkBot/RevertList: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    newsoftheworld.com, newsoftheworld.co.uk

    Per a noticeboard RFC that I recently closed. It's also worth noting that some editors consider the source usable for film reviews. ToThAc (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @ToThAc: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToThAc: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    thepavementlightcompany.com

    Links within this domain are being spammed to Pavement light (and have been spammed to some other pages) by a narrowish range of IPs, I assume just one person. The person says that they are a manufacturer of pavement lights, and that they are linking to their own website. They claim that they wrote most of the article text[2] (they didn't; I and another registered editor did, although they did copy a small section of text from their website). They call other editors "competitors"[3] and they have removed links to useful information on the sites of competing firms.[4]. While they have been particularly bad in the past six months (possibly because an inexperienced editor initially tried to revert them manually, accidentally overlooking and leaving some of their spam in the article), this problem started two years ago,[5] at which time I warned them.[6] They then apparently created an account and repeated the edits, adding the link to several other articles as well;[7] and I warned the account,[8] and they abandoned the account without responding.[9] Since then, they seem to have returned to IP editing, and two other people have warned them for COI[10] and promotional editing.[11] No response, no effect.[12] I'm not sure if a listing here is the best remedy; please advise. HLHJ (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi HLHJ, since I don't see any valid use case for this domain on Wikipedia, I would recommend requesting the addition of this domain to the spam blacklist. You can submit the request at WP:SBL. XLinkBot's auto-revert lists are best for domains that have some valid use cases on Wikipedia, but are frequently linked to or cited inappropriately. — Newslinger talk 02:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did actually link to it myself once, before this all began, as I recall, for what it said about London regs. I've just belatedly found the industry-specific news article that the spammed page seems to be cribbed from. I've replaced the source in the article and will now request spam blacklisting. Thank you. HLHJ (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    theepochtimes.com

    Per another noticeboard RFC that I recently closed. ToThAc (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging Beetstra to draw their attention here. ToThAc (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToThAc: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToThAc: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    vgchartz.com

    Per an old RfC that I started, and per Newslinger's suggestion. Pinging Beetstra to draw their attention here. ToThAc (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @ToThAc and Newslinger: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToThAc: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    oann.com

    Per a recently closed RfC started by ZiaLater. Pinging Beetstra to draw their attention here. ToThAc (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @ToThAc: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 02:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToThAc: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 02:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Fandom

    The active noticeboard discussion, as well as the 5 previous noticeboard discussions, show strong consensus that Fandom is to be avoided for references, as it is an open wiki that exclusively hosts user-generated content. I'm adding these domains to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, but not to User:XLinkBot/RevertList to allow for the appropriate use of external links, e.g. Memory Alpha in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine § External links. — Newslinger talk 01:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --— Newslinger talk 01:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Celebrity blogs

    Two celebrity blogs/gossip sites that have been recently used as references for BLP information by unexperienced and COI editors, just cleaned up ca. 20 of such links. Neither of them have been technically spammed (yet), but their usage should be clearly discouraged. GermanJoe (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    thegrayzone.com

    Deprecated in a recent RfC at WP:RSN § RfC: Grayzone. — Newslinger talk 03:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 03:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 03:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    believersportal.com

    Little more than an anonymous evangelical blog, routinely misused as reference in biographical articles by COI-editors and SPAs. GermanJoe (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @GermanJoe: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --GermanJoe (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    shanayascollections.blogspot.com

    Being spammed by multiple new/single-purpose users: see these diffs:

    [13]
    [14]
    [15]
    [16]

    There may be more already but these are the ones from pages on my watchlist. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Shreevatsa: no Declined, blogspot is already reverted, no need for the specific links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Red X Blocked. I've blocked the sockpuppet ring that spammed the links. — Newslinger talk 09:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    urbandictionary.com

    Consensus to discourage citations at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293 § Urban Dictionary. — Newslinger talk 08:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList as \burbandictionary\.com\b, replacing urbandictionary\.com/image/large/poo-28215\.jpg. — Newslinger talk 08:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 08:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    rt.com

    Deprecated in WP:RSN § RfC: RT (Russia Today). — Newslinger talk 13:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 13:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 13:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Peerage websites

    Deprecated in WP:RSN § RfC: Three genealogy sites. — Newslinger talk 01:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 01:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 01:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    August 2020 peerage websites

    Deprecated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297 § More nobility fansites. — Newslinger talk 10:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 11:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    sputniknews.com

    Deprecated in a recently closed RfC. starship.paint (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    voltairenet.org

    The Voltaire Network was deprecated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297 § voltairenet.org. — Newslinger talk 04:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 04:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 04:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    y-axis.com

