Misplaced Pages

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:42, 5 December 2007 editJéské Couriano (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers40,080 edits →freelancer: Why?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:26, 23 December 2024 edit undoOhnoitsjamie (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators260,835 edits added 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Redirect|Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklist|a description of the spam blacklist|Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist|instructions on administering the spam blacklist|Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Spam-blacklist header}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
<!-- {{adminbacklog}} -->
| style="vertical-align: top; padding:3px 7px"| ]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| '''MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist''' is a page in the ], which only ] may edit.<br/>To request a change to it, please follow the directions at ].
| algo = old(30d)
|}
| archive = MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/%(monthname)s %(year)d
{{shortcut|WP:SBL}}
| archiveheader = {{archive}}
}}


=Proposed additions=
] is meant to be used by the ]. Unlike the ], this blacklist only affects pages on the English Misplaced Pages. Any ] may edit the spam blacklist. Any ] may use ], another method to prevent the addition of spam links. However $wgSpamRegex should rarely be used.
{{Spam-blacklist proposed additions}}


<!-- new addition requests go at the bottom of this section -->
See ] for more information about the spam blacklist.


==stefitalman.info==
== Dealing with requests here ==
*{{Link summary|stefitalman.info}}: Repeating attempts to replace the official URL stefitalman.ch for ] eg. ] by ].
<center>'''Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks'''</center>
** Chain of verification that stefitalman.ch is official:
# Does the site have any validity to the project?
**# "Tourist information" links to http://www.zuerich.com/
# Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Is there a ], if so a permanent links would be helpful
**# https://www.zuerich.com/en/visit/shopping/stefi-talman "Website" links to https://www.stefitalman.ch/
# 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'''.
** Why I think stefitalman.info is suspicious:
# Close the request entry on here using either {{tl|done}} or {{tl|not done}} as appropriate. Request should be left for a week maybe as there will often be further relatede sites or an appeal in that time.
**# promotes vivacrocs.com. gives their address "30 N Gould St Ste N, Sheridan, WY", which is the infamous rental address ] (will redirect to ]).
# '''Log the entry'''. <font color=red><big>'''Warning'''</big></font color> '''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 - {{REVISIONID}} '''after''' you have closed the request. See ] for more info on logging.
**# vivacrocs.com is not mentioned nor linked in stefitalman.ch ().
Those interested in contributing to this page may find it helpful to watchlist ] or create their own if they want to watch other pages as well. It effectively watches threads rather than pages.
**# There are other linkspam from ] such as ].
** Should blacklist it globally, as other wikis were also target, such as ] by ] in ], ] by ] in ].
* {{Link summary|vivacrocs.com}}: A wikidata entry ] was ] by ], with a claimed connection with Stefi Talman. I suspect their plan is to use this as a springboard to promote VivaCrocs in Misplaced Pages.
--] (]) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:: Same as ], both domains added to the global blacklist. - ] (]) 16:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)


:{{rto|Wotheina}} Handled on meta. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 21:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. they are '']'', ''']''', '']'', and '']''. Each section will have a message box explaining them. In addition, please '''sign your posts''' with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> after your comment.


==s.mcd-menu.org==
Requests which have been completed are ]. All additions and removals will be ].
{{link summary|s.mcd-menu.org}}


{{user summary|Royox321}}
<small style="color:gray;" id="oldid">snippet for ]: <nowiki>{{/request|</nowiki>{{REVISIONID}}<nowiki>#section_name}}</nowiki></small>


] to spam this link all over a certain article ]<sup>]</sup> 17:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
=Proposed additions=
{{notice|Please add new entries to the '''bottom''' of this section. Please only use the basic URL ('''google.com''' not http://www.google.com). '''Please provide diffs to prove that there has been spamming!''' Completed requests should be marked with {{tl|Done}} or {{tl|Notdone}} then ].}}


== mesothelioma.pl == ==xtremediesel.com==
*{{link summary|xtremediesel.com}}
Multiple anon IP linkspamming of common mesothelioma targets. --] 15:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
*{{user summary|Diesel60}}
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mesothelioma&diff=prev&oldid=174838764
*{{user summary|DieselTech2}}
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mesothelioma&diff=prev&oldid=174586271
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mesothelioma&diff=prev&oldid=174495933


Refspamming to an online truck parts & accessories retailer. (, , , ) The DieselTech2 account was created less than two hours after the Diesel60 account was warned for spamming. --] (]) 21:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Asbestos&diff=prev&oldid=174511160


* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lung_cancer&diff=prev&oldid=174587106 :Noting here that DieselTech2 tried to blank this report: - ] (]) 23:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::I added new information to the above pages and links to legitimate pages and it was removed for no reason? Sorry I won't try and contribute any information to improve the quality of the pages. ] (]) 23:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks, warnings have been issued and it appears to have stopped. I'd block next, cheers --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 09:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
:::No, you didn't. You linked to a that advertises parts/accessories and tried to pass it off as a legitimate reference. That is spamming, period. --] (]) 22:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::It escalated! Now done on Meta --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 09:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I was under the impression I had to cite a source or list a reference. You could have left the information and removed the links if they were not acceptable. There is plenty of information about those specific engines at the bottom of the page.
::::Also there are other links on that same page that go to online retailers, so it seemed like it would be an acceptable reference. ] (]) 13:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::You do have to cite a source or list a reference - one that meets Misplaced Pages's ]. That is not an opportunity to repetitively add links to your own site. If you have noticed other problem links, they should be replaced with reliable sources - not used as justification to make the problem worse by adding more spam. ] (]) 14:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I added some information and links around a month ago. I was checking out another page the other day and simply noticed it did not list the transmissions that were offered with that engine, so I added the transmission types that were offered and a link for reference. I thought that information might be helpful to some readers.
::::::Can you tell me why these are not permitted as links/references? Just so I know for future reference?
::::::xtremediesel.com/blog/2021/09/01/what-is-a-cp4-pump-and-why-does-it-fail/
::::::xtremediesel.com/blog/2021/12/22/2003-2007-ford-6-0l-powerstroke-buyers-guide/ ] (]) 04:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::: ] like yours don't meet ] guidelines. Your site is already blacklisted, so for future reference you'll need to find somewhere else to promote it. <b>] ]</b> 15:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I wasn't looking to promote anything. There is a lot of incorrect or missing information and I thought I would help improve the quality of the content on here, but it is no longer worth the effort. On the Duramax page it says the cylinder heads were made from "an experimental composite design cylinder head". I changed it to Aluminum and added the first source that came up on google. I didn't know blogs were prohibited since there are others listed on here. ] (]) 22:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
: {{Added}} , yer out. <b>] ]</b> 22:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


== thenettimes.com == ==messagegirls.pp.ua==
* {{LinkSummary|messagegirls.pp.ua}}
* {{LinkSummary|frnctry.pp.ua}}
Links to this domain were added by various accounts including IPs and registered accounts here and on sister sites. ] 13:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


:frnctry.pp.ua is also frequently added to articles by this spam farm. ] 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Links added from multiple IPs and single- or low-edit accounts.
* {{vandal|172.132.212.55}} at
* {{vandal|172.162.160.152}} at
* {{vandal|172.130.5.206}} at
* {{vandal|Booya2324}} at
* {{vandal|Baylorbearcolbert2}} at
* {{vandal|Dragonforce322}} at


:{{Defermetablack}}, cross-wiki problem. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
and many more. ] 21:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


==radarchronicle.com and theblazetimes.in==
:Agreed that this one is an issue. Was it all on the 21st? I'm inclined to see if they try again, in which case I'd list it straight away I think but it is possible that they have got the message? Cheers --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 12:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
*{{LinkSummary|radarchronicle.com}}
*{{LinkSummary|TheBlazeTimes.in}}


*{{IP user|2403:a080:c04:4e13:c169:cafd:dcee:5b29}}
Given no further info/spamming I'll close this as {{not done}}, we can always return to it --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
*{{User Summary|Ajmal V Mohammed}}
*{{User Summary|AERCTANGE}}


These are both "news" website being pushed by a spammer, probably also related to ]. ''']''' (]) 17:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
==silanis.com==
Please see ] to see why I propose the blacklisting of silanis.com. --] (]) 18:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


:{{Added}} to ]. --<b>] ]</b> 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::<u>See also</u> - <br>
::This is getting some cross-wiki spam and , looking at ha, hi and somewhat on simple en. Would it make sense to see about adding this to the global blocklist? ''']''' (]) 03:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::<u>See also</u> - <br>
:::Definitely. Don’t hesitate to report if you want to. ] (]) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Working on that now. Request created. ''']''' (]) 04:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


==ipcb.com==
*{{Link summary|ipcb.com}}
*This is a commercial website for a supplier of printed circuit boards (PCBs). There is nothing wrong with the site. There have been numerous attempts to insert links into articles related to PCBs. All attempts have been reverted. My apologies if this is not an appropriate request. ] (]) 19:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{Added}} to blacklist. <b>] ]</b> 19:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


Agreed & {{done}}. Make sure to remove the http:// portion on talk pages where the urls are located, do this for both www.esignrecords.org and www.silanis.com. Archiving bots won't be able to properly archive if it remains hyperlinked. Thanks--] (]) 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


==Goldbroker==
== megadry.com, excessivesweating-treatment.com ==
;Link
*{{Link summary|goldbroker.com}}
Long term spamming, see . Recent activity . Please blacklist.-] (]) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{rto|KH-1}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 05:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Added to many articles by ], and continued to this day by various anons.


