MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2014

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

Proposed additions

yourbrainonporn and such

Spam links which to not pass w:WP:MEDRS and w:WP:MEDASSESS relentlessly added to articles about masturbation and pornography over the years. The matter has been debated at w:WP:RSN. They may seem to violate w:WP:SOAP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would add another
It is a blog written by a lawyer who pretends to be a sex expert, although she did not study medicine, nor psychology. She is the partner of the man who runs yourbrainonporn.com and a fellow anti-pornography crusader. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with these blogs is that to the wannabe they appear to contain hard science, and out of gullibility wanabees want to add such information to Wikipedia as if it were presented in a reliable source. We cannot do otherwise than assume good faith for those who add it for the first time and assume bad faith after lengthy explanations that the couple who writes these blogs is no way near expert opinion on any medical or psychological subject. You'd be amazed how many people come to believe the dopamine-version of "masturbation makes you blind", i.e. they come to believe there is hard science behind sex/masturbation being an addiction similar to crack cocaine. The man who runs yourbrainonporn even made it to speak for TEDx, but if you listen carefully to what he said there he acknowledges it is all guessiology, there is no peer-reviewed evidence that he would be correct (as DSM-5 explicitly states, and it has been published fairly recently). Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another one:
I oppose adding these to the blacklist. There is no evidence here that they are actually being spammed. Not being a reliable source is not a reason for spam blacklisting. If/when they do get linked inappropriately, it is easy enough to remove. Antrocent (♫♬) 06:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of being spammed, no Declined. MER-C 06:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ifscswiftcodes.com

Spammers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianhe (talk • contribs)

Adsense google_ad_client = pub-8006888766042666 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report)
Also:
This is, unfortunately, stale. no Declined MER-C 06:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Active again: [1], [2] ; added to IP list above— Brianhe (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added MER-C 11:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

shopping.mywannado.com

Website
Spammer

Infrequent but repeated spamming on various clock related articles. Sometimes replacing dead links with this spam site. Reverted by various users and warned on user talk page, on which not responsive. Suggest adding to blacklist. - DVdm (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raiahana6 (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)
IP blocked for three months. no Declined for now. MER-C 06:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rakeshbiswas.in

Website

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rakesh biswas01, we have a person who is repeatedly creating socks to re-create articles related to Rakesh Biswas. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added MER-C 17:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FullSongs24.com

fullsongs24.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Starahad (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)

The user has added the links to two different articles so it's not spamming yet, but between the copyright vio, the site not having any value to Wikipedia and a gut feeling this will just continue, I'd prefer to nip this in the bud. Ravensfire (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing since this report... no Declined, but domain noted in case of future spamming. MER-C 12:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

messagizer.com

Spammers

All users added external links to the site in the See Also or External Links area on the page. FirstDrop87 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Domain is dead. no Declined. MER-C 12:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


indiaproperty.com

All edits by the above users promote indiaproperty.com as citation spam or promote Indiaproperty or its founder or sister concerns.

These accounts might be dupes of blocked user, Realestatewalas (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).

Anithakrish15 (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) and RealtyCompass might be related to the same SEO campaign/mob as there's some cross-linking. Edits and editors related to Metroplots look related too.

A Google of Lakshmin's name (based on his message to me) shows that he is employed by Indiaproperty in a marketing/SEO role. Furthermore, he was previous employed in a similarly capacity at a company named Comodo and he has edited its pages as well. (I'm not sure if it is kosher to link to personal information.) There is an obvious conflict of interest here and a lack of notability to these companies as well. Their pages, IMO, should not be part of an encyclopaedia.

- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a grey area because the user has disclosed some of this information on wiki. That said, Lakshmin is now blocked. MER-C 12:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about User:Rameshsyadav? His activities aren't grey. They are jet black :) And will indiaproperty.com be added to the blacklist? Thanks. -- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added KarthikSEO1305 to the above list as well. His only edits on WP are related to citation spam on behalf of Indiaproperty. Then there's his tell-tale username. I have also reported him here. -- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have now rolled back or edited out a large number of indiaproperty.com citation spam edits. --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By "grey area", I was referring to posting a link to that... external page. Realestatewalas and Anithakrish15 just look like rival spammers. There is a whole lot of bad faith editing going on, so plus Added. MER-C 19:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see. Thanks for taking care of these guys :) You might've missed a spot with User:Rameshsyadav at the top of the above list. But I'll keep an eye on him and his indiaproperty brethren. Cheers. -- Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

airbrushclasses.com

Spammers

Commercial website selling DVDs, repeatedly added to the Airbrush article and related articles since 2011. 79.69.202.97 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added MER-C 12:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.ruife.es