    Visa consultancy website, which we'd have no reason to use as a source. Spam links are being added to articles as references. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cordless Larry: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Since there is no valid use case for this domain, I've blacklisted it entirely. Thanks for reporting this. — Newslinger talk 09:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge was deprecated in WP:RSN § RfC: Zero Hedge. — Newslinger talk 16:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 16:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 16:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    newsbreak.com

    News Break was deprecated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301 § News Break. — Newslinger talk 17:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 17:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 17:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FrontPage Magazine

    FrontPage Magazine was deprecated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301 § RFC: FrontPage Magazine. — Newslinger talk 17:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 17:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 17:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Baidu Baike

    Baidu Baike was deprecated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 305 § RfC: Baidu Baike. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hemiauchenia: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hemiauchenia: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Global Times

    Global Times, a Chinese propaganda newspaper, was deprecated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Global Times by nearly unanimous consensus. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anachronist: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. --~Anachronist (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anachronist: plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. --~Anachronist (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    cgtn.com

    China Global Television Network was deprecated in WP:RSN § RFC: China Global Television Network. — Newslinger talk 12:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 12:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 12:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    dailystar.co.uk

    The Daily Star (United Kingdom) was deprecated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311 § RFC: Daily Star. — Newslinger talk 00:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 00:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 00:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    angelfire.com

    Self-published website hosting service. Already on the RevertList. One of the sites was deprecated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297 § More nobility fansites, and the entire domain is subject to similar concerns. — Newslinger talk 11:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 11:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    wanweibaike.com

    A (censored) Wikipedia mirror from China. In-site search indicate a number of article is now trying to use this as a reference despite the site being a Wikipedia mirror. Since the first use of such site three days ago it've been added to Wikipedia as source at a pace of more the one link per day. C933103 (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    C933103, I only see this being added by one editor, and the links are still there as far as I see. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    mailonsunday.co.uk

    The Mail on Sunday was deprecated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318 § Can we please adapt the Daily Mail consensus to reflect a position on Mail on Sunday?. — Newslinger talk 15:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 15:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 15:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Newsmax

    Newsmax was deprecated in WP:RSN § Newsmax. — Newslinger talk 15:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList. — Newslinger talk 15:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. — Newslinger talk 15:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    howtodiscuss.com

    This site appears to be a blogging platform which hosts user-generated content. I can see no realistic likelihood of it being used as a reliable source. One particular page on the site is being repeatedly (and ineptly) spammed into bed-related articles by a mixture of IPs and throwaway accounts: e.g. on Murphy bed [17], [18], [19], [20], Daybed [21], [22], Sofa bed [23], Trundle bed [24], etc. The problem could probably also be solved by a mixture of rangeblocks and page protection, but this seems like a cleaner solution. Wham2001 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wham2001: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, since this is more likely to be a coordinated spam campaign than a case of different individuals inadvertently linking the website. Thanks for reporting this. — Newslinger talk 07:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    thequietus.com

    It appears that this rule was added in response to edits by 2 IPs 12 years ago (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/thequietus.com). From what I can tell, The Quietus is a reputable publication; I personally (whilst not affected by the block, and whilst understanding that links within references are not reverted) have found some excellent material there for use in articles such as Bill Drummond and Welcome to the Dark Ages. --kingboyk (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing this out, Kingboyk. Since The Quietus is listed as a generally reliable source in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, and there is no evidence that the site has recently been spammed, I've removed \bthequietus\.com\b from the RevertList. — Newslinger talk 00:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    Archives

    Searchable archive

    Please use the archive template found on most/all noticeboards, which has the nice benefit of being searchable. Belorn (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    XLinkBot logging

    By clicking the history date and time (in red) will yield the oldid# (ie. permalink) version;

    (cur) (last) 15:09, 8 February 2008 Hu12 (Talk | contribs | block) (4,241 bytes) (→XLinkBot logging: What is "correct oldid"?)

    (cur) (last) 15:06, 8 February 2008 Hu12 (Talk | contribs | block) (4,242 bytes) (→XLinkBot logging: new section)
    (cur) (last) 14:46, 8 February 2008 Hu12 (Talk | contribs | block) (3,239 bytes) (archive old)
    (cur) (last) 13:56, 8 February 2008 Hu12 (Talk | contribs | block) (12,624 bytes) (→Archives)

    (cur) (last) 13:56, 8 February 2008 Hu12 (Talk | contribs | block) (12,595 bytes) (→Discussion: created arch)(undo)

    Url will read == http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList&oldid=189965941


    Insert 189965941# & section name:

    {{/request|189965941#XLinkBot_ logging}}

    --Hu12 (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Entries with no log entry and no discussion