==advocatenarendersingh==
'''Diffs (most recent edits, in most cases):'''
;Link
* Whynotthestars
*{{Link summary|advocatenarendersingh.com}}
** http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Diaphoresis&diff=prev&oldid=174569099
Long term spamming, see . Recent activity . Please blacklist.-] (]) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
** http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ionotophoresis&diff=prev&oldid=174569353
** http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Perspiration&diff=prev&oldid=174569236
** http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Endoscopic_thoracic_sympathectomy&diff=prev&oldid=174569530
** http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sleep_hyperhidrosis&diff=prev&oldid=174569608
** http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Deodorant&diff=prev&oldid=174569830
** http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Compensatory_hyperhidrosis&diff=next&oldid=174407499
* Anons
** http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hyperhidrosis&diff=174573353&oldid=174522114
** http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hyperhidrosis&diff=174652191&oldid=174629140
** http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hyperhidrosis&diff=174839223&oldid=174828998
<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:30, 30 Nov 2007</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 -->
:I think we should watch this one. The anons and the user have had final spam warnings and seemed to have stopped. I'd probably try a block next - thanks --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 09:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


:@] {{added}}. I also ran a CU and blocked all the recent accounts. ] &#124; ] 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
==sikhzone.net dhangurunanak.com cyarena.com==
*{{spamlink|sikhzone.net}}
*{{spamlink|dhangurunanak.com}}
*{{spamlink|cyarena.com}}


==Multiple links==
Persistent dynamic IP spam (latest two incidents: ). Continuing to spam despite warnings. See also ]. ] 12:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
* {{Link summary|datingagency.com.hk}}
* {{Link summary|datingapp.com.hk}}
* {{Link summary|pettravel.hk}}


:{{done}} thanks --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 12:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Commercial spam. These domain has already blacklisted on Chinese Misplaced Pages. --]]] 12:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{a note}} {{added}} to the global blacklist. - ] (]) 00:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
==itsleaked.blogspot.com/==
persistant spammer seems to go around claiming to have false album/video game links as an attempt to scam people. Previous incarnations of the page included instructions to dload a google program and click the ad banners on his site. ] 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:See ] below. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah - good catch & {{done}}, thanks --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 09:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


==playturks.com/== ==msnmag.co.uk==
* {{link summary|msnmag.co.uk}}
Repeatedly spammed on ] related articles by ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
* {{User summary|Msnmag}}
* {{IP summary|103.12.120.29}}
* {{IP summary|103.12.120.55}}
* {{IP summary|103.12.120.238}}
* {{IP summary|103.12.122.1}}
* {{IP summary|103.12.122.102}}
* {{IP summary|103.12.122.197}}


:{{done}} ]] 07:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Persistent spamming by multiple IPs. ] (]) 20:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{Added}} to blacklist (and blocked the /22 range for good measure). <b>] ]</b> 20:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


==maxmytest.com== ==usdolly.rocks==
*{{spamlink|maxmytest.com}} * {{Link summary|usdolly.rocks}}
*{{Link summary|pentasmoulding.com}}
Persistent spamming to ] and similar subjects from multiple IPs.
* {{User summary|Mojakabira}}
*, , ,, <b>] ]</b> 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


I think that user ] is trying to promote their own website and cryptocurrency by vandalizing the following page: ].
:Yep, {{done}} & thanks --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
They have created a new subsection and posted about this cryptocurrency and a link to the website.
Website is just 34 days old and owner/admin of the website has the same username: https://usdolly.rocks/index.php/author/mojakabira/
Thank you.
] (]) 22:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{Defermetablack}}, cross-wiki problem. I've blocked the user in en. <b>] ]</b> 14:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think ] article additions were legitimate and pentasmoulding.com is just a regular website, the page linked in the article mentions Ten Cate Sports a lot.
::But I don't know much about windsurfing though. ] (]) 21:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


==Indonesian lottery==
=Proposed removals=
* {{Link summary|primatama.id}}
{{notice|Use this section to request that a URL be ''unlisted''. Please add new entries to the '''bottom''' of this section. You should show where the link can be useful and give arguments as to why it should be unlisted. Completed requests should be marked with {{tl|Done}} or {{tl|Notdone}} then ].}}
* {{Link summary|parfumindonesia.id}}
* {{User summary|Juliatoto123456}}
* {{User summary|Lunatartoto1234}}


These two new accounts are clearly the same person, creating sandboxes (]) (]) in identical styles. Both lead to different sites, but clearly by the same original author/company. There's nothing on them that would be useful for us to link to.
== sikhzone.net Unlist Request ==


But… since these are two different sites, they don't ''strictly'' come under our rules for blacklisting – ie, multiple links to the same site. So I could be in entirely the wrong place, and if so, please suggest a board that might be interested in this (if there is one!). It's probably not worth an SSI since they're just sandboxes and not actually mainspace spamming. ] (]) 14:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The link sikhzone.net/guru_nanak.php that i added to external links section of ] provides detailed information about Guru Nanak Dev, and it was added so that users can get more detailed information about Guru Nanak Dev..but it was removed.
: Seems to be confined to these two accounts, which are both now blocked. I'll leave this open for a bit to see if they continue. I'm hesitant to blacklist links for one or two instances of spamming (but three strikes and yer out!). <b>] ]</b> 15:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Also my domain sikhzone.net has been added to spam list...The link i added was really useful for detailed information about Guru Nanak Dev.
I kindly request you to remove my domain sikhzone.net from spam list and allow to add the specified link.
--] 12:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


::*{{User summary|Kukriw}}
:Note: the original WikiProject Spam entry has been updated with new information since this domain was blacklisted. See:
::*{{Link summary|sintuk.id}}
:*] <small>(permanent )</small>
::*{{Link summary|bkkkotasemarang.com}}
:--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


::Same types of links to identical-looking sites from another new user. I suspect there must be dozens more – all to different URLs – being slipped in all the time. Not sure what we can do about it, mind. ] (]) 15:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== www.cais-soas.com - is this a bug? ==


== pakapepe.com ==
The site "Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies" looks like a typical academic site. I was looking for an article describing possible concepts shared between Zoroastrianism and ancient Judaism for a background sentence in a Zoroastrian section I just added to ], and the content generally matched my impression of at least one POV about what is generally believed (though I'm out of my field here). In short I see nothing even slightly spammy about the site. The local blacklist contains no string "cais" at all; the global blacklist includes only a site www.bcais-soas.com - I have no idea why my link is tripping the blacklist at all, actually, but perhaps there's some bug in the code that ignores an extra prefix character??? The message was ''"The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http:*/www.cais-soas.com"'' (no "b"). ] 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
* {{LinkSummary|pakapepe.com}}
:P.S. This site is currently linked to from ] and ]. ] 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
* {{IPSummary|103.48.161.203}}
* {{IPSummary|121.164.185.65}}
* {{IPSummary|217.178.163.161}}
* {{IPSummary|219.240.241.87}}
* {{IPSummary|222.101.185.56}}
Linkspam (with proxies) ] (]) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: {{Added}} to blacklist. <b>] ]</b> 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


=Proposed removals=
:found these;
{{Spam-blacklist proposed removals}}
*
*
:--] 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


==Remove themoviedb.org/tmdb.org==
::Thanks - I'm surprised those didn't turn up in my MediaWiki search. I see why there was concern about one user, but I still doubt the site should be blacklisted - I didn't see any indication that the user was evading blocks and continuing to "spam" Misplaced Pages; he sounds more like an overzealous (and perhaps legally incautious) editor than a spammer. And where copyright is concerned, I don't think the spam blacklist should be trying to act as a nanny filter for every potential copyright violation on the Web based on hearsay accusations. That's not its stated purpose and it's not a "necessary evil" for legal reasons either. We cannot possibly know where permission is given and where it isn't, and if the site actually is committing some kind of copyright violation the holder has quick recourse available to him that targets the site directly. I think Misplaced Pages probably would face a more serious risk of getting hit with libel accusations if we go around blocking people's websites based on accusations that they are copyright violators and plagiarists ''(especially from countries like England and Australia with ridiculously oversensitive laws)'' than copyright violation charges when we're supposedly protected by the DMCA. The most relevant argument detracting from the site is that it is no longer actually associated with the SOAS and therefore is a low-grade source - I suppose small groups of like-minded academics from a particular field straddle the boundary between what we count as a "self-published" source vs. a "primary" source. Bearing this in mind I won't say that substituting a better source is a ''bad'' idea, but I don't see reason to retract my request for removal from the blacklist either. And, I still don't understand why the blacklist even affects the link when the blacklist item has an extra "b" at the beginning. ] 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
* {{LinkSummary|themoviedb.org}}
* {{LinkSummary|tmdb.org}}