Website
Spammer

Repeated addition of the site's pages in place of association football club team official websites. Anon has been blocked once for the action but has returned and continues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for three months. no Declined, please re-report if spamming recommences. MER-C 19:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

palace-on-wheel.com

Travel agency site being repeatedly spammed by numerous IPs to Palace on Wheels. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for three months. MER-C 03:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

knowyourmeme.com

Rarely used link, but keeps being used in BLP articles such as Techno Viking, Jameis Winston and other articles, by vandals and good faith editors. Already on XLinkBot list, but good faith edits keep slipping through.--Otterathome (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are legitimate uses of this link to document the existence of internet memes, notably when the [point is specifically that Know your meme has featured something. The reporting editor has been removing these, giving the impression the link is used less often than it is, and some of the removals are disputed. IMO should not be a blacklisted link. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no comment on the site itself; but the editor has certainly been edit-warring (1, 2, 3, 4) to remove it from at least one article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The spam blacklist is not a means for settling content disputes. Rejected. MER-C 03:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

footycards.com

footycards.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Spammers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Deres (talk • contribs)

no Declined as the spam is not persistent. MER-C 12:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nootropicfish.com and nootropicsport.com

Websites
Spammers

Repeated spamming to many articles. I've blocked the registered user and the IPs, including range blocks, but the spammer is just IP hopping. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your blocking spree worked -- nothing since then. no Declined, please re-report if the spamming resumes. MER-C 11:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

releasemyad.com

Website
Spammers

Linkspamming from multiple IPs into multiple articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have stopped... MER-C 12:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has. no Declined, please let me know if the spamming resumes. MER-C 12:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

interpretermag.com

It was removed from the article in question. There was a discussion in the talk page also. On a search, links from this domain which translates even personal blogs are used as inline citations in many articles. --Drajay1976 (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be an unreliable source, but that doesn't mean it is spam. I don't understand this request. RGloucester — ☎ 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would like to see some evidence of link abuse as well, User:Drajay1976. We generally don't blacklist just because something is unreliable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined MER-C 11:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what-to-get-your-mom-for-christmas.com

Have noticed these affiliate-blog links sneaking in as fake references on tenuously-related articles, replacing existing references and just overwriting official links in the past couple of weeks. They're all the same page layout so are presumably connected, and will never be of any use to the project. May be worth adding a what-to-get-blank-for-christmas regexp to the blacklist. --McGeddon (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this extends to other URLs, many of the format what-?to-?get-?.+christmas.com. --McGeddon (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maryenault to document the sockfarm. I'm not competent to edit the blacklist, so I'll leave that to a more able admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing cross-wiki additions: 

MER-C	whereadded bestpressurewasherrating.com
COIBot	29 records; Wikis where bestpressurewasherrating.com has been added: w:en (21), w:de (4), w:da (2), w:fr (1), w:ru (1).
MER-C	whereadded what-to-buy-your-boy-friend-for-christmas.com
COIBot	3 records; Wikis where what-to-buy-your-boy-friend-for-christmas.com has been added: w:vi (2), w:en (1).
MER-C	whereadded what-to-get-my-boyfriend-for-christmas.com
COIBot	12 records; Wikis where what-to-get-my-boyfriend-for-christmas.com has been added: w:en (11), w:vi (1).
MER-C	whereadded topsnowblower.net
COIBot	14 records; Wikis where topsnowblower.net has been added: w:en (13), w:ru (1).
MER-C	whereadded bestweedeaterreviews.com
COIBot	13 records; Wikis where bestweedeaterreviews.com has been added: w:vi (7), w:en (6).