    Went here to find what argument/reasoning there was behind the entry of .onion, but sadly, neither a discussion or a log entry seems to exist. This also makes it half impossible to see who added it (only option is going through the history and narrow down the edit). For transparency, would it not be good if discussion + log entry was an requirement and not just an suggestion when new entries are added? Belorn (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Curious, there should be log entries for everything (at the very, very least who added it so you can ask). I'll have a look if I can find that.
    Regarding .onion - I think I added that at some point; .onion sites fail important parts of our guidelines, namely that they are not accessible by everyone, they need a special piece of software installed. Moreover, they were at some point inappropriately pushed to certain pages, and some of them are unquestionably questionable in nature (hey, CNN is not going to be behind a tor-site ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indeed added it during this discussion: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March_2011#Hidden_wiki - it was at that time removed over and over, and only added by hit-and-run IPs. I hope this explains. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. For those that are used to scripting, it might be useful to search through the current list and see if there are others without an log entry. Anyway, back to the subject of .onion, I was wondering if other sites beyond the hidden wiki site had been used in a unappropriated manner. Are there any method to see how many times xlinkbot reverted on a particular rule? COIBot link report is nice, but last entry is 2010. (just to mention, this is not an request for removal. I want to figure out how the situation looks before making up my mind). Again, thanks for a quick response and fixed log entry. Belorn (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The XLinkBot logs are just his reverts, I don't keep any other logs (except system logs, which I wipe if 'nothing has gone wrong' (technically wrong)). The database from COIBot is 'new', it restarted beginning of this year, the old data is gone (I had to change server). So there will not be much there. Something may come out of 'user talkpages which have a .onion domain linked on them' (XLinkBot leaves the reverted link in a warning, mainly for tracking purposes): Special:LinkSearch/*.onion (though that misses the '.onion.to' which was pushed.
    For .onion, I remain that it fails WP:EL, but not bad enough for a blacklist (though, just about ..). XLinkBot only reverts new editors, and IPs. And XLinkBot will not revert on a undo-type action by the same editor (other editors may however revert again). So it does not exclude links, it just warns that the link that was added is generally unsuitable as an external link and reverts the edit once. Also, it ignores older editors so they can be inserted by them without the bot worrying them. So if an IP gets reverted twice by the bot on the same page, that must mean that at least the editor added the link 3 times, and that it was once reverted by the bot and once by a human editor. It is then almost sure that it is not properly discussed on the talkpage. The bot will of course revert every addition if they are to different pages, but by the time that an editor on .onion comes then to three warnings in a short time, it certainly looks like he is spamming the link.
    What I am worried about, is that you don't know what is behind .onion. Surely there is good material there, but the encoded link does not show you what you are linked to. It is in a way a redirect site, and the code can very well point to child porn, as well as to pictures of rose fields. In that way, the risk is the same as linking to flickr images (which are also on the revertlist). I think therefore that it is fair to have it on the revertlist, so that the user adding it is warned, and that it is also brought to the attention of other editors, and to the attention of recent edit patrollers. Quite some are linked in mainspace, which does suggest that consensus has pointed that way (even when I can find editors who have been reverted for adding the .onion links, some have also been blocked after one addition, which suggests that that addition was abusive). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I have meta-blacklisted the .onion.to, which is not the official site, but a redirect to it (or better, a link to a portal for it). I first blacklisted '.onion', but I reverted that just now). If anything there should be linked, it is the .onion, and I suggest that an established editor does that (maybe after discussion, since at the moment there is a tag that the site should not be linked). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont know if one need to worry that much about the url encoding. All url's has the ability to link to child porn as well as to pictures of rose fields. An URL is only meant to provide a method of human memorization, where a string of numbers are harder to memorize. Redirect site on other hand is a different matter, since it proxy for the request. Its the difference between a address written in a foreign language which one can not read, and getting directions from a English guide. In theory, both could lead one to the wrong place, as the person following either the sign or the guide has no power to "know" if the place is safe. Thus in the end, all one can do is to memorize and associate a bad address with a bad experience, like one can do with the hidden wiki. Anyway, my goal was to find out the reason why, and what events if any caused of the listing. I am still not sure if there has been any other site than the hidden wiki which has caused problems, so please see this as a small request for a feature in xlinkbot that provides data on problematic domains :). Given that the hidden wiki has been spammed by IP's, (but not often, say 3-5 times in the last 3 years if my memory serves me right), a revert entry to resolve that issue sound appropriate. Its a bit broad for my taste, but it does resolve the issue at hand, and one can always narrow the definition in the future if needed. Belorn (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList&oldid=998843988"