Request to remove themoviedb.org from Local Blacklist.
=Troubleshooting and problems=
{{notice|This section is to report problems with the blacklist. Old entries are ]}}


This is a widely used resource for information about movies and television, similar to imdb. Although not completely user contributed, like tvdb.com, it does rely on a lot of user contributions for metadata, images, posters, etc. From looking at the stuff I could find at the links provided, it appears that someone from the site (]) tried to add a link in the external section to a handful of pages (looks like about 10 or so) back in 2008.
=Discussion=
{{notice|This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are ]}}


Eight years later, in 2016, it looks like Travisbell attempted to have the blacklist removed, which was denied with the only explanation being that it was a misguided request. I'm not sure what that means and couldn't find anything on Misplaced Pages that defines misguided requests.
== archive script ==
Eagle 101 said he had one running on meta, is it possible to get it up and going here?--] 10:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
:Would be good - Eagle hasn't been working on Meta for a while though & I've not seen anything (there was supposed to be a logging script too!) --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


We are now in 2024, eight years after the removal request from 2016, and sixteen years since the original blacklist in 2008. The website is used by millions of people every day and due to the open nature of its data (kind of like Misplaced Pages), it is the primary source for multiple other sites that show movie or tv data. It has even been used as a data source for scientific research. One example is the article "Image-based Product Recommendation Method for E-commerce Applications Using Convolutional Neural Networks" at http://dx.doi.org/10.18267/j.aip.167.
==blogspot.com==
{{See also|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Time_for_blacklisting_blogspot.com.2C_with_whitelisting_of_specific_domains.3F}}