 Defer to Global blacklist. MER-C 03:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals

infodriveindia.com

infodriveindia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Could this link please be removed from the blacklist? This website has trade data relating to India, and I would like to reference it in articles that mention multilateral trade involving India. I have not found any alternative online sources for this data via Google Search. The link used to be spammed in the external links section of articles until it was blacklisted in 2007. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2007#Infodriveindia.com (removal). I think that the possibility of re-listing on the blacklist is a sufficient disincentive to further spamming. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Informative website - nepa.com.np

This is a very informative and useful website on the culture of the Kathmandu Valley and I request that it be removed from the black list. I see no possible reason why it has been black listed. Karrattul (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added tracking. It was indeed blacklisted due to significant spamming, but also a long time ago. However, I'd first go for some whitelisting to see the general use of the site and get a specific discussion on one of the pages. So  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

altafsir.com


How can the site be useful
I cannot find any other sources online which quote some of the historical sources that this website does. The website is as vital as Template:Hadith-usc, which is linking to islamic primary sources at University of South Carolina's website here.

I cant find in the archives here why it was blacklisted. Possibly because it might be considered extremist literature, because it contains: hadith, quran and tafsir. And someone may have thought these historical text promote extremism and violence. If that was the reason it was blacklisted then that is like saying "block websites that link to the bible because it contains violence".

Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/altafsir.com explains nothing about why this was blacklsited--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should not be blacklisted
It does not contain spam or any kind of malware. I beleive it was a huge mistake to blacklist this.

This website contains mainly Islamic primary sources known as Tafsir, so just like there is a Template:Hadith-usc linking to islamic primary sources at University of South Carolina's website, this website is same as the USC webcites which has records of islamic primary sources called hadith. altafsir.com has records of islamic primary sources call tafsir. I am proposing this be whitelisted for same reason as why links from Template:Hadith-usc that go to University of South Carolina's database of islamic primary sources is whitelisted.

Blacklisting reasons:
No opinion on delisting. MER-C 12:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah i get it now, so it was blacklisted because some guys were posting external links to it. But the links were abosultely relevant. If only the blocking admin knew why those guys werel inking to that website on articles related to Quran verses. Its because those links give commentaries of the relevant quran verse. Although those guys may have spammed links from this website on wikipedia. I see that this spamming in particularly was actually relevant and not really considered spam. More effort should have been taken to investigate back then what exactly a tafsir is--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, removed from blacklist here, but  Defer to Global blacklist because the site is still blacklisted on Meta.
I'll add that the behavior after being blacklisted on meta (evading the blacklist and hiring an outside entity to help them continue spamming) is questionable. Sites are blacklisted on the basis of behavior, and relevance isn't a reason to de-list, although I agree the links would be quite useful on Islam-related articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lmgtfy.com

How can the site be useful This is a harmless tongue-in-cheek redirect to Google.

Why it should not be blacklisted It does not contain spam or any kind of malware, in other words - there is no reason for it to be blacklisted. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Redirect sites have no purpose here, and all redirect sites are blacklisted by default because they are routinely used to circumvent the blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Amatulic, it only redirects to Google, which is not blacklisted. It does not redirect to anything else. Therefore, there is no way it can be used to circumvent the blacklist. It has zero affiliation with anything related to the blacklist whatsoever. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at this page's archives before posting your request? It has been denied in the past. You are not offering any new arguments. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete message for petition url

An attempt to save http://petition.com/example only gives me the message:

  • The following link has triggered a protection filter: petition

Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.

It appears MediaWiki:Spamprotectionmatch doesn't get the full url in $1. Maybe it has something to do with the petition entry not having a domain:
\bpetition(?:online|s)?\b

{{int:Spamprotectionmatch|petition}} produces the message I got:
The following link has triggered a protection filter: petition
Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.

Solutions:

  • If the URL used is a URL shortener/redirect, please use the full URL in its place, for example, use youtube.com rather than youtu.be,
  • If the URL is a Google URL, please look to use the (full) original source, not the Google shortcut or its alternative.
  • Look to find an alternative URL that is considered authoritative.

{{int:Spamprotectionmatch|http://petition.com/example}} produces what I expected to get: A message with "The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://petition.com/example". I can see it in preview but not save it without nowiki, because the produced interface message contains the blacklisted link.