I can see no good reason to keep a site blacklisted that is so widely used because of a number of links posted when Misplaced Pages itself was only 7 years old.
I added countingcrowsnew.blogspot.com, freemodlife.blogspot.com, and googlepackdownload.blogspot.com to the blacklist. I made a about the blogspot sites and they're being spammed by the same blocked sockpuppet who I filed a report about . ] (]) 22:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 07:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Update: I've also added b5050-raffle.blogspot.com, gpd2008.blogspot.com, and itsleaked.blogspot.com. They were being spammed by the same blocked sock in that report. ] (]) 05:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
:I'm inclined to blacklist the domain then whitelist where needed but some heavy flak is likely to arrive? --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 08:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC) :{{deferwhite}} I don't imagine many (if any) cases where this site would be an appropriate ]; for those cases, whitelisting may be appropriate. <b>] ]</b> 11:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::Do we blacklist all sites that aren't an appropriate ]? We have multiple pages for sites that utilize the API provided by TMDB, but can't link to it because of one person's mistake 16 years ago? Its level of being an appropriate ] is equal to any other site listed under User-generated content on ]. Some examples:
::1. ]: linked to from at least 60,000 pages.
::2. ]: linked to from 945 pages.
::3. ]: linked to from 3,339 pages.
::What is it about tmdb.org that makes it less worthy of being allowed than those sites? Just trying to understand the rationale behind users jumping through hoops instead of admins removing roadblocks. ] (]) 00:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::It's ], so at best it's going to be an external link and as you've noted, we've already got IMDB as a good external link on many film / TV articles. This isn't going to add much beyond what's already there. ''']''' (]) 05:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Still trying to understand not removing the blacklist. I understand the question of tmdbs validity as ]. What I don't understand is the purpose in 2024 of tmbd.org being blacklisted?
::::<br>
::::Why are we limiting users to a single source for movie information. We allow both IMDB and thetvdb for TV shows, but for movies, it's IMDB or nothing. It almost seems like someone has a vested interest in keeping tmdb off of Misplaced Pages without any legitimate reason.
::::<br>
::::For a FOSS style system like Misplaced Pages, it seems antithetical to block sites essentially permanently over the actions of a single user? ] (]) 21:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not any 'single user', the site owner. And it wasn't a one time mistake - the archives of this page include a request where the site owner showed up to ask for it to be removed from the blacklist so he could resume promoting his site - so there is reason to think abuse would resume if it were possible technically. Once something ends up on the blacklist, the burden shifts - there should be a good reason to remove it. And in this case no such reason has been presented - it is not a usable ], and it is redundant with other options as an external link. ] (]) 22:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Firstly, it was a one time mistake. All edits were made on the same day and there were about 10. He came back after 8 years to see about getting it unblocked and even clarified his intent was not to spam links to the site, so I'm unsure where the "reason to think abuse would resume" comes from. During his request 8 years ago, you can see the rudeness of the responses he received were in fact so bad that another admin stepped in on his Talk page to apologize for the admin who was rude.
::::::The real issue I have with the burden shifting (which in general I agree with) is the fact that it was blacklisted with what appears to be zero warnings whatsoever. If you find the proposed addition from 2008, there is only the initial post with no responses or discussion and it was blacklisted. The entry right below it is for a site called crediblemusicreviews.com. This site had multiple IPs continually adding reviews to articles about albums that were assumed to be the same user. The admin who blacklisted TMDB (]) responded to that proposal with a very reasonable response saying:
::::::"Blacklisting is a big step and potentially carries implications off of Misplaced Pages. We like to see the user get several warnings before we blacklist. If that doesn't stop the person, then we're happy to blacklist."
::::::They followed up this statement saying that they had given those IPs final warnings.
::::::If the original site owner had received multiple warnings and still continued to spam the site, I wouldn't even be here, because I would recognize the reasoning behind the blacklist in the first place. However, in this case instead of giving warnings as I would expect, the site was blacklisted immediately.
::::::It appears to me that the original blacklisting is an example of ignoring the principle of ], seeing as there was no discussion or warning given. ] (]) 05:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't remember the specifics but it looks like ] ignored multiple requests and warnings:
:::::::*]
:::::::After that, an editor requested the domain he was spamming be blacklisted; that's when I blacklisted it. --<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 06:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Understood, I apologize for any pushiness on my part. I can tell you from a long time user, but only occasional contributor, that the vagaries of Misplaced Pages's processes and politics can feel like a bit of a black box. I just think it's a bit silly that because a user made mistakes (or even intentionally spammed, which I don't believe to be the case) '''<u>sixteen</u>''' years ago that a legitimate website (not some blog, or scam site) is still being blacklisted due to what essentially seems like red tape.
::::::::Seeing the extra warnings just adds another wrinkle to the issue to me. That means the user was warned after adding a link to maybe five pages. That hardly seems like a case of excessive spamming to me, especially in light of other similar sites being linked hundreds or tens of thousands of times. Linking to that sort of external site is obviously not, in and of itself, an issue.
::::::::Does Misplaced Pages have some sort of deal with IMDB and thetvdb or something? If not, why are they being given such preferential treatment? ] (]) 08:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Caveats: I was inactive for about a decade and gave up my admin privileges so I don’t remember any specifics and I don’t have any ability to add or delete sites from the blacklist or whitelist.
:::::::::The blacklist is primarily for controlling deliberate spam, not link quality.
:::::::::If someone ignores that many warnings, we blacklist the offending domain and usually any associated domains, even if the other domains haven’t been spammed yet. There’s no minimum number of spam links; we don’t wait until there are 50, 100 or 500. Waiting until there’s a lot of spam just makes more cleanup work for our volunteers.
:::::::::We have no deal with IMDb. IMDb is semi-officially considered an unreliable source and an unnecessary link but as you’ve seen, we have a bunch of those links. There’s the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which has a subpage (]) of major sites and editors’ assessment of their suitability as reliable sources.
:::::::::We have very particular standards for “reliable sources” that are unique to our mission. A site that we consider “unreliable” for our purposes may be great for everything else. Note that we officially consider our own site and other Wikimedia sites as unreliable sources because, like IMDb, our content is user-submitted with insufficient editorial oversight.
:::::::::Misplaced Pages’s administrators have their hands full just fighting off deliberate spamming, let alone the zillions of inappropriate links innocently added by regular editors. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 15:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Thank you for the clarifications.
::::::::::I think my confusion comes from the idea that "The blacklist is primarily for controlling deliberate spam, not link quality."
::::::::::This is the crux of my problem is that it seems like different admins have different ideas. Maybe a more solid set of rules around the blacklist would be beneficial. Almost every response I've received to removing the blacklist has been about link quality, not deliberate spam. The only evidence of deliberate spam happened sixteen years ago and there has only been one request to remove it in the intervening years. The idea that the users/creators of tmdb have just been waiting almost 2 decades for the opportunity to engage in deliberate spam is obviously ridiculous. With that in mind, it is understandable why the site was added, but not understandable why it can't be removed.
::::::::::I do understand and appreciate all of the work that the Misplaced Pages administrators do and do not envy the position that I'm sure they find themselves in regularly. ] (]) 03:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::It is '''added''' to the blacklist because of spamming (as it was in this case). Then link quality is a factor in subsequent removal or whitelist requests. ] (]) 13:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Azuravian, a way to help build the case for removal from blacklisting is to start requesting it to be whitelisted as a source. The issues around user-generated data are going to be relevant (see ]) and will represent a challenge to whitelisting. Essentially, aside from personal preference, why should a given link to this site be added to an article? ''']''' (]) 14:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Valid question and I think the answer (for me, anyway) is that there is no reason aside from personal preference. I'd say that this answer is the same as the answer I would expect someone to give for a TV series when determining whether to link to IMDB or thetvdb.com, or having a preference for both.
:::::::::::::Here is a sampling of pages for TV series that link to both IMDB and thetvdb.com:
:::::::::::::]
:::::::::::::]
:::::::::::::] ] (]) 05:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::because sometimes that is the only choice for some pieces of info and can be considered reliable enough? ] (]) 12:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::also, now that I remember how I got stuck into this, it was because I wanted to add a movie poster with a free image rationale that came from there. I couldn't link to it and had to find something else, even less good as a source. That was a clear exemple of when the ban hurts editing. ] (]) 13:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::@]Looking more into this. The WP:CITEIMDB says that using imdb for infos on movies is disputed but not banned. The majority of basic info (we are not talking about reviews here) are collectivelly gathered in both imdb or tmdb.
:::::::::::::Similarly to what ] was saying, why ban one and not the other? I don't see any logic on the preferential treatement that imdb gets. Tmdb seems to me like an equally respectable source.
:::::::::::::@] Oversight can be done collectivelly, Misplaced Pages *chooses* to not engage in personal research. There are many kind of reliable sources already in use on wikipedia, it's not like journalism is the only thing that we accept. ] (]) 19:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{outdent|12}} @] There is absolutely no requirement to have a working link to the source of a non-free file, the requirement is that you clearly state where you get it (which actually is from the producers of the poster, not from the site that posts it und a same non-free use rationale). Moreover, you could have requested whitelisting for that purpose (though also there we would have sent you to the original source of the file). ] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::You are absolutelly right, and I think I just didn't find it under a reliable producer website and had to use (from memory) another random site. ] (]) 16:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{tqb|text=@]Looking more into this. The WP:CITEIMDB says that using imdb for infos on movies is disputed but not banned. The majority of basic info (we are not talking about reviews here) are collectivelly gathered in both imdb or tmdb.<br>Similarly to what ] was saying, why ban one and not the other? I don't see any logic on the preferential treatement that imdb gets. Tmdb seems to me like an equally respectable source.<br>@] Oversight can be done collectivelly, Misplaced Pages *chooses* to not engage in personal research. There are many kind of reliable sources already in use on wikipedia, it's not like journalism is the only thing that we accept.|by=Cinemaandpolitics|ts=19:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)|id=c-Cinemaandpolitics-20241011193600-Ravensfire-20240925141400}}
::@] because tmdb was spammed with confessed site owner showing strongly that they intended continue to push for their links to be included over a long period of time. That narrative has not changed and is repeated (almost verbatim) in this thread by the current requester. In all these years there are no independent requests that this site is needed by editors who edit 'in the field', but there is a significant history of spam. Whitelisting specific links will do.
: ] <sup>] ]</sup> 04:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::I have no connection whatsoever with tmdb owners, I don't have an account there, and I was not even aware of this conflict before finding out the hard way. I do plan to edit more cinema pages and I'll request a whitelist as you suggest. Still this whole approach seems sketchy to me, if tmdb spammed in the past but now it is a major player that is relevant, rules have got to change at some point. I understand that you don't want their link to be added en masse together with imdb, but still. ] (]) 08:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Not you. And there is a huge difference between adding 'en masse' and spamming. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 04:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::In my opinion, this is an extremely biased assessment and in some areas directly false. I'm far from a WP expert, so maybe I'm missing something, but from my research a couple of months back when I wanted to add a link to some information that IMDB did not have, this is what I found:
::<big>2008</big>
::Nov. 19-22, 2008: User ] (who, at the time, was the site owner and still works there, as far as I know) added links to TMDB pages for a grand total of 14 movies over 4 days in 2008. This is the issue that triggered the initial blacklist addition. Within this time, he receives 4 notes requesting that he stop, which were not responded to. As the account was new, I assume that he was unaware of the Talk Page.
::Nov. 26, 2008: User ] adds TMDB to the Proposed Additions for the Spam Blacklist, citing the fact that "Editor's sole contributions have been to promote the site."
::Dec. 2, 2008: The site is marked as added to the blacklist by user ] with no discussion within the proposed additions page.
::Dec. 7, 2008: Travisbell received a response from ] to a request asking why one of the links was removed. The response stated, accurately for the time, that TMDB was not a notable site like IMDB, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes.
::<big>2016</big>
::Oct. 18, 2016: Travisbell attempts to add a link to TMDB to the article for ] which already specified (without a link) that TMDB is one of the primary sources for Kodi to obtain its metadata for movies. User then adds TMDB to the proposed removals upon being unable to make the edit. The request states that user is "not sure why this is".
::Oct. 19, 2016: The proposed removal receives its first response from ] stating "Maybe, just maybe, it's from your mass addition of your site which strongly looked like the start of a spam campaign back in 2008." Further discussion occurs between Travisbell and ] regarding notability guidelines. The request is marked as Declined by user ] stating "Misguided request, and as an aside, creating an article on your website is pretty much the worst idea you've ever had." When asked for an explanation, Guy responds in a similar rude and sarcastic tone as Ravensfire. Travisbell states that he made ~10 edits eight years ago and stopped when told to. User ] apologizes to Travisbell regarding his treatment stating "There is never any reason for an editor being so rude when it's clear the person making the inquiry is trying to work within the rules."
::Oct. 20, 2016: Based on advice from Nihonjoe, Travisbell creates an article draft within his user page and asks Nihonjoe if there are problems with the page based on Misplaced Pages guidelines/rules. Travisbell's note to Nihonjoe is his final contribution.
::Oct. 27, 2016: Nihonjoe responds that the article would need to have citations that meet the reliable sources requirements before it would be acceptable.
::TL;DR - The evidence does not, IMO, show that "site owner strongly that they intended continue to push for their links to be included over a long period of time" nor is there "a significant history of spam." Fourteen external links sixteen years ago hardly counts as either significant or "over a long period of time".
::P.S.: This is just to set the record straight. Multiple editor's have acted (or spoken) as though Travisbell is engaging in ] with no evidence to support that assertion. I am under no delusion that any of the editor's with authority to remove TMDB from the blacklist will do so. ] (]) 23:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree with Azuravian that "Fourteen external links sixteen years ago hardly counts as either significant or "over a long period of time". Especially from a new account that probably didn't read the messages on talk page.
:::I guess that the tone of the conflict arises from tmdb beeing community built, and imdb existing and WP having trouble dealing with that already. ] (]) 08:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::::{{rto|Azuravian|Cinemaandpolitics}} 14 edits by a clear COI account not heeding any warnings. You expect us to run behind people until they respond, cleaning up the mess? Some of us have years and years of experience, and seen the cases where you block the spammer, and they continue with the same using a sock. Having your links on Misplaced Pages pays your bills, why be deterred by warnings or blocks? Misplaced Pages is not a game of whack-a-mole: it was not notable in 2008, it was not notable in 2010, it was not notable in 2016, it was not notable in 2021 (and it was salted in 2022). I doubt it is notable now. And if a site owner is adding their own links in 2008, a coi editor is here in 2010 trying to create a clear advertising page, and the site owner is back trying to create a page on the same subject themselves again in 2016 then that is rather long term. Even if they cannot spam the links to their sites, their insistence to have TMBD on Misplaced Pages is 'long term spamming'. <br>And then, we combine that with NO granted whitelist requests (the only granted whitelist requests were for the page, which was since deleted), suggesting that there is no significant need, nor use, for these links. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 21:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Believe it or not there are intricacies to Misplaced Pages policies and even notifications. But I do understand you having a different opinion and assuming bad faith.
:::::Regarding notability, I couldn't find much sources commenting on Tmdb so you are probably right, as a veteran editor, to not deem it notable as of 2024. ] (]) 14:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not bad faith, experience. One editor reporting, one editor adding it to the blacklist, and me endorsing. Did all of us assume bad faith? That there is a second Single Purpose Account 2 years later promoting a website that 14 (16?) years later is still not notable, says enough that this experience with spammers is correct. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 04:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Your experience with other bad faith actors informs your assumptions about new editors.
:::::::Like I said previously, I am not under any delusion that anything I say will have any impact on any decisions made. That has been made abundantly clear. ] (]) 21:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


==www.blog.roblox.com==
::From an en:Misplaced Pages mission perspective (though possibly not your personal perspective:) a bigger issue than the flak that will be generated is the disruption to editing. I believe a lot of pages, particularly biographies of living people, contain legitimate links to the subject's blog - many of which are hosted on blogspot. Simply blacklisting and then waiting for whitelisting requests will likely
* {{LinkSummary|blog.roblox.com}}
::# overwhelm the whitelist page here and on meta (which given you are one of the most active admins on both, may not be ideal for you!)
I'm creating a wikipedia article on the late co-founder of Roblox, Erik Cassel. But the only reliable sources of him are from blog.roblox.com links. The blog.roblox.com domain is the official blog maintained by employees of ROBLOX Corporation, giving accurate information about the company. The specific links are a tribute written by the current founder, and an interview with the person in question. I tried to go through the whitelist, but apparently the whole thing is blacklisted.
::# be confusing and frustrating to a lot of editors especially newbies, but also any who are not familiar with the blacklist/whitelist set up
The article on Erik Cassel would benefit from these sources, as it provides first-hand details about his professional achievements, contributions to ROBLOX, and personal qualities. This information is otherwise unavailable in comparable detail and reliability.
::# lead to a loss of legitimate links and legitimate edits as people struggle to work out whether to keep their edit and lose the link or the other way round while any whitelist request is ongoing.
] (]) 05:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::I think a move like that will take some careful planning and preparation to avoid these issues (might also help cut down some of the heat). One way or another, I think we need human editors to assess the current blogspot links on article pages and enter appropriate ones on the whitelist ''before'' the blacklisting goes into effect. I don't think such a move will cut out most of the flak though, so we might want to ensure there are other admins involved to help spread the weight, and a nicely presented page of evidence of the issues the domain causes to point people to.
:{{deferwhite}} <b>] ]</b> 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::Blogspot certainly gets spammed a lot more than most domains, and I support blacklisting. But It's still a domain that has a lot of good links and I think it's important to think through how a move like that will impact people, and to adjust to the situation. -- ] 13:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
:: {{tq|But the only reliable sources of him are from blog.roblox.com links}} -> then he's not notable and doesn't deserve an article. ] ] 05:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


=Discussion=
:::Briefly - needs quite a bit of thought but equally is worth that amount of thought --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 13:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
{{Notice|This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are ]}}


::There are many, many legitimate links to the domain, not only to blogs belonging to article subjects but to blogs belonging to Misplaced Pages contributors. Better to blacklist individual blogs as needed. --]&nbsp;(]) 16:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Not sure why Misplaced Pages contributors would be adding their own blogs? A very limited number of blogs actualy meet ] and even fewer still meet the requirements of ] or are a blog that is the subject of the article or an official page of the articles subject. There are currently 32,916 blogspot.com Blog links on Misplaced Pages, if whitelisting even a thousand "legitimate links", its worth it.--] (]) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
::::You've presented some convincing reasons to leave certain blog links out of Misplaced Pages, but not a reason to leave all blog links out. Misplaced Pages contributors might want to link to their blogs because, you know, it is possible for said contributors to frequent websites on the internet other than Misplaced Pages :P See ]. There is also a performance cost to whitelisting and blacklisting; as far as I can tell, 1000 whitelisted entries costs more computationally than 1000 blacklisted entries (instead of using one large regex, which is how the blacklist works, you're doing 1000 individual regex replacements). ]<sup>]</sup> <span title="MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist">§</span> 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::I was under the impression server load was something we were supposed to leave up to the developers to worry about. If they see an issue and ask for a reassessment that would be one thing, but its not a good argument against a tactic without their weight behind it.
:::::The suggestion isn't that all blogs should be banned. the suggestion is that this particular domain gets spammed so much it would be beneficial to the project to blacklist it and only white list the ones that are appropriate. -- ] 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Hu12 I think it's important not to overstate the case here. Not all of the ~32,000 links (assukming the 1K of good links estimate) that are not legitimate external links or citations will actually be harmful to Misplaced Pages. While editors' own blogs on their user pages aren't necessary to the project, in the vast majority of cases they do no harm and may help editors fell a bond that connects them to the project. Many more will be links from discussions and projects. While I don't think that's a reason for keeping a domain that is also being spammed so much - it's not the case that we do 32,000 links worth of "good" by removing them. For the most part we only really benefit from the spam and poorly placed article links that go. -- ] 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


== Archiving time ==
(unindent, crosspost my post from ])
A bunch of recent requests got archived ] but no action was taken. In fact the log has no updates since May 2024: ]. Is this think on auto pilot? -- ]] 04:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)


:The bot will archive it after seven days with no comments, even if it hasn't been done (]). ] (]) 00:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The rule \bblogspot\.com is (currently) not on COIBot's monitorlist. Some of the sub-domains have been added via ], or have been caught by the automonitoring of COIBot (mainly because the name of the editor is the same as the name of the subdomain on blogspot.com).
::Nothing has been done since May... maybe we should increase the archive bot timer to at least 3 months. -- ]] 00:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Increased to 90 days -- ]] 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:And now we are stuck with a lot of handled requests. I’m lowering again. ] <sup>] ]</sup> 21:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)


== Hijacked WordPress ==
Still, a linksearch on the resolved IP of blogspot.com (72.14.207.191) results in a mere ] results (all COIBot linkreports)! Often the multiple use of the single subdomains is not a cause for blacklisting, as they may only have been used once or twice. Also, I suspect there are tens of thousands of blogspot sub-domains out there, but these are only the links that are caught because the wiki username overlaps with the domainname of the subdomain (or have been reported here). Would this cumulative behaviour warrant blacklisting of \bblogspot\.com .. here, or even on meta? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 12:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
* {{LinkSummary|mimeprague.cz}}
:Appropriate links may indeed be a problem, though the majority will fail some or many of the policies and guidelines here (or don't even have to be a notable fact, or do not need to be a working link while being mentioned; "Mr. X has a a blog on ].&lt;ref>primary reliable source stating that the blog is the official blog&lt;/ref>"; ]), and I would argue that the spam/coi part of the problem becomes a bit difficult to control... --] <sup>] ]</sup> 14:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
is a legit website, but it looks like their WordPress was hijacked and they now host Robux scams on a subpage. Is there a way of handling those? The URL doesn't seem to change but I am not sure if I should post it here. I think I saw these types of websites before, apologies if there was a previous discussion about this. <span style="background:#F1FEFE; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px; padding:2px 5px;">] (] &#124; ])</span> 04:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


:I've seen 3 different accounts/IPs in the last days with that website, all saying the same thing. I am not active often, there are likely many more. Apart from the WordPress exploit, it is a legitimate webiste (one that would probably not be referenced though). Unsure if it should be on the blacklist. <span style="background:#F1FEFE; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px; padding:2px 5px;">] (] &#124; ])</span> 04:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::* {{spamlink|blogspot.com}}
::We could blacklist the "mimeprague.cz/wp-content/uploads/" path rather than the entire domain if needed. ] (]) 01:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::Crosspost spamlink template for blogspot.com to link this discussion to the linkreports from COIBot. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't know how I didn't think this was possible. I don't know if disruption has continued though. <span style="background:#F1FEFE; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px; padding:2px 5px;">] (] &#124; ])</span> 01:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)


* {{BLRequestLink|mimeprague.cz/wp-content/uploads/}}
:::Please try to remember how frustrating generic, unexpected spam blocks can be for new and incautious editors. Last time I "checked", if you make an edit with Internet Explorer and you post it directly without preview ''(two things you should '''never''' do)'', then if the spam blacklist comes up your text is ''gone''. Back arrow gets you the original text of the article. Edits that die that way may not get remade, and they may sour the editor on further contributions. I don't think there should be any blocks on top-level domains or large general purpose Internet sites. ] 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I have to disagree in this case - there's concern that the dynamic IP spamming it is using it to perpetrate scams or send out computer bugs. -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


to make it easier to blacklist it. please check report. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
== freelancer ==


=Troubleshooting and problems=
I'd like freelancer.com.ar to be removed. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{Notice|This section is for technical problems with existing rules. Old entries are ]}}
:Why? -'']'' <sup>(<font color="0000FF">] ]</font>)</sup> 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:26, 23 December 2024

"Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklist" redirects here. For a description of the spam blacklist, see Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist. For instructions on administering the spam blacklist, see Misplaced Pages:Spam-blacklisting.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is a page in the MediaWiki namespace, which only administrators may edit. To request a change to it, please follow the directions at Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist.
    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 Misplaced Pages only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Misplaced Pages: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 – 1264821770 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
    Archives
    This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Proposed additions