My tests were based on a report at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#I can't figure out what link is blacklisted? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the admin visible log for blacklist-matches has the same problem .. Especially annoying for cases where redirects are used - what did they try to avoid? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ran into a similar problem as well and I find this frankly very annoying. Why is the search string petition blocked at all. This seems severy hindering any sourcing or discussion regarding petitions, which I find unacceptable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This should only block links with these terms in the domainname.
Petitions are at best a primary source at the moment they are closed. That being said, if that information is notable, then a secondary source will have reported the same number. For the few that are needed, they can be whitelisted.
For the rest, these are a prime example of violations of WP:SOAPBOX when they are still open. 'Click here to get Justin Bieber sent back to Canada' .. that is how petition links are often 'abused' (and some got regularly plainly spammed), and since they do not often serve a real use anyway, blacklisting those prevents this soapboxing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, delisting is no Declined per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Please remove petitions.whitehouse.gov from the spam blacklist (or whitelist it). MER-C 09:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hqtips.com

This blog have really helpful information of IT and have some helpful list of website and tools. I was adding reference of project management tool comparison article of their blog and found that its blacklisted. Here I can find hqtips log of spam discussed in April 2013


How can the site be useful This blog have informative and helpful written article that usually required by user to find their solutions for IT

Why it should not be blacklisted This website doesn't look spammy and have unique articles that could be required by any contributor to add it to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevpet (talk • contribs)

no Declined. What assurance do we have that the original AdSense spamming that caused the blacklisting would not resume? Also, why should we make an exception to WP:ELNO for a blog site? Have you had the community review this source at WP:RSN? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any AdSense spamming now. This blog have good authority and Google PR so I think that could be added to Wikipedia.--Stevpet (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming has stopped because they are blacklisted. That was the point. A good pagerank is irrelevant to blacklisting. This is someone's self-published personal blog. Sorry, I don't see how this has value for Wikipedia. We generally don't link to blogs, let alone use them as references. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

infosecinstitute.com

infosecinstitute.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Not sure why this was blacklisted at all? The portal seems to publish quite a lot of information security related articles and doesn't seem to be a spam puppet on the first look. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kravietz: Apologies for the delayed response. It's been spammed in the past. Check the archives of this page for enlightenment.  Defer to Whitelist to white-list a specific page for use as a reference in an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

petition (the English word)

This seems like a stupid entry at first glance. It blocks any and all domains that include the word "petition". I am more interested in who added the entry and why. Why is a plain English word in a URL blocklist? Int21h (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of how the process works, but there was a previous discussion with clear support that apparently failed here. Someone please inform me of what is going on here. The problem clearly was not fixed. Int21h (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Petitions were often abused (soapboxing), and fail our core policies for linking (if a petition is worth mentioning then independent sources have reported on it, otherwise the fact is not encyclopedic and close to (even unintended) soapboxing - 'endorsement of the result'). The consensus there was due to the 'false' catching of the links (wrong interpretation of the regex). It does not say anything about the validity of the rule to exclude these petition sites. If a petition really merits linking, it will have to go through the scrutiny of a whitelist request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Please remove petitions.whitehouse.gov from the spam blacklist (or whitelist it). MER-C 08:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

petitions.whitehouse.gov

petitions.whitehouse.gov: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Apparently "petitions" is a blacklisted word. The only previous discussion that I could find was on that occurred a more than four years ago here. There was a small consensus to blacklist thepetitionsite.com, but none that I could find to blacklist all URLs containing the string "petition".

petitions.whitehouse.gov is part of the official website of the White House. It is platform for citizens to raise issues with the US Presidential administration. As a primary source, it provides verifiability and additional contextual detail for readers. I would generally be opposed to including such links as an external link, but this one has encyclopedic value as a URL within a citation template.- MrX 15:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Defer to Whitelist - Despite the .gov credentials, this isn't much different from any other petition site in that anyone can create a petition about anything. There may be individual cases where a ref is appropriate, hence the whitelist deferral. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on a second. Kindly point to a discussion where this URL met the criteria for blacklisting and where consensus was established to do so.- MrX 15:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that there does not seem to be any evidence or prior discussions that petitions.whitehouse.gov ever met "the bar for blacklisting [which] is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable." I'm not aware of any discussion where there was consensus reached for preemptively blacklisting all URLs containing the string "petition".- MrX 15:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your consensus. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a search listing. One of those results here seems to support that there is no consensus for blacklisting the URL. This one also supports removing the keyword Petition from the spam filter. This comment is particularly apropos:
The petition blackisting began in January 2008 ([46]). it initially covered only petitions.com, which no doubt had some abuse. About a year later ([47]) it was expanded to snag any domain name with "petitions" in it. However, it clearly was not intended to cover official petitions to the U.S. executive branch under petitions.whitehouse.gov, which was not launched until September 2011. This still looks to me like a tuna net snagging a dolphin by mistake. Absent any evidence that the White House petitions site is being abused, it ought not to be mechanically disallowed, requiring manual intervention anytime an editor legitimately wishes to point to it. TJRC (talk) 7:41 pm, 21 February 2013, Thursday (1 year, 6 months, 10 days ago) (UTC−5)
Now I ask again, where is the specific discussion in which process was followed for removing this specific URL? If I can't get some cooperation for this simple request, I will bring it to wider community for comment.- MrX 22:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Petition sites simply fail our inclusion standards - when they are open, they are abused (also the official ones, and maybe especially the official ones - generally the abuse is on a one-by-one-scale to get attention for a specific petition). That there is a petition open is not a notable fact (except if someone else wrote about it, and that is than the reliable source that you need, not the link itself).