    Instructions for proposed additions
    1. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.
    2. Please only use the basic URL – example.com , not https://www.example.com.
    3. Consider informing editors whose actions are discussed here.
    4. Please use the following templates:
    {{IP summary}} – to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
    {{IP summary|127.0.0.1}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    {{User summary}} – to report registered users suspected of spamming:
    {{User summary|Jimbo Wales}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    {{Link summary}} – to report spam domains:
    {{Link summary|example.com}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template
    Do not include the "http://www." portion of a URL inside this template, nor anything behind the domain name. Including this template will give tools to investigate the domain, and will result in COIBot refreshing the link-report. ('COIBot')
    {{BLRequestRegex}} - to suggest more complex regex filters beyond basic domain URLs
    {{BLRequestLink}} - to suggest specific links to be blacklisted
    Please provide diffs ( e.g. ] ) to show that there has been spamming!
    Completed requests should be marked with {{done}}, {{not done}}, or another appropriate indicator, and then archived.


    stefitalman.info

    --Wotheina (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

    Same as #crocsjibbitz.com, both domains added to the global blacklist. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
    @Wotheina: Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra 21:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

    s.mcd-menu.org

    s.mcd-menu.org: 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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Royox321 (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)

    Sockpuppetry to spam this link all over a certain article TheWikipede 17:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

    xtremediesel.com

    Refspamming to an online truck parts & accessories retailer. (, , , ) The DieselTech2 account was created less than two hours after the Diesel60 account was warned for spamming. --Sable232 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

    Noting here that DieselTech2 tried to blank this report: - MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
    I added new information to the above pages and links to legitimate pages and it was removed for no reason? Sorry I won't try and contribute any information to improve the quality of the pages. DieselTech2 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
    No, you didn't. You linked to a web page that advertises parts/accessories and tried to pass it off as a legitimate reference. That is spamming, period. --Sable232 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    I was under the impression I had to cite a source or list a reference. You could have left the information and removed the links if they were not acceptable. There is plenty of information about those specific engines at the bottom of the page.
    Also there are other links on that same page that go to online retailers, so it seemed like it would be an acceptable reference. DieselTech2 (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
    You do have to cite a source or list a reference - one that meets Misplaced Pages's sourcing requirements. That is not an opportunity to repetitively add links to your own site. If you have noticed other problem links, they should be replaced with reliable sources - not used as justification to make the problem worse by adding more spam. MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
    I added some information and links around a month ago. I was checking out another page the other day and simply noticed it did not list the transmissions that were offered with that engine, so I added the transmission types that were offered and a link for reference. I thought that information might be helpful to some readers.
    Can you tell me why these are not permitted as links/references? Just so I know for future reference?
    xtremediesel.com/blog/2021/09/01/what-is-a-cp4-pump-and-why-does-it-fail/
    xtremediesel.com/blog/2021/12/22/2003-2007-ford-6-0l-powerstroke-buyers-guide/ DieselTech2 (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    Blogs and other self-published sources like yours don't meet WP:RS guidelines. Your site is already blacklisted, so for future reference you'll need to find somewhere else to promote it. OhNoitsJamie 15:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    I wasn't looking to promote anything. There is a lot of incorrect or missing information and I thought I would help improve the quality of the content on here, but it is no longer worth the effort. On the Duramax page it says the cylinder heads were made from "an experimental composite design cylinder head". I changed it to Aluminum and added the first source that came up on google. I didn't know blogs were prohibited since there are others listed on here. DieselTech2 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    plus Added Three strikes, yer out. OhNoitsJamie 22:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

    messagegirls.pp.ua

    Links to this domain were added by various accounts including IPs and registered accounts here and on sister sites. Frost 13:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

    frnctry.pp.ua is also frequently added to articles by this spam farm. Frost 13:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
     Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra 14:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

    radarchronicle.com and theblazetimes.in

    These are both "news" website being pushed by a spammer, probably also related to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Btw_Santhosh. Ravensfire (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNoitsJamie 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is getting some cross-wiki spam and , looking at ha, hi and somewhat on simple en. Would it make sense to see about adding this to the global blocklist? Ravensfire (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Definitely. Don’t hesitate to report if you want to. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Working on that now. Request created. Ravensfire (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    ipcb.com


    Goldbroker

    Link

    Long term spamming, see . Recent activity . Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    @KH-1: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 05:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    advocatenarendersingh

    Link

    Long term spamming, see . Recent activity . Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    @KH-1 plus Added. I also ran a CU and blocked all the recent accounts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Multiple links

    Commercial spam. These domain has already blacklisted on Chinese Misplaced Pages. --SCP-2000 12:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    information Note: plus Added to the global blacklist. - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    msnmag.co.uk

    Persistent spamming by multiple IPs. Annh07 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    plus Added to blacklist (and blocked the /22 range for good measure). OhNoitsJamie 20:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    usdolly.rocks

    I think that user User:Mojakabira is trying to promote their own website and cryptocurrency by vandalizing the following page: Dolly_(sheep). They have created a new subsection and posted about this cryptocurrency and a link to the website. Website is just 34 days old and owner/admin of the website has the same username: https://usdolly.rocks/index.php/author/mojakabira/ Thank you. Margarita byca (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

     Defer to Global blacklist, cross-wiki problem. I've blocked the user in en. OhNoitsJamie 14:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think Windsurfing article additions were legitimate and pentasmoulding.com is just a regular website, the page linked in the article mentions Ten Cate Sports a lot.
    But I don't know much about windsurfing though. Margarita byca (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Indonesian lottery

    These two new accounts are clearly the same person, creating sandboxes (1) (2) in identical styles. Both lead to different sites, but clearly by the same original author/company. There's nothing on them that would be useful for us to link to.

    But… since these are two different sites, they don't strictly come under our rules for blacklisting – ie, multiple links to the same site. So I could be in entirely the wrong place, and if so, please suggest a board that might be interested in this (if there is one!). It's probably not worth an SSI since they're just sandboxes and not actually mainspace spamming. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Seems to be confined to these two accounts, which are both now blocked. I'll leave this open for a bit to see if they continue. I'm hesitant to blacklist links for one or two instances of spamming (but three strikes and yer out!). OhNoitsJamie 15:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Same types of links to identical-looking sites from another new user. I suspect there must be dozens more – all to different URLs – being slipped in all the time. Not sure what we can do about it, mind. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    pakapepe.com

    Linkspam (with proxies) XXBlackburnXx (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    plus Added to blacklist. OhNoitsJamie 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Proposed removals

    Use this section to request that a URL be unlisted. Please add new entries to the bottom of this section.

    Requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined. Otherwise, follow these steps to post a properly-formatted request:

    • Familiarize yourself with the reasons why a site was blacklisted. Look at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log to see who blacklisted the link and when, and the reason given for blacklisting.
    • At the beginning of your request, include the domain in a {{link summary}} template (remove the http:// and www from the domain). This provides tools to find more information on the domain. For example, * {{Link summary|example.com}} results in:
    • When previewing your post with an included {{link summary}}, you will find links to a COIBot-report ('COIBot'), linksearches on en ('Linksearch en'), and tracked discussions ('tracked' and 'advanced'). If the log did not provide sufficient information on why a link was blacklisted, these links often yield more information.
    • Explain how the link can be useful on Misplaced Pages. Referencing a discussion at WP:RSN can be helpful.
    • Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore.
      • The bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Misplaced Pages, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped.

    Providing this information often helps in a faster handling of the request.

    Once you have added your request, please check back here from time to time to get the outcome or to answer any additional questions. We will not email you or otherwise notify you about your request, and if no answer is received to a question, the request will be considered abandoned.

    Administrators: Completed requests should be marked with {{done}}, {{not done}}, or another appropriate indicator, then archived.

    Remove themoviedb.org/tmdb.org

    Request to remove themoviedb.org from Local Blacklist.

    This is a widely used resource for information about movies and television, similar to imdb. Although not completely user contributed, like tvdb.com, it does rely on a lot of user contributions for metadata, images, posters, etc. From looking at the stuff I could find at the links provided, it appears that someone from the site (User:Travisbell) tried to add a link in the external section to a handful of pages (looks like about 10 or so) back in 2008.

    Eight years later, in 2016, it looks like Travisbell attempted to have the blacklist removed, which was denied with the only explanation being that it was a misguided request. I'm not sure what that means and couldn't find anything on Misplaced Pages that defines misguided requests.

    We are now in 2024, eight years after the removal request from 2016, and sixteen years since the original blacklist in 2008. The website is used by millions of people every day and due to the open nature of its data (kind of like Misplaced Pages), it is the primary source for multiple other sites that show movie or tv data. It has even been used as a data source for scientific research. One example is the article "Image-based Product Recommendation Method for E-commerce Applications Using Convolutional Neural Networks" at http://dx.doi.org/10.18267/j.aip.167.

    I can see no good reason to keep a site blacklisted that is so widely used because of a number of links posted when Misplaced Pages itself was only 7 years old.

    Azuravian (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

     Defer to Whitelist I don't imagine many (if any) cases where this site would be an appropriate WP:RS; for those cases, whitelisting may be appropriate. OhNoitsJamie 11:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
    Do we blacklist all sites that aren't an appropriate WP:RS? We have multiple pages for sites that utilize the API provided by TMDB, but can't link to it because of one person's mistake 16 years ago? Its level of being an appropriate WP:RS is equal to any other site listed under User-generated content on WP:RS. Some examples:
    1. IMDB: linked to from at least 60,000 pages.
    2. TheTVDB: linked to from 945 pages.
    3. TVTropes: linked to from 3,339 pages.
    What is it about tmdb.org that makes it less worthy of being allowed than those sites? Just trying to understand the rationale behind users jumping through hoops instead of admins removing roadblocks. Azuravian (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    It's user generated data, so at best it's going to be an external link and as you've noted, we've already got IMDB as a good external link on many film / TV articles. This isn't going to add much beyond what's already there. Ravensfire (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    Still trying to understand not removing the blacklist. I understand the question of tmdbs validity as WP:RS. What I don't understand is the purpose in 2024 of tmbd.org being blacklisted?

    Why are we limiting users to a single source for movie information. We allow both IMDB and thetvdb for TV shows, but for movies, it's IMDB or nothing. It almost seems like someone has a vested interest in keeping tmdb off of Misplaced Pages without any legitimate reason.

    For a FOSS style system like Misplaced Pages, it seems antithetical to block sites essentially permanently over the actions of a single user? Azuravian (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    Not any 'single user', the site owner. And it wasn't a one time mistake - the archives of this page include a request where the site owner showed up to ask for it to be removed from the blacklist so he could resume promoting his site - so there is reason to think abuse would resume if it were possible technically. Once something ends up on the blacklist, the burden shifts - there should be a good reason to remove it. And in this case no such reason has been presented - it is not a usable WP:RS, and it is redundant with other options as an external link. MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
    Firstly, it was a one time mistake. All edits were made on the same day and there were about 10. He came back after 8 years to see about getting it unblocked and even clarified his intent was not to spam links to the site, so I'm unsure where the "reason to think abuse would resume" comes from. During his request 8 years ago, you can see the rudeness of the responses he received were in fact so bad that another admin stepped in on his Talk page to apologize for the admin who was rude.
    The real issue I have with the burden shifting (which in general I agree with) is the fact that it was blacklisted with what appears to be zero warnings whatsoever. If you find the proposed addition from 2008, there is only the initial post with no responses or discussion and it was blacklisted. The entry right below it is for a site called crediblemusicreviews.com. This site had multiple IPs continually adding reviews to articles about albums that were assumed to be the same user. The admin who blacklisted TMDB (User:A._B.) responded to that proposal with a very reasonable response saying:
    "Blacklisting is a big step and potentially carries implications off of Misplaced Pages. We like to see the user get several warnings before we blacklist. If that doesn't stop the person, then we're happy to blacklist."
    They followed up this statement saying that they had given those IPs final warnings.
    If the original site owner had received multiple warnings and still continued to spam the site, I wouldn't even be here, because I would recognize the reasoning behind the blacklist in the first place. However, in this case instead of giving warnings as I would expect, the site was blacklisted immediately.
    It appears to me that the original blacklisting is an example of ignoring the principle of WP:AGF, seeing as there was no discussion or warning given. Azuravian (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    I don't remember the specifics but it looks like User:Travisbell ignored multiple requests and warnings:
    After that, an editor requested the domain he was spamming be blacklisted; that's when I blacklisted it. --A. B. 06:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    Understood, I apologize for any pushiness on my part. I can tell you from a long time user, but only occasional contributor, that the vagaries of Misplaced Pages's processes and politics can feel like a bit of a black box. I just think it's a bit silly that because a user made mistakes (or even intentionally spammed, which I don't believe to be the case) sixteen years ago that a legitimate website (not some blog, or scam site) is still being blacklisted due to what essentially seems like red tape.
    Seeing the extra warnings just adds another wrinkle to the issue to me. That means the user was warned after adding a link to maybe five pages. That hardly seems like a case of excessive spamming to me, especially in light of other similar sites being linked hundreds or tens of thousands of times. Linking to that sort of external site is obviously not, in and of itself, an issue.
    Does Misplaced Pages have some sort of deal with IMDB and thetvdb or something? If not, why are they being given such preferential treatment? Azuravian (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    Caveats: I was inactive for about a decade and gave up my admin privileges so I don’t remember any specifics and I don’t have any ability to add or delete sites from the blacklist or whitelist.
    The blacklist is primarily for controlling deliberate spam, not link quality.
    If someone ignores that many warnings, we blacklist the offending domain and usually any associated domains, even if the other domains haven’t been spammed yet. There’s no minimum number of spam links; we don’t wait until there are 50, 100 or 500. Waiting until there’s a lot of spam just makes more cleanup work for our volunteers.
    We have no deal with IMDb. IMDb is semi-officially considered an unreliable source and an unnecessary link but as you’ve seen, we have a bunch of those links. There’s the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which has a subpage (WP:RSNP) of major sites and editors’ assessment of their suitability as reliable sources.
    We have very particular standards for “reliable sources” that are unique to our mission. A site that we consider “unreliable” for our purposes may be great for everything else. Note that we officially consider our own site and other Wikimedia sites as unreliable sources because, like IMDb, our content is user-submitted with insufficient editorial oversight.
    Misplaced Pages’s administrators have their hands full just fighting off deliberate spamming, let alone the zillions of inappropriate links innocently added by regular editors. —A. B. 15:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarifications.
    I think my confusion comes from the idea that "The blacklist is primarily for controlling deliberate spam, not link quality."
    This is the crux of my problem is that it seems like different admins have different ideas. Maybe a more solid set of rules around the blacklist would be beneficial. Almost every response I've received to removing the blacklist has been about link quality, not deliberate spam. The only evidence of deliberate spam happened sixteen years ago and there has only been one request to remove it in the intervening years. The idea that the users/creators of tmdb have just been waiting almost 2 decades for the opportunity to engage in deliberate spam is obviously ridiculous. With that in mind, it is understandable why the site was added, but not understandable why it can't be removed.
    I do understand and appreciate all of the work that the Misplaced Pages administrators do and do not envy the position that I'm sure they find themselves in regularly. Azuravian (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
    It is added to the blacklist because of spamming (as it was in this case). Then link quality is a factor in subsequent removal or whitelist requests. MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
    Azuravian, a way to help build the case for removal from blacklisting is to start requesting it to be whitelisted as a source. The issues around user-generated data are going to be relevant (see WP:CITEIMDB) and will represent a challenge to whitelisting. Essentially, aside from personal preference, why should a given link to this site be added to an article? Ravensfire (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
    Valid question and I think the answer (for me, anyway) is that there is no reason aside from personal preference. I'd say that this answer is the same as the answer I would expect someone to give for a TV series when determining whether to link to IMDB or thetvdb.com, or having a preference for both.
    Here is a sampling of pages for TV series that link to both IMDB and thetvdb.com:
    Breakout Kings
    The Tick (1994 TV series)
    The Borderers Azuravian (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    because sometimes that is the only choice for some pieces of info and can be considered reliable enough? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    also, now that I remember how I got stuck into this, it was because I wanted to add a movie poster with a free image rationale that came from there. I couldn't link to it and had to find something else, even less good as a source. That was a clear exemple of when the ban hurts editing. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
    @RavensfireLooking more into this. The WP:CITEIMDB says that using imdb for infos on movies is disputed but not banned. The majority of basic info (we are not talking about reviews here) are collectivelly gathered in both imdb or tmdb.
    Similarly to what Azuravian was saying, why ban one and not the other? I don't see any logic on the preferential treatement that imdb gets. Tmdb seems to me like an equally respectable source.
    @A. B. Oversight can be done collectivelly, Misplaced Pages *chooses* to not engage in personal research. There are many kind of reliable sources already in use on wikipedia, it's not like journalism is the only thing that we accept. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Cinemaandpolitics There is absolutely no requirement to have a working link to the source of a non-free file, the requirement is that you clearly state where you get it (which actually is from the producers of the poster, not from the site that posts it und a same non-free use rationale). Moreover, you could have requested whitelisting for that purpose (though also there we would have sent you to the original source of the file). Dirk Beetstra 05:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    You are absolutelly right, and I think I just didn't find it under a reliable producer website and had to use (from memory) another random site. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