When the petition finished, the petition is a reliable source for is the outcome (the number) and maybe for the fact that the president himself signed the petition (note, it is a primary source for that). However, if those facts are notable, then they are again covered by someone else (but if it is really needed, the specific cases can be whitelisted).

In short, petition sites are regularly abused and are hence blacklisted (I would argue that also other petition sites should be blanketed ..). For the few specific cases where one can show that the link is needed, there is the whitelist. Delisting no Declined,  Defer to Whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that MrX has taken this to WP:ANI, because I guess that's what you do when you don't like the answers you get here in the first 24 hours. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can do without the snark Ohnoitsjamie.
@Dirk Beetstra: There is nothing in WP:RS that precludes petition sites, especially ones hosted by the United States government. It strikes me as absurd to think that an editor would have to ask for a specific URL to be whitelisted in order to use it in a citation. To say that petition websites fail our inclusion standards is an meaningless statement. Out inclusion standards are based on notability, and notability applies to the subject, not citations. As far as I know, this part of the project is not exempt from consensus, yet the comments here and in previous related threads suggest that some believe otherwise.- MrX 03:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not said that, there is something about primary, secondary and tertiary sources though and how they determine notability of the fact. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the issue is. WP:ELNO #4 says petition sites should be avoided. The whitelist is available if for some reason such a link is appropriate. Chillum 04:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per OP and my previous discussion not long ago. Int21h (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support whitelist Petitions.Whitehouse.gov No rationale has been given for the past ban on this site, other than blanket inclusion of this site with other troublesome petition websites. This website is more than a petition site, as it also publishes summaries of law and government policies. Past discussions about this are at
This issue comes up repeatedly. It has not been fully discussed. Multiple people have asserted that this link is often a reliable source, and the special blocking and treatment that this source is getting is only because it contains the word "petition" and not because of any consensus. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a proposal for improving an article? What link should be added to what article to add what encyclopedic information? Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"it also publishes summaries of law and government policies" .. on petitions.whitehouse.gov, or elsewhere on whitehouse.gov? This is about the petition part of the site, not about the rest of the site. Can you show me links on the petition part where it publishes a summary or government policy (leave off the http:// and it will save here)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/12#petitions.whitehouse.gov denied, having judged that it is not a reliable source" - it is not judged there to be not a reliable source, it is judged that the result is only notable if it is covered by secondary sources, making this primary source superfluous. This is now the second time that here the discussion is suggested that it is denied because it is not a reliable source (also by User:MrX above), where that is not being said, what is being said is that for the fact that this is a possible source for, the site itself is a primary source (which is not necessarily a problem), and for the fact that the petition in itself is notable it needs a secondary source which makes the primary source, however reliable, superfluous. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry:: An argument was made on AN/I for the link 'petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses' - that is not part of this request nor mentioned earlier on AN/I, and completely in line with all responses here:  Defer to Whitelist (though I will process that as part of this request). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to ANI discussion where consensus for link to not be delisted is reaffirmed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

itconnxion.com

It seems that the website in question, seems to have been blacklisted as to the message coming up when using the link in an edit. I am unsure as to why this is? I have scrolled through wikipedia's blacklisted sites and I think that the domain name is triggering this from a blacklisted site; bitconnexion.com If this is the case can we please have this rectified?? ContentKing01 (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith request. Rejected, user blocked (see [24], [25] and punchdigital.com.au). MER-C 04:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hubpages.com

hubpages.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This appears to be a blogging site used by thousands of users, but the entire site has been blocked thanks to a single page that is not even there anymore. I have been attempting to add an article that appeared in The Guardian as a source, the article is on hubpages.com as part of the author's blog that reproduces examples of his work. Please remove hubpages from the blocked list. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this may be of interest. Please ask for whitelisting of specific links:  Defer to Whitelist. Whole site removal no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking in connection to this [[26]], there are two articles mentioning this organization in articles written by C.J Stone that are reproduced on the author's hubpage. Can an exception be made for just cjstone.hubpages? Is that what you mean by whitelisting? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whitelisting is exactly that. Please, when you request those 2 links to be whitelisted, post the whole link but leaving off the initial 'http://' - otherwise the page will not save. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Help?

I've hit a wall editing the Icon Complex, and fear I can't get much more done without a solution to this problem. Here is an example:
If you search for 171011_Supporting_Info.pdf on Google (bing doesn't find this file), one of the results will lead you straight to the motherload of information for said article, at the Hobart City Council website (I would just look there but find this site very hard to navigate). Unfortunately, Wikipedia wont let me cite these sources as they go thru some funky Google redirecting process (I think?). Can someone please tell me a way to find the original link? The search result I have (and cant cite) is http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hobartcity.com.au%2Ffiles%2F06ef439a-450b-48dd-b33d-9f7b00f2017e%2F171011_Supporting_Info.pdf&ei=K9sBU5uDLsijkAX0zID4DA&usg=AFQjCNGy8xhtzY6MEgNPCjB8QQtbE7qQ8w&bvm=bv.61535280,d.dGI There must be a way to bypass Google and cite the source? Wiki ian 10:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean: http://www.hobartcity.com.au/files/06ef439a-450b-48dd-b33d-9f7b00f2017e/171011_Supporting_Info.pdf - pdfs are generally set to 'download', and it is then difficult to get the link itself (you are right, it is the redirect code). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. Could you please give me some advice on how to find out the link for myself in future? Wiki ian 10:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pages with parameters have a base part (here 'http://www.google.com.au/url'), followed by a '?', and then a list of parameters separated by '&' (the first one is the parameter 'sa', set to 't': 'sa=t', the second one is 'rct', set to 'j'). For google, the original link is in 'url', set to 'http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hobartcity.com.au%2Ffiles%2F06ef439a-450b-48dd-b33d-9f7b00f2017e%2F171011_Supporting_Info.pdf' - that link is 'percent encoded', '%3A' = ':'; '%2F' = '/' - you take that part and 'decode' the encodings in that list.
For most, it is a matter of clicking the link and copy-pasting the result in the address bar, but for some a handler in your browser takes over (typically for pdf, xls, doc etc.). Asking here also helps :-). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi user:Wiki ian!
There's a tool for this kind of link conversion: http://tools.wmflabs.org/url-converter. -- seth (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why the hell is International Trade Union Confederation on the black list?

http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/statement_by_global_unions_to_the_2013_annual_meetings_of_the_imf_and_world_bank.pdf.pdf

that link doesnt work for example--Crossswords (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you just linked to it - so it is obviously not on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-not true, i am allowed to post it in talk pages, but i am not allowed to edit things by using their url site as a source--Crossswords (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not how the backlist works. Can you provide more details? Werieth (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as no action. MER-C 10:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What has changed since the introduction to spambot?

When Cyberbot II started operating on Wikipedia, we had around 5000 articles containing blacklisted links. Now we have roughly half that amount. I think the effects of Cyberbot II's work are showing.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good work User:Cyberpower678. Antrocent (♫♬) 07:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block specific file?

Does the blacklist have the ability to block a specific file. An author is promoting his paper, hosted at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2014.930034 all over Wikipedia in anything that is even slightly related to calendars, and uses constantly changing IP addresses to do so. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is possible, can you provide a few diffs shows where this is a persistent issue? dx.doi.org in general is OK. — xaosflux Talk 17:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything at Special:Contributions/119.158.16.157. Also [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32]. Note that some of the earlier diffs are for a version hosted at http://www.omertaa.org/archive/omertaa0044.pdf Jc3s5h (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given this is a DOI an abuse filter may be a better option.Werieth (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how abuse filters work, or where to go to ask for one. But it appears the paper is, or was, hosted at more than one location, so I don't know if an abuse filter would be effective. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The abuse filter can do a lot more than the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested to request a filter. Just provide what your goal is, and what specifics that the filter should be looking to block. Werieth (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely, I see there are two different papers, both about concepts of time in rural Pakistan, but the two papers seem to be about two different villages. Nevertheless, I cannot help but conclude that sticking references to these papers in general articles about calendars, to support points related to large areas of the world, is motivated by self-promotion rather than a desire to provide the most appropriate source. That seems particularly evident since all the edits are to sources written by the same author. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems just one IP on one day - I would just impose a block if they continue. Then if they start moving to other IPs .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

\bpower-technology\.com\b

Does anyone know why power-technology.com is on the blacklist? A bot recently tagged Hazelwood Power Station. The link is arguably not in the best point in the article, but is this a mirror site or something? The link has been there since 2009. Yaris678 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See #cbronline.com Werieth (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So links to the site have been added recently by a known spammer. The website appears to be associated with another website whose quality has gone down at some point. What do you think should be done in this instance? Yaris678 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Block the spammer, I would say. Beagel (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this has been an ongoing issue. I would just find a better source, given its just being used to cite basic facts those should be easily found in better sources. Werieth (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More than 150 articles use that site for references and most of them are valid references, not spam. Another site heavily affecting WP:Energy is offshore-techology.com (more than 130 articles - again, valid references, not spam). Do you do any consequences analysis before blaclisting sites? Anyway, I started policy discussion here as this is not acceptable that affected Wikiprojects get know about blacklisting only post factum. Beagel (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sites have been spammed. Better sources will exist. This is normal. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change in functionality of spam blacklist

Due to issues with determining the content of parsed pages ahead of time (see bugzilla:15582 for some examples), the way the spam blacklist works should probably be changed. Per bugzilla:16326, I plan to submit a patch for the spam blacklist extension that causes it to either delink or remove blacklisted links upon parsing, or replace them with a link to a special page explaining the blacklisting. This could be done either in addition to or instead of the current functionality. Are there any comments or suggestions on such a new implementation? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It think that that is a bad idea - sometimes links get blacklisted because of spamming or similar abuse, but older links should then be whitelisted if they do pass the bar. De-linking or even outright removal would be damaging to Wikipedia (one would remove legit references?). Such links should simply be whitelisted if they pass the merits of linking, as should be done for new links that one considers to add. As is currently, blacklisted links that were there before blacklisting do not disable editing to a page, and there is now an effort going on to get those links whitelisted (to avoid the rarely occurring cases of 'accidental' removal). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the links would still be in the source of the page. They just won't be linked in the normal view of it. None of the links will be lost with this proposal. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Now what to do?

I know the policy on short urls. Once again, it gets in the way. http://archive.is/SSm7 is a short code for the webarchive. How much more of a legitimate use can we find. The do not provide the longer code to reach this. So how do we get here? Trackinfo (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a "short code for the webarchive." That's the full URL of a shady archiving site (not the real web.archive.org) that the community decided to disallow. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As above, you should use The Internet Wayback Machine (Internet Archive) or WebCite. --///EuroCarGT 00:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a web archive but there are many others so I wouldn't say "the" webarchive. Which policy on short url's are you referring to? We don't want url shortening services like TinyURL which redirect to other websites but this is an archive and not a redirect so the issues are different. See previous discussions about archive.is at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC and Wikipedia talk:Link rot. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the semantics, its blacklisted. Trackinfo (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. If it were blacklisted, you wouldn't be able to link to it above. However, consensus is that it should not be used on Wikipedia, so any links found to it should be removed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that this is due to be blacklisted per outcome of an RfC; it is just awaiting removal of the plethora of links - an editfilter is in place to avoid additions with specific explanation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sanaka Educational Trust's Group of Institutions Revision history

Please examine the on again off again on again off again actions of the bot to determine whether this is reasonable or whether something is astray. Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The on again off again on again off again actions have nothing to do with the Spam-blacklist, but with the operation of the bot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the link is blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am pinging cyberpower678 to come and have a look at this. Fiddle Faddle 08:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2014&oldid=1087726731"