    @RavensfireLooking more into this. The WP:CITEIMDB says that using imdb for infos on movies is disputed but not banned. The majority of basic info (we are not talking about reviews here) are collectivelly gathered in both imdb or tmdb.
    Similarly to what Azuravian was saying, why ban one and not the other? I don't see any logic on the preferential treatement that imdb gets. Tmdb seems to me like an equally respectable source.
    @A. B. Oversight can be done collectivelly, Misplaced Pages *chooses* to not engage in personal research. There are many kind of reliable sources already in use on wikipedia, it's not like journalism is the only thing that we accept.
    — User:Cinemaandpolitics 19:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

    @Cinemaandpolitics because tmdb was spammed with confessed site owner showing strongly that they intended continue to push for their links to be included over a long period of time. That narrative has not changed and is repeated (almost verbatim) in this thread by the current requester. In all these years there are no independent requests that this site is needed by editors who edit 'in the field', but there is a significant history of spam. Whitelisting specific links will do.
    Dirk Beetstra 04:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    I have no connection whatsoever with tmdb owners, I don't have an account there, and I was not even aware of this conflict before finding out the hard way. I do plan to edit more cinema pages and I'll request a whitelist as you suggest. Still this whole approach seems sketchy to me, if tmdb spammed in the past but now it is a major player that is relevant, rules have got to change at some point. I understand that you don't want their link to be added en masse together with imdb, but still. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
    Not you. And there is a huge difference between adding 'en masse' and spamming. Dirk Beetstra 04:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    In my opinion, this is an extremely biased assessment and in some areas directly false. I'm far from a WP expert, so maybe I'm missing something, but from my research a couple of months back when I wanted to add a link to some information that IMDB did not have, this is what I found:
    2008
    Nov. 19-22, 2008: User Travisbell (who, at the time, was the site owner and still works there, as far as I know) added links to TMDB pages for a grand total of 14 movies over 4 days in 2008. This is the issue that triggered the initial blacklist addition. Within this time, he receives 4 notes requesting that he stop, which were not responded to. As the account was new, I assume that he was unaware of the Talk Page.
    Nov. 26, 2008: User Erik adds TMDB to the Proposed Additions for the Spam Blacklist, citing the fact that "Editor's sole contributions have been to promote the site."
    Dec. 2, 2008: The site is marked as added to the blacklist by user A. B. with no discussion within the proposed additions page.
    Dec. 7, 2008: Travisbell received a response from EVula to a request asking why one of the links was removed. The response stated, accurately for the time, that TMDB was not a notable site like IMDB, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes.
    2016
    Oct. 18, 2016: Travisbell attempts to add a link to TMDB to the article for Kodi which already specified (without a link) that TMDB is one of the primary sources for Kodi to obtain its metadata for movies. User then adds TMDB to the proposed removals upon being unable to make the edit. The request states that user is "not sure why this is".
    Oct. 19, 2016: The proposed removal receives its first response from Ravensfire stating "Maybe, just maybe, it's from your mass addition of your site which strongly looked like the start of a spam campaign back in 2008." Further discussion occurs between Travisbell and Cyphoidbomb regarding notability guidelines. The request is marked as Declined by user Guy stating "Misguided request, and as an aside, creating an article on your website is pretty much the worst idea you've ever had." When asked for an explanation, Guy responds in a similar rude and sarcastic tone as Ravensfire. Travisbell states that he made ~10 edits eight years ago and stopped when told to. User Nihonjoe apologizes to Travisbell regarding his treatment stating "There is never any reason for an editor being so rude when it's clear the person making the inquiry is trying to work within the rules."
    Oct. 20, 2016: Based on advice from Nihonjoe, Travisbell creates an article draft within his user page and asks Nihonjoe if there are problems with the page based on Misplaced Pages guidelines/rules. Travisbell's note to Nihonjoe is his final contribution.
    Oct. 27, 2016: Nihonjoe responds that the article would need to have citations that meet the reliable sources requirements before it would be acceptable.
    TL;DR - The evidence does not, IMO, show that "site owner strongly that they intended continue to push for their links to be included over a long period of time" nor is there "a significant history of spam." Fourteen external links sixteen years ago hardly counts as either significant or "over a long period of time".
    P.S.: This is just to set the record straight. Multiple editor's have acted (or spoken) as though Travisbell is engaging in bad faith with no evidence to support that assertion. I am under no delusion that any of the editor's with authority to remove TMDB from the blacklist will do so. Azuravian (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with Azuravian that "Fourteen external links sixteen years ago hardly counts as either significant or "over a long period of time". Especially from a new account that probably didn't read the messages on talk page.
    I guess that the tone of the conflict arises from tmdb beeing community built, and imdb existing and WP having trouble dealing with that already. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Azuravian and Cinemaandpolitics: 14 edits by a clear COI account not heeding any warnings. You expect us to run behind people until they respond, cleaning up the mess? Some of us have years and years of experience, and seen the cases where you block the spammer, and they continue with the same using a sock. Having your links on Misplaced Pages pays your bills, why be deterred by warnings or blocks? Misplaced Pages is not a game of whack-a-mole: it was not notable in 2008, it was not notable in 2010, it was not notable in 2016, it was not notable in 2021 (and it was salted in 2022). I doubt it is notable now. And if a site owner is adding their own links in 2008, a coi editor is here in 2010 trying to create a clear advertising page, and the site owner is back trying to create a page on the same subject themselves again in 2016 then that is rather long term. Even if they cannot spam the links to their sites, their insistence to have TMBD on Misplaced Pages is 'long term spamming'.
    And then, we combine that with NO granted whitelist requests (the only granted whitelist requests were for the page, which was since deleted), suggesting that there is no significant need, nor use, for these links. Dirk Beetstra 21:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
    Believe it or not there are intricacies to Misplaced Pages policies and even notifications. But I do understand you having a different opinion and assuming bad faith.
    Regarding notability, I couldn't find much sources commenting on Tmdb so you are probably right, as a veteran editor, to not deem it notable as of 2024. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not bad faith, experience. One editor reporting, one editor adding it to the blacklist, and me endorsing. Did all of us assume bad faith? That there is a second Single Purpose Account 2 years later promoting a website that 14 (16?) years later is still not notable, says enough that this experience with spammers is correct. Dirk Beetstra 04:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Your experience with other bad faith actors informs your assumptions about new editors.
    Like I said previously, I am not under any delusion that anything I say will have any impact on any decisions made. That has been made abundantly clear. Azuravian (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    www.blog.roblox.com

    I'm creating a wikipedia article on the late co-founder of Roblox, Erik Cassel. But the only reliable sources of him are from blog.roblox.com links. The blog.roblox.com domain is the official blog maintained by employees of ROBLOX Corporation, giving accurate information about the company. The specific links are a tribute written by the current founder, and an interview with the person in question. I tried to go through the whitelist, but apparently the whole thing is blacklisted. The article on Erik Cassel would benefit from these sources, as it provides first-hand details about his professional achievements, contributions to ROBLOX, and personal qualities. This information is otherwise unavailable in comparable detail and reliability. Ge0loz (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

     Defer to Whitelist OhNoitsJamie 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    But the only reliable sources of him are from blog.roblox.com links -> then he's not notable and doesn't deserve an article. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Discussion

    This section is for other discussions involving the blacklist. Old entries are archived


    Archiving time

    A bunch of recent requests got archived Special:Diff/1239133035/1239171878 but no action was taken. In fact the log has no updates since May 2024: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log. Is this think on auto pilot? -- GreenC 04:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

    The bot will archive it after seven days with no comments, even if it hasn't been done (Another example). ClumsyOwlet (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    Nothing has been done since May... maybe we should increase the archive bot timer to at least 3 months. -- GreenC 00:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    Increased to 90 days -- GreenC 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    And now we are stuck with a lot of handled requests. I’m lowering again. Dirk Beetstra 21:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

    Hijacked WordPress

    is a legit website, but it looks like their WordPress was hijacked and they now host Robux scams on a subpage. Is there a way of handling those? The URL doesn't seem to change but I am not sure if I should post it here. I think I saw these types of websites before, apologies if there was a previous discussion about this. win8x (talking | spying) 04:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

    I've seen 3 different accounts/IPs in the last days with that website, all saying the same thing. I am not active often, there are likely many more. Apart from the WordPress exploit, it is a legitimate webiste (one that would probably not be referenced though). Unsure if it should be on the blacklist. win8x (talking | spying) 04:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    We could blacklist the "mimeprague.cz/wp-content/uploads/" path rather than the entire domain if needed. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't know how I didn't think this was possible. I don't know if disruption has continued though. win8x (talking | spying) 01:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Link/text requested to be blacklisted: mimeprague.cz/wp-content/uploads/

    to make it easier to blacklist it. please check report. --Dirk Beetstra 18:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    This section is for technical problems with existing rules. Old entries are archived
    Categories: